Search results

If we can't base our impression of a person's general outlook on the statements they make pertaining to specific scenarios, what short of them declaring their general outlook to us can be considered indications of general outlook? I mean, maybe other folks are different, but my responses to...

I agree with what you say here... but I'm not seeing how the topic of your post relates to the post of mine you have quoted.

How is a statement phrasing your own opinion as a fact, not just one opinion of many possible opinions, not indicative of a "playstyle" or "general outlook"? Because it's not "I think the weapon should be kept at hand while tending a fire" vs. "I think it shouldn't" - it's "you are wrong that...

You make a solid point. I'm in.

I see no difference between someone telling me I am doing something wrong if I'm not optimizing (your "you have to optimize" example) and someone telling me I'm doing something wrong if I play my character as not having their weapon at hand while tending a fire (my "A character tending to the...

I don't mind calling a mallard a duck if that makes it easier for someone to understand what I mean, so I can get behind this.

In what is very unlikely to be a surprise to anyone, I agree with Bawylie and iserith, and handle stealth the same way - no check until there is actually uncertainty for the check to resolve.

Why can't you just say "I don't like it" or "I think it is broken"? Why do you have to take it to the point where you've just declared me not in my "right mind"?

In my case, I don't intend the labeling of something as one-true-wayism as being a counter-argument so much as it is an explanation as to why I'm not offering a counter-argument. Because I view statements of one-true-wayism as not being arguments, so there is no possible counter-argument to...

You are, again, recharacterizing the action in question as something it wasn't. This is a point on which you are being inconsistent. You say that logic says the burning log will be unwieldy and/or weak, but the rules of the game don't. Yet logic says wolves are afraid of fire, and you've...

I have run with the players not even having their character sheets in front of them, just a list of what equipment their character is carrying and whatever special powers the character had. This was AD&D 2nd, so the information not present wasn't actually all that much. All dice rolls and all...

You are doing that thing again. You know, where you make an unrelated statement as if it were relevant to your side of the discussion and it ends up implying something untrue about the other side. Specificially the bold part. None of us talking about a more open table communication that allows...

Actually, our disagreement on this point comes down to me not ignoring that difference - just assuming that out-of-character antagonism, being not part of the game, isn't being allowed to happen. Someone at my table being antagonistic to another player, or worse all of the players, at the table...

Some reasons it is a save rather than an attack roll were already mentioned, but there is one other to consider: it's designed such so that it doesn't score critical hits. So make sure before altering it that you want the results that you are getting (plate mail protecting against it better...

I'm sorry, I guess I put too much weight behind your belief that these players that can laugh out of character while having a "deadly serious" in-character "fight" would all come away with hurt feelings and spoiled fun if anyone of them were allowed to suggest things to them out-of-character...

That's what we were talking about, until people tried to bring "realism" into the mix. Once someone did that, there were two separate topics - what is or isn't metagaming (or in my case whether the word is or isn't useful as used by non-DMG sources), and what is or isn't "realism" - that some...

I think this may be why you "cant fathom" how the play-style that is being talked about wouldn't lead to fights, bitterness, and hurt feelings; You have a group that obviously either want to be playing against each other, or are inadvertently playing against each other because they have...

Now you've gone back to what I have pointed out a few times in the discussion already; implying that your goal is X and thus someone else's goal is not-X, when that isn't actually the case. You say you'll "stick to some realism" well, guess what, the rest of us are sticking to some realism too...

Whatever you want, because that is the answer no matter who is asking what to play - "party composition" be damned. Play what sounds like fun, and it usually is.

That's not an answer to the question "Why?" In my experience, that hasn't been the case. In fact, using the approach Imaculata describes, I've found that quieter and more reticent players have actually flourished. And that is even when I happen to have one player that gets overly caught up on...