Search results

In the system. As I keep saying, over and over again. This isn't some situation exclusively applying to one single group's table. It's the design of the system itself. Something everyone who uses that system has to accept, or go without playing at all. That's literally what I've said from the...

Their mandatory enforcement should be opposed. Derided, hardly, but opposed? Sure. A system which is compatible with such preferences, but does not enforce them, would be vastly preferable. The person demanding that their preferences be enforced, as opposed to those who want as many different...

When it kills dead any opportunity I have to play the games I want to play, I'd say it hurts me rather a lot.

Is there? You've never made room for such a distinction before. Why is it suddenly relevant now? And would you seriously not think that something was wrong if you were " 'winning all the time' because of what [you]'ve done as a good player"? I'm pretty sure you'd find that, as the kids say...

What? Like seriously, what? FrogReaver wants games that HAVE to cater to him. No one playing them can have experiences which avoid catering to that desire. It is hard-baked into the foundational rules of the system. Everyone playing it must always have the risk of completely unavoidable...

Yeah, because the person who thinks recognition and acceptance is good is clearly the villain, and the people who think rejection and exclusion are awesome should totally be catered to at every breath. I'm saying that people being exclusionary and hostile to other people's fun are a problem and...

And they do? 4e is D&D. Objectively, it is. This isn't my decision. It's the decision of the people who are legally entitled to make things called "D&D". If you don't like that, well, I'm sorry, your opinion is factually invalid. You can still have factually invalid opinions. Lots of people...

Well, as I've argued previously in various other threads, I don't divide things in this way. I don't claim my game-(design-)purposes are exhaustive either. There might be other paths I've failed to consider. But these ones are how I see it: Score & Achievement: What maps closest to "gamism"...

They don't get to declare universal truths either. Whether or not they feel like it is D&D, it is. Their feelings are irrelevant to the identity of the thing.

Presented by whom? Further, by your logic, the exact same thing happens in D&D. You can't ever meaningfully eliminate the chance of missing on attacks, hence, you're never rewarded for clever approaches in combat. You can't ever do more than a tiny shift (usually about a 10 percentage point...

Well. I can't say I come to the table with them. But they aren't just talking about their table. They're talking about the game's design. Something that everyone who plays it will get saddled with.

So... The amount of simulation you lose from removing "random, unknown time limits that have a pretty decent chance of either not mattering at all, or completely screwing you over"? That amount of simulation is worth an absolutely $#!+-awful experience for anyone who isn't as simulationist as...

As a once-in-a-VERY-long-while subversion, maybe. More than once in a single campaign? No, absolutely not going to "love" that.

Unknown even to the GM, and randomly determined. Whether or not the players were told of this random, yet-unrevealed time limit at the start was not explicitly specified. I had assumed originally that it would not be. Clearstream later clarified that it probably should be mentioned, as it seemed...

But that's the point. The GM cannot do that. They don't know. Nobody does, not until after the player has finished their actions. Only then, after the player character is already dead, is the randomly-generated time revealed. So there is no known time limit. That's (part of) why I responded to...

It's a place with rats. A rat could run into it and experience an animal desire, and boom, object consumed, rat's desire made manifest, no more magic.

But that's the only way to get to what you're saying. That we must completely ignore the concern, because other concerns unequivocally matter more. If we don't do that--if we recognize that gameplay matters and needs to be counted--then we cannot simply declare that the experience HAS to be...

shrug Folks complained, sometimes quite bitterly, about feeling "interrogated" before--yes, that word was actually used. If someone wants to pick nits that hard about Fail Forward, well, I think they're being silly, but far be it for me to tell them what to spend their time on. I could comment...

My understanding was that the only reason Lanefan brought it up was to say, basically, "yeah, this really did have rules, and this is what those rules were." Hence why I have referred to it as "showing your work" or similar phrases. It's a demonstration of the rules-boundness of the GM; yes, the...

Wheras for me, having my efforts snatched away from me even the one time would be a pretty serious party foul, and having it happen twice would be "something better change or I'm out and I'm going to try to convince as many people as I can to go with me." Like I genuinely consider this a...