Search results

My initial intuition is that there is little truth to it. As I've posted upthread, in "trad" RPGing I think there is a lot of "author" stance, especially (i) oriented towards party play, and (ii) oriented towards the stuff the GM has prepared for play. The fact that "that's what my character...

The fact that something is a revelation to a person - that could be a film, a piece of technology, a vista, a romantic relationship, anything really - doesn't mean that the person disliked every prior experience. In don't really see how this is so mysterious.

Yep, I only know it from your and other posters' accounts of your play, but this makes sense!

I don't really follow this. Are you able to give an illustrative example? Yes. And that it - as per Tuovinen's essay, which follows Ron Edwards pretty straightforwardly - a mode of simulationism. Which is what I posted. Huh? I haven't done that. If you want to do what you've just described, you...

I'm taking that you are referring to this: "My singing attracted the attention of a guard, who had heard the word on the street, and didn't like the look of this rag-clothed Dark Elf." I don't know why that is seen as not involving an in-fiction causal connection.

You, @FrogReaver and @Maxperson are all asserting that I said or implied that I disliked D&D prior to 4e. @Faolyn is pointing out that you're wrong.

If something doesn't give all that one wanted, perhaps it gives some of it. Perhaps it surprises by giving something different. Perhaps at the time one doesn't know anything else is possible. The phrase "X finally gave me what I wanted" or "X finally give me what I was looking for" is not that...

As I posted upthread, I think I know my mental states better than you do.

I appreciate your passionate interest in my mental states, but I think I know them better than you do. Here is a post I made over 13 years ago: As I posted upthread, 4e was the version of D&D that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it. Here's a...

"Actually gives me what I wanted from D&D" implies that other versions didn't give me what I actually wanted. That doesn't mean I disliked them. It means they didn't give me all that I wanted, and/or that they gave something other than what I was looking for. I mean, I can tell you: I don't...

I think one principal issue here is that much of the hobby is allergic to talking about the role that the GM will take in directing/facilitating play.

It doesn't. Here it was it literally says, and literally means: "4e D&D is the version of the game that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it." That doesn't say or mean or imply that I dislike other versions of D&D.

Here's a post I made over 10 years ago, that quotes a bit about how some resolution methods facilitate certain sorts of approaches to play: "Fail forward" also fits into this - system for input rather than explicitly delivering the outcome of a declared action. Some methods are facilitative of...

Huh? The post you're quoting doesn't say. or imply, that I dislike all previous versions of D&D.

So for some initial clarity: meaningfulness is something that the participants in a game experience. Then, when we talk about managing risk, there are two things we can talk about: choices by the players, and events that happen in the fiction. The latter are part of playing one's character...

Where did I say that I dislike all the previous iterations of D&D?

No more fundamental than the changes from AD&D to 3E.

Who doesn't?

In Burning Wheel, a test doesn't represent anything at all. The character's rating in a skill represents something: their degree of ability and expertise. The obstacle represents something too, namely, the difficulty of a task. The rules are clear about both of these. (You can find the relevant...

It got rid of bits that didn't help - eg elaborate timed spell durations - and added bits that did help - the hp/healing system. Not all change and improvement constitutes "radical departure".