Search results

Is it? Seriously. Is it? Or is it worse, because it dangles vain hope in front of you that will, nearly every time, be dashed? Remember that scummy design in a variety of things specifically preys on human psychology about things like this. It's one of the reasons why "loot box" games, "gacha"...

It absolutely is not, when all the stuff in that black box is LITERALLY what people are using to justify their GM decision-making. Which is what has been said in the thread. Repeatedly. Doesn't matter if it "will be silent" or not. It's the overwhelming majority of the context for what the GM...

Technically, that is incorrect. Instead, it would simply be that everything has the same rank--that rank just happens to be the highest possible rank. That doesn't mean everything isn't best. It just means "best" is not distinctive anymore. And that's literally the logical trap the original...

But the vast VAST VAST VAST majority of what is in that setting is something you (generic) created when you (generic) created your sandbox campaign setting. The things the players have contributed will NEVER be a greater totality than what the GM has contributed. Period. They cannot be. You...

I mean...I don't really see the difference here. The page count required by the Ranger-Enjoyers would piss off the Wizard-Enjoyers who never want a lesser quantity of nice things to be given to them than is given to anyone else. And the Ranger-Haters don't get what they want, which is the...

.... Max. YOU WROTE THAT SETTING. Every possible thing which you could decide based on that setting COMES FROM WHAT YOU WROTE. For God's sake, how can you argue something like this??? You have to actually prove that. You don't get to just assert "nah, that never happens bruh."

Of course it is, because...that's literally the situation going on here. "Abide by the player's rolls" IS a GM restriction. Period. End of discussion. If that's okay, then you cannot say that GM restrictions are inherently bad and untrustworthy. You must actually explain WHY they are bad and...

It's about both. You can't assign responsibility to "context" for the decisions you make during play...if that context was something you decided, ex nihilo, beforehand! It would be like a corporate executive explaining that their questionable actions were only in keeping with the relevant...

The build I used to use in 5.0 has had most of its pieces altered too much to use anymore (e.g. the Cleric dip is no longer worthwhile), but it's possible that a bit of Warlock would do the trick...albeit likely costing another level. So we take... Any BG which offers Skilled (+3 trained...

Indeed. It's the Psion in miniature, except at least the Ranger got to actually exist. The poor Psion, and psionics rules in general, don't even get that far because there's at least 3-5 different loose camps, all of them mutually disagree about something, and all of them are perfectly content...

As I said just over a year ago (a year and one week exactly, it would seem): That list of questions remains. "Necessity" is, was, and always will be a useless thing to ask about, because literally nothing is "necessary" in a leisure activity. It's always a matter of what benefit is brought...

"In comparison" is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting here. The assertion was not "absolute power to do whatever I like with the rules, whenever I like, for as long as I like". It was "some potential for DIY". You have changed the standard to something extreme. So: I would appreciate either...

95% of the time it doesn't. Which is...literally the point. It's a rule that makes a cool thing happen only quite rarely. No, it isn't. You can keep asserting this all you like--it is simply not true. When some aspects of mitigating the odds result in "you just succeed" (whether that is "you...

I'm actually somewhat partial to how Pathfinder handled the Draconal Agathions, in some sense the "highest" of their creature type. Firstly, their color is a manifestation of their mentality and mission, not an inherent characteristic. It requires effort, and a pretty major change of...

And of course the everpresent ridiculous extreme people respond with will be "oH sO tHe PlAyErS iNvEnT eVeRyThInG????" with the most disingenuous, knowingly mocking presentation, rather than something even remotely charitable... Would be really cool if folks didn't do that here.

Great example. These rules enable, as has been said above, the emergence of "what it means to be Elven" and "how Elves relate to Dwarves", rather than having the revelation to the players that "to be Elven means X" and "Elves relate to Dwarves in Y ways". I'm curious about this as well. When...

I literally said there WAS "some potential for DIY". It's just not "some potential for DIY in the foundational core". This is like saying that you can't program anything at all, ever, while using a Windows machine, and that the ONLY way to be able to be a TRUE programmer is if you're writing...

Okay. What is incorrect about the claim? Because this was a lot of words to say "Nuh-uh" without actually responding in any way. From where I'm sitting, there's nothing incorrect about Hussar's claim. If one person has full control over 99.9% of everything...where can anything emerge? Sure, to...

It is not just that. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "limitation breeds creativity". I don't personally think the pithy version is actually correct--it needs one extra word. "Good limitations breed creativity." There are good limitations and bad ones. As an example, forcing a DM to run the...

I'm curious what your concern with Story Now is. To be clear (though I wish it weren't necessary to say this explicitly), you're entirely within your rights to not like it. I'm just curious why it is a problem for you. For my own part, I'm not very keen on Story Before unless it's a...