Search results

Who are you saving FATAL for then?

Laughs in 'followed recent election results'.

As we all know, GMs are infallible noble creatures with everyone's best interests at heart, and players are selfish dishonest monsters who will happily torpedo the game for the slightest perceived advantage. When players become GMs, or GMs become players, their alignment switches over...

Conceded! I used to go to a lot of MtG tournaments back in the day

You post like you disagree with me but I think it's the same point I made. I would quibble over the mechanics themselves necessarily evolving, unless you mean drifting by individual groups rather than the strict RAW.

You're taking things too literally. 'The great unwashed masses' is clearly an exaggeration for comedic effect. I don't think Emerikol was actually describing D&D's playerbase this way.

Agreed. My understanding of the 'D&D is everyone's second choice' principle is that D&D is at least everyone's second choice. A preferred choice to many and an acceptable compromise to others.

I agree 100%. But I think that a lot of players from 2e (arguably, 1e in the form of Dragonlance) onwards have come in assuming it does support that Lord of the Rings experience, encouraged somewhat by the language and art used, and hence have experienced a dissonance that they solve with the...

I think what D&D has generally done is combine mechanics that are actually quite focused on one playstyle with playing and GMing advice that (falsely) claims to support a variety of playstyles. I think people have largely bridged that gap by retroactively finding justifications for the...

If only there was a way to find out! 🙂 My own game Other Worlds is on DriveThruRPG (and I'm sure free elsewhere) - it's my attempt at designing a game that supports a narrativist agenda. It contains a lot of practical advice and explanations, but no jargon. Me and my group were used to very...

The Forge :: Narrativism: Story Now

Alexa, please reinvent Vincent Baker's 'say yes or roll the dice', but make it confusing.

OK, but that's not a match for the example, which was 'players say they want to interact with giants, so the GM goes and creates a stack of material on giants, therefore the players and GM have collaborated'. The equivalent there would be that the player creates the stack of lore on giants...

Really? I mean, it's just giving the writer the name of a world and the name of a character. Or are you assuming that 'set on the world of Akrayna' also comes with some sort of lore bible for that world?

if a publisher instructs a writer to write a book about a particular subject, was that piece a collaboration between the publisher and the writer?

man what

Do you consider that your games have any ways of collaborating that for example mine and hawkeye's do not?

But it literally is less collaborative. Contributions to the game that hawkeye or myself would say yes to, you would say no to. Players are less able to collaborate with you in creating the world around them. You may say that's a kind of collaboration you don't want, or your players don't want...

I'm not sure what you mean by limits. The limit I have is that it makes sense in context, for example that the character has a relationship to Odin. I was talking about the version of this that other posters ran with and made into a plausible option.

1. I don't play with people that would do this 2. As I remember it, this Odin thing also involved significant costs and tradeoffs. It wasn't 'Odin solves all my problems for free'