Search results

It's as player-driven as real life, and I do not want to play a game where you have more power than that which such a person in the world would have. It is not fun for me.

Do any of them not use Playbooks? In my limited experience with PbtA games they all use Playbooks to represent the special unique PCs you're playing.

Well then what's going on, if everything is a version of D&D?

For me the purpose of play, ideally, is to explore and interact with an imaginary world through the lens of my PC, using only the abilities that PC has at their disposal. Hopefully that world will have a variety of interesting things, places, and people with which to interact, and said...

I'm pretty sure I could say a lot of things about d20 games as a class. Are PbtA games so different from each other that that's not possible? And if so, what does the label signify?

How does this statement differ from what I suggested you meant? Just say what you mean plainly please.

Ok. What would you consider "playing to win" in these systems, or is that even possible if you're playing the game correctly? You're the one with all the experience.

So, you can try whatever you want, but sometimes events beyond your control complicated things? That's life (even fantasy life in my play). You get to make your own choices, but there are no guarantees. Still seems plenty player-driven to me.

I explained what seems to be a leading trad perspective above in my reply to @hawkeyefan .

What if the GM embodies the setting, but the Players set their own goals? Is that possible from your perspective?

I've seen excerpts and summaries of the 5.5 DMG (and I'm not paying for one, so that's as far as it goes), and I am confident that I don't agree with their advice. By the time 5.0 came out I knew the style of play I preferred, and 5.5 goes in the wrong direction for me. In any case, I'm not...

1. The runes were undefined. 2. The player decided what they wanted the runes to be. 3. The player rolled and received a positive result. 4. In light of the successful roll, the GM decided to honor the player's request. I'm sorry you don't agree, but that's close enough to the player...

The problem with this is all the people who like RPGs but don't like D&D. Are those people just kidding themselves under your definition?

It's based on the 3.5 SRD. Doesn't that make it a D&D variant by default?

At the time, I was going to buy it regardless. At least it was a good read, which an instruction manual for brand-new GMs would not have been.

Let me get this straight: if in my game the active PCs are not the most special, unique, and important beings in the setting, my play is wrong and I should just "write a novel"? Do I understand that correctly?

It does as far as I can see.

I want the setting to be the focus, with the players exploring it, including NPC interaction, through their PCs. How many times have I said this? If for you it's all about telling the story of the PCs, have fun. But that's not the way I most enjoy RPGs.

Maybe not, but I learned to DM via Metzer's Basic and Gygax's 1e DMG. Not a new DM, so a book primarily aimed at them is not a very efficient purchase for me.

Then why does it, particularly in the runes example?