Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Many folks have integrity, so those things do constrain them. Sure they COULD break it, but they won't.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
My current group has been playing for close to 20 years, and the one before that where I was a player lasted 20ish years as well. He doesn't have them all!
Faolyn
(she/her)
Really? That really makes no sense to you?
OK, lets look at the example from the original book:
So in this case, Zird's player has used one of his aspects to justify something for his PC to know, based on an aspect he already has.
You can't see that this is miles away from making a player roll to see if they spot a cup that should be in plain sight, simply because you, the GM, didn't mention it? Zird's knowledge of the language is a permanent addition to Zird's character, whereas the cup--since it's just a tool being used to collect the blood, which itself is a macguffin/fetch quest goal--is a temporary item at best.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
SableWyvern
Hero
I've gone to significant effort to explain this for you on a couple of occasions, but you ignore those responses so you can rant at other posters and complain to them that no one will answer you.
This may or may not be the case, but one thing seems abundantly clear. This style is absolutely not for @EzekielRaiden. I suspect that if you simply accept this, rather than demanding that people explain to you what they are going to do to make you feel more comfortable at their table (where you're not even a participant), and accusing them of being exclusionary if you're not satisfied with their answers, you'll be a lot less stressed about this conversation.
Hussar
Legend
No. That's where you are wrong. Good enough isn't the objective.
A system that is robust enough to generate results independently of the DM is the objective. To create a setting that functions like a machine (I believe that was the direct quote). To create a setting where the DM no longer is creating stuff that is "good enough" but rather the setting ITSELF is so complex, so crafted, that plausible results are generated BY THE SETTING ITSELF.
That's the objective that I'm rejecting.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
That is your objective. It is not ours. I don't want a setting that functions like a machine. I want a human managing the setting because I think that creates the best reactive environment for players. Part of the issue here is we just have entirely different expectations
You can object to it, and you can seek whatever games you want to support the objective you prefer (as I have said during this thread, that seems like a fine way to approach sandbox to me if that is what you want). But we are also allowed to have our preferences and there is nothing wrong with our preferences. They produce very fun, agency-filled play
SableWyvern
Hero
It's certainly my objective, and every person you're arguing with has said the same thing on multiple occasions
Too bad you're having this argument with a scarecrow.
JConstantine
Working-class warlock
robertsconley
Hero
Only people can pretend to be people and have it be any good.
Similar Threads
- Locked
