Search results

Sure, but there's those differing expectations rearing their ugly head again.

I don't speak for @The Firebird , but I do make stuff up. Usually, however, it's in prep as opposed to at the table (although sometimes that happens too). Tables are great for when you just need an answer quickly, though they're also handy in prep.

By stating it as if it were the truth and not one person's opinion. Read what you wrote again.

Murdock is my favorite, mostly because I'm fond of Dwight Schultz's performance (and his other work too; many appearances throughout Trek as Reg Barclay, and he had a memorable guest turn in an episode of Babylon 5).

I could just make it up, but tables allow for more options than might occur to me in the moment, and also keep me from just forcing my will on a situation that could go more than one way. So etimes the GM likes to be surprised too. What's wrong with tables? I love 'em!

FFG Star Wars does the same thing with initiative. It's not terrible.

How does your refutation of my statement actually refute it? Your goal is to bash on / aggressively analyze traditional play. And that's what's happening, with a side of "Narrativist games are the best! Why are you playing other games?"

There's an awful lot of personal opinion dressed up as objective fact here. Maybe try considering the idea that your thoughts on what everybody wants are not actually what everybody wants?

I don't know about that. A lot of Marvel heroes improve over the years. The FF, Spider-Man, Iron Man, even Thor moves on to stronger opponents over time.

As a player, that's pretty much all I want. As a GM, I want to present a setting that allows that experience for my players.

And yet folks keep trying to apply techniques designed for Narrativist systems to traditional games, and wondering why fans of those games aren't enthusiastically on board.

It's a shame that PC exceptionalism only has those two poles and nothing in between.

1 was allright (I liked 3e well enough), but 2 feels like they decided to make a different game.

I've been told the purpose of this thread is to bash on / aggressively analyze traditional play.

Compared to some on this thread, very little of what I've done can be reasonably construed as analysis.

At this point I think it is clear that people simply draw different conclusions, based on their comfort level and experiences. Being more technically correct or not having the issues others have with one system or another is unlikely to change anything IMO.

And if they had just said that, and not claimed that it was like Pathfinder, I would have had no reason to comment.

Why is the go-to crunchy game Pathfinder? It really feels quite different from LU, especially PF 2e. That game really does not work for me.

A clear statement of personal preferences, if a little universally phrased. I don't see why you see this as a problem, since it's obviously not the way you play.

No one is saying your use of fail-forward doesn't work for you.. they're saying it doesn't work for them, because it doesn't suit their expectations and preferences for play. Why then is there this push to get others on board with your way of doing things? Can we not just play our own game our...