Search results

Ok. That's reasoning I can get behind.

To be honest, I find all those things more interesting than why people like Narrativist games (and conversely, why people don't like what I prefer). At least, I feel there's a point (long since reached in this thread), where that knowledge has been acquired, and people look to be just trying to...

See, my thought is that if you don't like it, and you aren't under some obligation to analyze it, what's the benefit to doing so?

I've always thought one of the reasons people bring up their wants is because they want to see who shares them, because it's nice to find people who like what you like. I've certainly done that in my time on this site.

When you say, "make sure everyone understands the assumptions they're making", I want you to know that IMO that often comes off as looking for weaknesses in those assumptions and attacking them. Basically telling someone their feelings about what they enjoy are wrong. I'm not sure anyone came...

I don't see LU as bring as work intensive as you say. How much converting of existing 5e modules do you really think you have to do? I also disagree that LU feels like Pathfinder. It certainly doesn't to me.

EN5ider magazine recently created a blue mage-style class for exactly that purpose!

He ends up saving the kingdom because she has a special destiny. Not generally the case in S&S. They make their own legend (as told after the fact, of course). As I said before, I expect most PCs will be above average in some respect, just not so much that they exist beyond the statistical range...

Amusingly enough, a classic narrative device. Explains why it cN be hard to accept for some folks.

You'd be surprised how many people place a higher priority on their own play at their table than they do on the play of folks with whom they'll never play, and disagree with on several important points.

Oh no! I had happily forgotten that monstrosity existed! Now it'll be back in my head!

That's true, but to be honest I don't think a ton of people are all that interested in switching assumptions of play, so beyond acknowledging their existence there doesn't seem to be much more to say at this point, especially after 11k+ posts. The lines have been largely drawn.

I wouldn't worry about it. Different expectations of play mean that this circle is extremely unlikely to be squared. This part of play is IMO too different for both sides to reach a comfortable place.

This I think is why some people don't like fail forward. Your expectations of play are different. I know this seems obvious, but for some reason we all want to re-litigate "my preference is different from your preference" over and over ad infinitum.

Agreed. Superheroes are the only exception to my general preference in this area.

Can you imagine a situation where, "the story we've been making together is ruined" is not really the concern at the table? That there are people who have other priorities in their play?

Also a possibility. It's really up to the players what they do. Kinda the whole point, for me at least.

First of all, the players, if they want to know how I arrive at my decisions and don't trust that I'm doing it fairly, they can ask and I'll tell them I have a table upon which I roll. Second of all, IMO things the players have no reason to know about should be mysterious until that condition...

I think I accepted this point a while back.

I never said my preference is the pinnacle of awesome design, but it is my favorite of the various options, and my car drives just fine.