Search results

Well, I think that most combat mechanics can indeed produce excitement and drama. I'm sure we've all felt that thrill as a die is tumbling across a table, hoping we roll as high as we need to! That combat is not easily and fairly handled seems to be about uncertainty, no? Like, we can't say how...

Sure, but if a GM chooses not to telegraph, what skill are you measuring? Isn't the telegraphing of danger serving the purpose to see how the players prepare themselves for the indicated danger? If you take away the telegraphed info, then what's left?

This was a great post overall, but this bit really jumped out at me. It shows how differently the GM can go with his decision making, all while still remaining within the realm of plausibility and consistency. You could simply say that the NPC is a master knife fighter, and cannot be defeated...

Yeah, the system and rules matter quite a bit. My original point in this branch of the conversation, was that a GM should not just be concerned with the content of the fiction and its plausibility or consistency... though he should be thinking of those things... he also needs to be looking at...

I'm not "making it about combat rules". I am not commenting on trust. I'm asking why combat has rules. As I said, I think it's about uncertainty. Would you agree with that, or no?

No, I don't think that's really accurate. It's not about bad faith. It's about the purpose of rules, and how that creates uncertainty. Set aside the idea of bad faith... a jerk's gonna be a jerk and will break rules just as soon as abuse rules. With that in mind, knowing rules aren't about...

Right! This is the kind of stuff I was getting at... that there is information that the GM can share or not... create or not... and that plays a large part in how a situation will play out, and the players' chances to navigate it effectively. The presence of fallen rocks to indicate a...

I don't think this has anything to do with what I said. Someone can cheat, yes. I'm uninterested in discussing bad faith activity. What are the combat rules for? Clearly you don't think they're to prevent someone from cheating. So... what are they for? I would agree that they are better...

I wasn't going to respond to this, because as you say there's little point in going over it again... but I want to clarify. I am not saying it is entirely your fault. Clearly, there was a communication issue. I was asking a question and requesting specific examples for answers. You repeatedly...

I have been saying quite a lot that these things are not about trust. Like, when combat breaks out, I don't think to myself "oh, here's the part where there's no way I can trust the GM, good thing there's all these rules!" Are combat rules about trust? I would think that what they're about...

I think this is a really interesting post. I really can't stand Perception as it applies to modern D&D and similar applications. Perception is so broad that people tend to overuse it... they call for rolls when they instead should just provide the information to the players. I think I'd...

I wasn't being aggressive, I was trying to explain what I was looking for since after many back and forths you still were not following, and then saying I wasn't following you. I was letting you know that you never have to answer any of my questions or my posts, just so that you know I'm not...

Stakes is a very interesting answer... and one of the reasons I was asking. Something more about the game than just about the fiction. I would likely approach it this way, too. What's at stake in this situation? You're describing ways to handle it in Stonetop, so I won't go into that. With...

I'm not objecting to anything. I am just asking questions. The examples I used have been those that others have posed in this thread. I'm not telling you what to do. You are complaining about repeating yourself and why I keep asking, so I'm explaining why. You don't have to answer any...

It was mostly a joke. But it was also a bit of a call back to the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread that we can only recognize and appreciate the exciting moments of play because of the less exciting ones.

More seriously @SableWyvern , I don't think what I said is a criticism of the entire playstyle. And it's a criticism that can apply to just about any game. Calling for too many rolls and gating more information behind rolls is simply going to slow the game down.

Through the power of humor!

Well, don't get me wrong... I still describe things and try to do a thorough job. But at the end, I then share the DC. I just look at it as being a precise description... a way to be as clear as possible.

I was kind of assuming there would be a roll involved, and that would be the information the Gm would share (or not share). Thank you for actually offering some specifics! Some of these things... time of day, the PCs' gear... are set ahead of the arrival at the cliff. Those seem very...

I think basing your choices on artistic expression is something different than most of what's being discussed in this thread. I would imagine if that's the primary focus of play, then playability may not be a top priority. Would you say that's accurate? Or am I way off?