Search results

This is the single most salient point in the whole thread.

While I love the "deplete resources to gain martial buffs" concept, I feel like it might be easier to integrate into a warlock chassis than a sorcerer one. ("Warlock - what can't it do?") Basically, every time you cast a warlock spell, in addition to the spell, you also gain a one buff out of a...

I would have to go back and look, but I think the 3e DMG2 and MM4 and MM5 were moving in the direction of more simplified stat blocks, or at least discussing it. It was certainly a fairly prevalent topic in various discussion sites throughout most of later 3.5.

It’s not moving the goalposts. It’s a disagreement with the context someone extracted from the statement. If someone says “it’s obvious from this statement that you mean X”, and you disagree with that interpretation, there’s no goalposts being moved, there’s simply the natural ambiguity of...

Certainly for me, I’m pretty “neutral” on most things, without an active “like” or “dislike.” And there are plenty of things I “like” despite the presence of subjective or objective flaws.

<shrug> If you were paying attention to 3.5 era changes and the development of SW Saga edition, nothing in 4e was that surprising. Smuggling in some fail-forward and some fortune-in-the-middle mechanics is still just evolution, not revolution.

If I couldn’t like things despite recognizing them as flawed or somewhat dissatisfying, I would never go to family functions. :)

That’s a pretty solid list. Big difference is that I saw all of those as good things. :)

The problem is “OSR” and “traditional” are way too similar to each other to be 2 of the 3 categories; it’s roughly equivalent to categorizing mammals as “big cats”, “small cats” and “everything else”.

And Tuovinen also discusses the utility of “rules-heavy” and “rules-light” to various flavors of Sun within the blog post.

That blog post is from 2020.

Well, yea! 5e IS wildly incoherent, that's why people fight about it all the time on this and many other sites. And I say that as someone who's been playing and running 5e as my main game for 11 years.

Like most taxonomies, GNS is terrible right up until you try and create a replacement. :) And I'm probably callused, but I didn't read anything in that post that seemed remotely insulting.

You should probably play a game where a non-result is a valid result of a skill check. :)

Contrast and compare 5e with the blog’s description of Call of Cthulhu.

It’s not charitable because it’s poor analysis to state your preferences as objective, as too many people are prone to do.

Right, exactly. And I think importantly, I don't know of any published games that actually attempt that willful incompatibility. Its occurrence is the result of people bringing in assumptions from other games; for example, that because skills are internal in one game, they must necessarily be...

I wouldn't phrase it that way. A story is the result of what happens, but only in some cases is the point of play trying to make that result interesting or more "literary". Like, if I livestreamed myself for the next 6 hours, you could tell a story about what I did, but what I am doing is not...

From the comments on the blog post:

Yea, I have a very different view, such as I don't think there's an obvious compromise. A game oriented around delivering a planned final outcome (like an AP) is very distinct from a "play to see what happens" type of game. Now, obviously you don't know for sure what's going to happen in an AP...