Search results

Pardon, yes. Lost my train of thought and forgot to come back. My problem is, I hyperfocus, and I get very enthusiastic about things. Any things. I have been rather generously complimented by a friend saying that most people can talk about something forever--I can talk about anything forever...

I am not saying they are the same. I am saying there is no way for the player to ever, even in principle, figure out whether or not they are different, when 95%+ of the inputs are permanently concealed from them. It's not just "you need to trust people". It's "you need to trust a person whose...

Conversely: It feels like you aren't even remotely taking the discussion seriously, and instead treating it as an exercise in saying whatever you feel like saying and writing off any question you don't really feel like answering. When clarification is requested, instead of actually clarifying...

No, you have not. Repeatedly. You don't get to declare that your answers are understandable to me, and thus I am somehow in the wrong for not "liking" them. For being so on about others not telling you what to think, you have been surprisingly happy to do so when it suits you.

It is also condescending to answer a question with synonyms for "stuff" when folks have consistently asked for specificity.

Certainly. Interestingness is a valid thing to use--but it is both subjective and, more importantly, relative to the players. Which is something that has been consistently nixed as an unacceptable no-no in this thread. The process being described by others (not Stonetop's) needs to be...

Okay. How can you determine consistency, when the vast majority of the information--the context--is permanently inaccessible to you?

How? How can you distinguish arbitrary from non-arbitrary when the world is sealed behind the black box, other than the drip of information the GM feeds you? (And, to be clear, this is fundamentally the case for all worlds created solely by the GM's hand--it's nothing about any specific style...

Okay so... If anything will do... Why isn't this decision arbitrary? Folks have repeatedly insisted that it is not, in any way shape or form, arbitrary. Yet now that we drill down to it, the answer is...a shrug? As I've said many times, with GM effort, nearly anything can be made "realistic"...

Exactly. Dungeon World grew out of a context where a maxim specifically addresses this (even though, IIRC, it isn't actually written explicitly into the rules, which is kind of a shame): "Let it ride." That shorthand phrase, expanded into sterile but explicit terms, means: As long as the...

Given that's what folks have been asking, over and over and over again, I should think the answer is obviously "yes". It may not be relevant to you. But at the very least @pemerton has repeatedly asked questions along these lines and gotten pretty much nothing in response (other than, as...

I think such a hard stance is hard to justify, for a variety of reasons. Someone can be doing roleplay, and "staying entirely in-character", despite acting on out-of-character motivations. (Essentially, this is the PC mirror image of the "the DM can build justification to make nearly anything...

Again, it's not a matter of what one thinks or doesn't think. "Why did you buy that specific soup instead of this other specific soup?" cannot be answered by "I am buying soup." Yes! We know you are buying soup. I am asking what differentiates soup A from soup B, and the answer is...because...

Because it's being used as an explanation when it doesn't actually have any explanatory power. "Why did you buy Bellcamp's soup instead of Regresso's?" "Because I was buying soup." That doesn't answer the question, of course you were buying soup, that's already understood and doesn't actually...

... And literally everyone on this particular side has consistently dismissed any criticisms I have ever brought up, no matter how serious, only to then flip to the exact opposite extreme as soon as some invisible and possibly mobile line is crossed and "well obviously don't play with JERKS"...

Perhaps it is more complicated--but intricacy for some benefit is no sin, if the benefit is worth it. In this case, the benefit of Healing Surges (which are 4e's "Wound" points) is that they can be deducted separately from hit points, in ways that are always costly to a given character, no...

I don't think the thought would have clicked for me for quite a while, but you're absolutely right. It distinctly reminds me of the Lije Bailey detective novel covers, and the way they depict non-humaniform robots like R. Giskard. Not quite zeerust, but a close kin--stylized enough to seem like...

Doesn't this conflict with stuff you have said to me in the past, where you want characters that grow organically over time and which aren't pre-planned perfectly from the beginning? If you already know truly everything there is to know about your character, how can that happen? It seems like...

I don't really see why surges are "just" more HP, but your BHP aren't? That is, I don't see what the gulf between the two systems is. My understanding is that "Vitality"-type systems, including standard D&D HP, refers to the stuff you can burn up easily without suffering long-term problems...

Do they need to break trust? Because outright breaking trust with a single act is really quite hard. But doing something concerning? That's piss-easy. And then to have your concerns met with some variation of: 1. Wow, I guess you just can't trust people, that must really suck for you 2. Don't...