Search results

Frankly? No! I wouldn't agree that they seem like they would accept genuine requests from their players. What I have read has given me the distinct impression that unless the players toe the line quite closely, they will be summarily shown the door.

Given I have never tried to do that, and have only been responding to people telling me I'm some whackadoodle nutjob, I find this comment not particularly useful nor informative.

Funny. I feel precisely the reverse way about your own posts--but I try to keep that feeling to myself and not express it at every single turn. Perhaps, instead of pretending either of us knows detect thoughts, it would be more useful to work with the things people say, and not the things we...

Did you, perhaps, consider the possibility that that meant your players weren't that excited about playing vikings? Because I would take that as an indication that the game I offered wasn't really what the players wanted to play.

Nope. I do not believe that. Hence why I've never said it, and why you can't quote me as having said it nor anything like it. Instead, I don't like GMs unilaterally and unquestionably declaring that. I believe in discussion, collaboration, and building real consensus--convincing people to go...

No. Because, again, you keep defaulting to obviously ridiculous things, rather than having even the slightest consideration for the possibility of something that isn't what you prepared for, but isn't radically against it either. It is the obviously-ridiculous nature of the examples that is the...

Then you have not actually read what I have said. In part because you'll find I've never--not once--said that in this thread, and I'm fairly confident I've never said it in any prior thread either. But when a DM does say those kinds of things to me, when a DM depicts any deviation from their...

Given you started with the catgirl ninjas as early as the third answer, no, I don't really take your answers as having been entirely serious. You may have been illustrating a point. You did so in a way that was intentionally flippant and disrespectful. There have been multiple times where you...

Your flippant dismissal of perspectives other than your own is precisely why I don't have a whole lot of patience for the endless requests for understanding and empathy etc. etc. You have shown precisely none here, and instead dismissed my position as so much risible nonsense.

I'm not "letting" anything. It's simply my nature. I literally cannot mentally do that. I am not cognitively capable of doing that. I will always know that it is just as you say, a pretense. I also don't see the game as gambling, as I've already said--and I hate gambling anyway. There is a...

It's not "constrained to their PCs" that I'm talking about here. It's tons upon tons of hard rules about what players emphatically are not permitted to do--hard restrictions all over the place. You can't attempt things you don't have training for. You can't get training except in XYZ ways. You...

And yet you do view the exact same reasoning as not only nearly good enough, but far and away good enough, to justify expansive hard rules on what players are allowed to do. That is the core of the problem. Players need to be tightly constrained less they do horrible things. GMs need to be...

Whereas for me, in the kinds of play-experiences I've had, that would definitely sour the mood of that session; it would nearly 100% guaranteed require a conversation after to clarify what happened, why, and that we're still good; and it would very probably cast a long-term (but not permanent)...

I'd be fine with a long rest restoring up to, say, 1d4+CON levels of exhaustion, if folks wanted to keep them as having a possible long-term issue. That in particular would reward Barbarians, since they get benefits from having high Constitution--so a weedy Wizard (-1 CON) taking too much...

If those are your responses, that's entirely fair--I can't and wouldn't want to tell you what to feel--but for me the descriptions I read did not conjure up anything that sounded even remotely fun. Hence why I have said what I have said. But the only reason they need to trust that is because...

I could see a "Species Paragon" background which carries an emphasis on characters who happen to be the fullest expression of both their physiology and the general expectations that most members of that species have for "their own", as it were. Then you could have a list of all the "<Species>...

I certainly don't understand how their group has stayed together, I grant you that. That I don't understand does not mean it shouldn't have, couldn't have, nor didn't. It just means I have literally no clue how they managed to stick together so long. Because every description Lanefan has given...

....that isn't breaking or even bending the rules. That's requesting a review of the rules, on the grounds that the rules are (allegedly) bad. There is absolutely nothing wrong with petitioning to review a rule. That is essential to the very idea of having rules in the first place. Some rules...

You will probably not be surprised to hear that I don't have a particularly high view of "GM as continuous amateur game (re-)designer", so no, that doesn't really move me either. Well, he has now backed it up with--literally--saying: ...and... Where "have it both ways" specifically means, in...

You have, many many times over, told me that they will--not that they might, but they will--bend the rules into pretzels, even break them, if they think they can get away with it. What else should I interpret that as? That's what ruthless exploitation IS! Whereas from my perspective, you have...