Search results

You’ve mistaken me for @pemerton . I’m simply offering a slightly different take to perhaps bridge the gap. I don’t think “encounters” is a universal term in RPGs. I know what it is for some games, but I’d also say there are games for which the term doesn’t really make as much sense...

Is it? Do you think this situation was written down ahead of time? With boxed text and a statblock? Or do some games work differently such that the idea of bypassing an encounter is an odd way to view things? Bypassing, to me, implies something set… something that’s already established...

No, I understand what he said. Why does he need to defend his playstyle preferences to? Why would anyone feel that need? What I'm saying... and this probably applies to you, as well... is that when someone identifies so closely with a thing they view a criticism of the thing as a criticism of...

Micah, is there anyone involved in this thread at this point that you really feel has any doubt about your preferences? You point them out routinely. No one is attacking you. That your thinking aligns so closely with a specific approach to play doesn’t mean that criticism of that form of play...

Constraints are necessary. You clearly agree based on your opening “some limitations are necessary”. It’s not “rhetoric”… it’s just a simple truth. No one said “all constraints are good”, so there’s no need for you to disagree based on that. So why not go seek out threads that you think will...

First, I’m not claiming to be non-confrontational. I don’t mind if the discussion gets a bit heated at times. It’s part of what to expect when people talk about this stuff. I’m responding directly to an indirect criticism. I am confronting the person who made the criticism. Second, my use...

“Rhetoric”? Do you really disagree that constraints are necessary? Considering this thread does not appear to be a casual conversation, and considering that you continue to contribute to it, mostly with confrontational posts, I’d consider the idea that maybe you’re not really looking for...

I think you may have misread his post. He changed his decision so that the PC was not killed by the critical hit.

I don’t know, Max… read his account and decide for yourself. I read it, and I know how I view it.

I’m not sure what you mean here but I’m reasonably sure it doesn’t pertain to what I said. Are they self-imposed? Look at @Enrahim’s example where as GM he was ready to honor the dice but then changed what he did based on his players’ dissatisfaction. It’s hard to look at that example as...

The two examples I gave were honoring player rolls and honoring GM prep. You said such things should be “suggestions”. I don’t agree. That doesn’t make my response a bad faith argument. Maybe look at what you wrote next time and consider the possibility that it may not be as clear as you think...

It’s nothing like what you describe, Rob. I’m not trying to trick anyone. In every RPG, the GM operates with some form of constraint. Different games use different constraints, but each game has them. They’re what defines the role of the GM and the authority of the GM. You can disagree with...

You think that honoring rolls should just be a suggestion? Okay, I guess.

As I said, constraints are essential. For instance, a GM being constrained to honor the rolls of the players is a pretty basic one. The GM, in some games, can technically override any rolls that are made in play… but they generally don’t do so. Why not? Because constraints are good. See above...

It’s not bad at all. It’s an essential part of play. I brought it up because @Micah Sweet asked why place constraints on GMs. And the answer is basically the same… it’s an essential part of play.

Yes, of course we are. Constraints are just limitations. A player’s authority in an RPG is limited. How it is limited may vary from game to game, and you may be perfectly happy with how your preferred game handles this, but that doesn’t mean that you as a player are not constrained. Those...

I never said “the game is better with fewer constraints on players”. Depends on which game and the purpose of play. All I did was ask why there are constraints on players. Help me help you, Micah!

Yes, but if you can figure out why it benefits players, then maybe you can figure out why it benefits GMs, too.

No, not exactly. I said it’s a risk and something that should be considered. And I said the more it’s prevalent in play, the greater the “risk”. But it’s by no means certain. I don’t tend to approach these things as if there are absolutes.

Just asking what the purpose of constraints are, Micah. It doesn’t really have anything to do with trad vs. narrativism. If you can understand the purpose of constraint on the players, it seems odd to me that you can’t apply that reasoning to the GM, too. It’s what helps make a game more...