Search results

Rolemaster has had this since at least 1984.

I think Reservoir Dogs might be it for me. I was about 18 when it came out, and the ear scene just felt shockingly powerful. The twists and unfolding structure were a revelation, and just the back and forth dialogue and pop culture references were mind blowing in a way that would just be...

Thanks for this, I'd been meaning to watch Bandersnatch for a while, your post got me to do it just in time!

I tend to agree. I think there's certainly a place for games that catalogue vast numbers of different options. D&D already fills this niche, and I'm a big MERP/RM2 fan which in many ways goes even further. But the cost to this 'filled in world' is that there's less room for groups to invent...

False equivalency in defence of giving money to fascists, got it.

Wait, you would reject a plumber for what they wear, but never for what they tell you they believe? Denim no, nazism yes?

What if he turns up in a fascist uniform and has pro-fascist slogans on his van?

Posted by accident, please disregard

Wouldn't the same logic apply to the GM? 'Oh I wonder whether Bob can be persuaded here'

I didn't mention railroading at all. My position is that the form of decision making being presented ('there's a world simulation running in my head, it is impartial and inevitable') is impossible. It doesn't work as a cover for railroading but it also doesn't work for any other abrogation of...

I'm trying to think of a recent real world example where a group of people has abandoned their previous set of beliefs and chosen the polar opposite, in a way that would have seemed impossible before, but I'm drawing a blank.

That he made up yesterday. Big difference! PS all religious beliefs are made up

This is an extremely radical position of GM privilege. The same privilege of protagonism that I want for my fighter should apply to the GM and his billions of NPCs?

'I can't railroad the players because I don't give them enough information to tell if it's happening' is quite the take

To be clear then, you're saying that when you decide for example that 'Bob can never be bribed, it's a defining character trait that cannot be moved' you've already determined every possible factor that could affect that. His cardiovascular and mental health. Any changes in the weather this...

Bit again this is where context comes in. I don't presume that anyone walking up to the King as a complete stranger, a nobody, with no leverage at all, has a 5% chance of taking over the kingdom. But if the characters can build a proper context and leverage... why not?

This depends on the system. A lot of games give PCs a privileged position above the results of such rolls. Those that don't do this may instead use stake setting, to agree on what outcomes are permissible. In any game I wouldn't want to force a player to roleplay a certain way. They might need...

(Not a response to any specific poster) 'The decisions I make take into account all relevant factors within the setting, and they are either the only possible outcome, or by far the most likely outcome, my thumb is not on the scales at all' is simply a delusion. It is reasonable and possible...

I think this is vanishingly rare. Most people will cave eventually. But this is what dice rolls are for, right? 'It's DC 20 to persuade this guy, because of his oath never to drink'. We're starting with a presumption of good faith though right? Why are players asking for things that are...

Why is it that we are told GMs will only ever make decisions in the best interests of the game, but if you give players even an inch they will attempt to climb rainbows and persuade the King to give them his kingdom?