Search results

To be fair, in most games which rely heavily on success with complications generally rolls should only be called for when the complications would call for "heck in a handbasket". I'm also struggling a lot with the idea that finding someone in the house you're breaking into is "random-ass...

I play Fluxx with my younger kids. It's a terrible game but a fun activity. A lot of things that fall into the bucket of "games" are really just activities, to my perspective.

To be fair, simple whim might drive the players to choose an alternate path. I'd argue part of the point of playing a TTRPG of any flavor as opposed to another kind of game is that there are never just two paths.

Then I guess I'm not irritated by anyone here!

I don't know what to tell you. If your opinions on RPGs are based on "For 35 years, I've played D&D, and occasionally we've branched out and tried games that are 99% like D&D", I just don't find your opinion compelling. Like you said, it's preference. It's not preference on games; it's...

Outside of thinking of some cool monsters and scenes, this is exactly why I don't prep. :)

Fair. "Exploring a multi-level temple" seems like a fairly linear adventure to me. But since I hardly ever use commerical modules, I probably have a different expectation of what they look like.

I'll be honest, I find interactions with people who aren't curious about new things and prefer to stick to and defend the status quo to be inevitably exhausting in pretty much every phase of life. It's not wrong; it's a completely common psychological profile and almost certainly necessary for...

I consider a "module" to be any sort of pre-scripted engagement space with a rough semblance of an expected set of outputs. ("You find the demonic statue in the Temple of Grazz't" or "You fail to retrieve the demonic statue from the Temple of Grazz't" or "You die in the attempt.") It doesn't...

That is roughly how I'm interpreting @Pedantic's posts, but I freely accept I could be misreading or lacking clarity and would love to gain more clarity on the subject.

The "Iike simulation and prep" is the part that's interesting. If I run a game where "the players drive the game forward and the GM just makes sure there's interesting stuff to interact with", but I don't prep, and you hate my game, why is that? What psychological desire isn't being satisfied...

I mean, if I've been reading your posts correctly (and I've been trying!), your core position is to minimize player-DM negotiation over narrative context and positioning to as close to zero as possible, and have every fictional position presented by the DM having obvious mechanical linkages to...

For sure. And since I play with a pretty broad group of people across multiple tables and systems, understanding those different preferences and finding ways to synthesize approaches that can kind of satisfy most people is what I'm interested in. Like @The Firebird said yesterday, he doesn't...

1) Yes, but not by default. The game does encourage hacking and has pretty detailed rules to do so, but it would take some work to enable a more high fantasy mode. 2) 2nd edition is a compilation of the original core and a "best-of" selection of supporting material published in the last...

I understand your point, but I think your particular desire for gamist strategic structures is probably out of the scope of even this broad, unwieldy thread.

I mean, we've established that you really shouldn't use a lot of fail-forward if your focus of play is on navigating pre-established obstacles. This isn't new. To me, it just sounds you like prefer trad-style games that are focused on solving the module. If that's your focus, of course you...

I don't have a problem with what you do. Totally fine. But "where the players drive the game forward and the GM just makes sure there's interesting stuff to interact with" is exactly what I do without any sort of simulationism or prep, so it's kinda a crap description of what you're doing...

But in the fiction, the cook was always there. The lockpick failure was just the reason the cook was encountered at that particular time. Improving a NPC or encounter doesn't make the encounter quantum; once introduced, it was always a part of the history of the setting.