Search results

I have 4 tables. In my ideal world, one of them would be D&D focused and the other three open to variable games (a "flex table"). Right now, I have three "D&D tables" and one "flex table". So it absolutely does affect me.

More tables like that!

It isn't a strange attitude; I simply find it a regrettable one. One of my groups, as an example, has tried two very different versions of 5e, Troika!, Mork Borg, Dolmenwood, Honey Heist, Uncharted Worlds (a sci-fi PBTA), Monster of the Week, and one or two other games I can't remember, all...

Exactly. If I invite people over for board game night, I expect them to be open to most board games, although I expect a veto to pop up occasionally. I think TTRPGs should have the same latitude.

Nope, purely my position as an objective realist. :)

That's a broader, much-discussed topic that is probably outside of all the already overstuffed bounds of this thread.

Nah. I definitely am going to assume a trad gamer is open to other gaming styles until proven otherwise.

There's nothing to do here with validity. It's reasonable to have the expectation that your median gamer has little knowledge of how narrative games work. It's reasonable to have the expectation that your median gamer has a decent knowledge of how trad games work.

It's nothing to do with my preferences. It's the fact that classic play and trad play are far older and have more adherents and people who learned to play in those paradigms than narrative play. There's just a fundamental asymmetry there.

We don't have to assume it, but we should consider it, especially since exposure to non-trad play isn't particularly common, as I said in an earlier post.

That's generally how I would do it as well. Whether I use approximate odds (easy, moderate, etc.) or exact odds ("You need a 12 or better) really just comes down to what the players prefer for me.

Again, I have zero concern about the "realism". I find "play to notice" annoying.

I'll be honest, if my character is climbing a cliff, I 100% expect to get enough information to know the odds. "You failed a Perception check, so you have a secret -10 penalty to successfully climb the cliff because you didn't notice the rock is crumbling" is play that can get right out of here.

I think it is number 1. :)

I just tend to avoid 5.5 threads. I'll check back in when WotC decides not to waste page count on reprints of subclasses that I already have. :)

That's fair. I remember this concept being a pretty big sticking point in a thread a year or two back. I, personally, don't feel the weight of it; but I can recognize that some people view it as a potent distinction.

It's a reference point, but it definitely should not be an endpoint when defining the spectrum.

Because the amount of agency we have as humans in RL isn't the upper limit on agency, obviously. An author has much more agency over the composition of their fictional world than I have over the composition of Earth. Having agency comparable to what we have as humans on Earth is a choice to...

It can difficult to disentangle the difference between "don't know" and "I know, but don't like it". Especially because, let's face it, if you don't like it, you're not going to be as familiar with the terms and concepts associated with the thing as someone who likes it! Which will nearly...

I mean, referencing back to the thread topic, I think these discussions matter because an extremely large portion of the player base aren't aware that these other approaches exist. IMX, this is super common even with people who have been playing D&D for decades. So for every person who is in...