Search results

The best usage of SCs--which I have actually seen, from real GMs, including one who was running his very first 4e campaign with almost exclusively old-school experience prior, great campaign, still miss it--recognizes that a spectrum of possibilities, from the hardest of hard failure to the...

Okay. How much leeway am I permitted for developing advance information? Very very little in DW (which is the specific PbtA game I'll be building this from, since it's the one I've run for several years and know best) ever occurs without preceding context. The only thing that doesn't occur with...

You seem to be mistaken. I am not talking about extending infinite charity to players. I am talking about giving a charitable interpretation to other posters here, and to the rules of games you neither play nor even actually know. If I were to approach the "traditional-GM" "sandbox-y"...

Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't really get the issue. Like, to turn this around the other way: The books themselves for "traditional-GM" gaming, namely OD&D and 1e, contain some things which explicitly tell the GM to do some crappy, crappy things. There's no need for interpretation; it's...

...the context is massively, ENORMOUSLY important for what possible consequences might result from failing to pick a lock. I thought that was something everyone here agreed upon. Was I mistaken? If you're trying to infiltrate a thieves' hideout, the kinds of consequences which might arise from...

Doesn't a DM who posits a healthy, functional "wealthy person's country estate" necessarily posit the existence of the many, many servants required to maintain such a thing...? I don't understand how this isn't just "DMs should do prep work". Seems completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand.

Well, that would be completely contradictory to some of the things I know @pemerton said in this very thread, where he spoke of the importance of character-development moments that are not high-octane pulse-pounding mile-a-minute action. It seems to me that you are thus committing more or less...

"We could argue, but let's just agree I'm right." How about...no? Like I know you're genuinely trying to be peacemaker here, but your suggestion means asking us to simply surrender the point to you--simply agreeing that there's a difference without any evidence or discussion. That's not really...

Exactly. As with many of these things, and as I previously noted with the assassin example or with the lock example, we care about the context and intent. Failing to pick a lock does not, necessarily, mean "you literally just cannot get through this door, period, no matter what". With both...

Do you remember when I said, previously, that it was very frustrating that you instantly defaulted to the most anti-charitable reading possible, and then stuck to it even when others had (repeatedly) told you that that was not accurate? This is that approach occurring again. It would be worth...

And yet in so doing, as noted, you have disregarded what both of them actually SAID. Forgive me for hoping that a conversation involves listening to the words people do, in fact, use.

My apologies. I presumed, totally inappropriately, that you were participating in a conversation, rather than shouting into the void. As such, I now know any further interaction is completely pointless.

Entirely separate from the (IMO spurious) one-true-way accusations, what exactly is gained from this? I'm not saying you should somehow warp every law and concept of reality--if the player herself puts her things at risk, that's her fault. But what is gained about having such a cavalier...

I mean it literally did. We can, quite clearly, see a massive bump. That means people had to subscribe, at least for a time. Given the HUGE gap immediately after the spike--and missing the 5.5e DMG spike to boot!--I genuinely don't think anything meaningful can be concluded from this at all...

I mean it was very clear from the first like three or four posts that people were concluding "5.5e has failed to do its job, people are abandoning the game" and other such. Some see that as doom-and-gloom. Others see it as something to celebrate. Still others couldn't care less. But it was quite...

I have yet to see any example provided of where "Fail Forward"--as actually used by real people playing an actual game, not a hypothetical invented by its critics who neither know nor play any of the systems where such a thing is formally spelled out--results in the thing you describe. The...

Of course you know what you meant to say. I can only go by what you actually said, and the context in which that statement occurred. It's quite clear, now, that you meant something rather different from the words you used--particularly given the context around the word "perfectly", which...

Within the limits stated--values-system and limited information--that is precisely what I understood it to mean. Every person must be a perfect logic engine. That logic engine is permitted to break down in exclusively (their word, not mine) two cases: when their values-system forces a...

I welcome a clarification....and yes, when someone is ranting and uses the phrase "exclusively perfectly", I'm going to assume they in fact do mean perfectly--especially when responding to someone else who had already said "the most...possible". Context clues made it seem quite obvious that that...

I don't understand what "leaving a sting with the party" means, so I can't respond to this. As for the argument, you're asking me to do something I literally cannot do. Fail Forward is specifically meant for the times when the common approach breaks down. This is like telling me to only make...