Search results

Do you have a citation for that? Because God in Heaven that quote would be useful to me!

Just wanted to note that this is an example of something I consider to be perfectly legitimate use of "common sense" and "[GM's] instinct"--not because it's about drama, but because there are guidelines. The rules specify the context and appropriate ranges; the GM is expected to use these...

...since when do stakes matter for this? The one and only reason I argued against Lanefan's original statement was because it did expect players to consistently roleplay each and every shop encounter, every single time, with each and every instance requiring the players to opt out of doing so...

It's not just feeling different. As a child, I was obligated to chew fluoride tablets, unless I opted out. That is still an obligation. It is, in fact, VERY different from "we have fluoride tablets, you may take one each day". "We will do X each time, unless you tell me no" is not, not...

But there can. "You are obligated unless you object" is still forcing people to do something. They have to speak up to not do it. It is expected, unless you get a waiver. As a good example, when I was a child, kids in elementary school had to chew a fluoride supplement each day, unless their...

But, again, those two things are not the same! "We always do X, unless someone says no" is ENTIRELY different from "We can always do X, if someone wants to". Like...let me give this a physical implementation. "We always do X, unless someone says no" vs "We can always do X, if someone wants to"...

Note that the poster corrected the accidental omission of the word "don't", which rather heavily changes the meaning of the text.

And yet that's what multiple people at this point have told me that's what the conversation should be.

How is there any other interpretation of the statement, "I say the default should be to play them out unless the players say not to", other than we play out all the scenes unless the players say not to? For goodness' sake, this is literally the actual words that were said. There is no crazy...

That isn't what Lanefan very, very explicitly said in this post (bold added for emphasis): He explicitly said "I say the default should be to play them out unless the players say not to." Hence, every single interaction must be played out, every time, unless the players nix it. Every. Single...

The problem, Max, is that this is a situation where the repairman has already screwed up, and now you're left with a broken mess rather than something fixed up and humming along.

Ah, yes, because repairmen are just popping out of the woodwork. Oh wait, no they aren't. Because there's always been a shortage of GMs.

Morale checks. Some saving throws, particularly those regarding mental or observational phenomena. Essentially anything social, where why you're rolling is literally always important.

Nope! He isn't the most boring superhero ever. He is, in fact, the most popular superhero ever. So clearly, he can't be "the most boring superhero ever" if that many people are into it. Note, this is not saying he is the best, nor that popularity indicates anything other than popularity. But it...

But it is a cost directly caused by the failure. If you had successfully overcome the difficulty of the cliff, your friend would be alive (albeit perhaps on death's door, if you got a partial success; that'd depend on what the roll was and how the GM adjudicated it). Because you failed, your...

Did I ever say they NEVER haggle? No. I said it was ridiculous that absolutely every merchant will ALWAYS haggle, no matter what. And now we're getting yet another thing I was told no one ever does. That no one ever expects people to roleplay through the painstakingly dull "you ride for three...

And if the repairman's work is inadequate? Because that's a thing that happens IRL. A lot. I would know.

I for bloody sure agree WAY WAY WAY WAY more than "well we say there's a style but really there's 7000 almost totally unique people who just happen to claim that there is a style in common between them"!

Again: Why not? You're asserting this like it's a universal truth, something self-evident. It isn't. Not even in old-school D&D.

Is it that fail forward doesn't work there? Or is it that there are multiple ways to view failure even in that context, and thus it is only in the way you choose to run D&D that induces such an issue? Because I know for a fact that plenty of D&D games use this concept quite effectively.