Search results

This never occurs in Dungeon World--and, IMO, it should be extremely rare anywhere else. And now you're doing what all sorts of OSR fans do, following in the path of the execrable "Quick Primer": actively presenting the thing you don't like, don't play, and don't know all that well in the most...

I guess I don't understand how a "fumble" isn't "just a straight failure". Sure, it's a significant failure...but that's still just a straight failure, it just happens to be big...?

But that explicitly ISN'T the same thing. That's them creatively using the spells they already have. It is NOT experimentally developing a new spell. Doubly so for spells of a higher level, which they literally cannot cast anyway, and yet somehow they're able to spontaneously develop new spells...

The only possible answer is "yes". It is both things simultaneously, by construction--albeit not "dramatic" as that implies "I am a director pushing along a scripted structure", which could not be less the case. Instead, it is both born from what is most reasonable in context and what is...

Well, at least for me, it's because that situation is simply more realistic than the alternative. But if you'd like my reasoning, it is as follows. Consider the fiction used in pretty much every other edition besides 4e regarding how most spellcasters, but most specifically Wizards, acquire new...

Well, at least that last bit is definitely one of the frustrations I've had thus far, and one of the reasons I ask for things like specificity and avoiding vagueness. Alright. I guess I need...a lot more explanation why one thing is "creation" and the other is "color" when, as far as I can...

That's the thing. You're assuming the GM would never want to do this. An infinitude of reasons are out there for why someone might. Except--as I literally argued in there--you do! Because if something happens in the world which should affect the timeline, of course you'll do it. So there is...

But it absolutely does! Because the GM can simply write enough world-content to ensure that the timeline changes in the way they want. The players cannot, even in principle, prevent them from doing this. The GM has absolute and secret power. The absoluteness means they can do whatever the fudge...

No. They are the vast majority of complications. That's the problem here. You dismiss them as being a minor irrelevancy. But as you have so recently declared to me, you don't get the right to declare them irrelevant.

And I have seen it very specifically change from information that is not yet determined to rolls that are not (sufficiently) related to the information. That is a massive and completely unjustified change, and I'm not going to say anything further about it to you, regardless of what reply I...

I'm not making anything irrelevant. It simply is irrelevant. The GM's absolute authority and ability to control literally every other variable is what makes it irrelevant. The fact that variable z is not specified when we know x=4, y=5, and (x+y+z)/3 = 7 is irrelevant to whether or not z is...

Well, all I can say is, I never do this. On exceedingly rare occasions, I may reflect and realize "y'know what, I never should have asked for a roll there in the first place", and when I realize that, I tell my players so. It's not something I do lightly, but I also don't do it secretly either...

Depends on the situation, but yes, in contemporary English "castle" has a very strong implication of being specifically fortified. The problem is that the French word, château, USED to have more or less the same meaning as the contemporary English "castle"...but that changed centuries ago...

No. I'm claiming that a potential complication which never actually does any complicating isn't a complication. Merely potential things that never actualize aren't complications. Just as, for example, all the potential debts I could have, if I went on a shopping spree, are not debts because...

The point is, when you have control over all of the other factors, whether or not the timing is GM-independent (if such a thing is even possible in "traditional GM" play) is functionally irrelevant. The GM can simply change the other factors and thus, as a consequence, change the timing. Think...

Then back it up with quotes.

.... It literally actually does though. 7-9 is a partial success. This may work out as: you get some of what you wanted, but must sacrifice something else (e.g. you can only choose one benefit out of four, rather than three benefits out of four); you get what you wanted, and also what you...

But whether or not something is important for informing a decision has nothing to do with whether it is part of the world or not. It has everything to do with tailoring to the gameplay of the player. Something which has been consistently seen as unacceptably "gamist" and fundamentally...

So... It's okay to leave important elements of the world undefined until after a roll is made when doing so is convenient? But it's not okay to leave important elements of the world undefined until after a roll is made when...you dislike how it sounds when spelled out? Because that's the...

Even at night--depending on the exact hour--a cook could still be around, preparing things for the next day, closing up, possibly using the kitchen facilities for their own use (which, AIUI, was not uncommon as a privilege for servants in well-to-do homes of yesteryear). For a particularly...