Search results

  1. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    In what context? Are you talking about how failure and consequences work in real life? Or are you describing how you prefer they work in an RPG? Your statement is pretty absolute, so that’s why I ask. I know plenty of RPGs where what you’re saying is not true. And it’s clearly not true in real...
  2. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    The problem isn’t that you have other preferences. That’s perfectly fine. The problem isn’t that you talk about your preferences. That’s also perfectly fine. The problem is when you talk about things you say you don’t like. Fail forward, narrativist games, and so on. Because when you do...
  3. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    I think you are partially right about not wanting the character to look incompetent. Which, generally speaking, is a good approach, I'd say. But there's also the matter of the emotional or mental state of the character... some of the possible reasons they might fail a climb (or any kind of...
  4. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    I’m sorry… it just reminded me of something a friend of mine used to do that frustrated me. This friend of mine, he’d make some kind of passive aggressive comment, but then play it off like he’d heard someone else say it. This way he could get away with making the comment… which was usually...
  5. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    No, but as @Gimby has explained, it's collaborative. This is all agreed upon and then the roll is made to see how it goes. If the player instead takes another action, one that is not about determining the nature of the runes, it may make sense for the GM to make a determination about them...
  6. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    I don’t see why it would be, though I wouldn’t say there could be absolutely no reason to do so. But the idea was reasonable, didn’t contradict anything already established, was relevant to the situation, and the dice went in the players favor. So why deny it?
  7. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Oh it may even have been me! I have no doubt that it was brought up. I just don’t know in what context, or who brought it up first and who else took that example and ran with it and so on. All this to say there is far less direct authorship of setting details going on in narrativist games than...
  8. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Yes, this is what I did. I said “this roll isn’t so much about making it to the top as it is about how fast you can do so because the ritual is happening”. But we were talking about my game.
  9. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    No, the GM decided based on the idea the player expressed as the hope of their character… which was reasonable and didn’t contradict anything already established… and the successful roll. Is that what I said? I said life is not player driven because it is not a game. I’ve seen many...
  10. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    We could classify the trad GM’s process as quantum as well. That until he writes that the Amulet of Agonar is in the chest in Room 8, it is both there and not there!
  11. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    If the wished for result was contradictory to what had been established or was otherwise nonsensical. Real life isn’t a game with players, so it’s not player-driven.
  12. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    I think it’s a little different than that. 1. The runes were undefined. 2. The player had his character express a hope for what the runes might be. 3. The player rolled and received a positive result. 4. In light of the roll, and that the suggested purpose of the runes seemed feasible and...
  13. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Maybe. I tend to think most of us GMs tend to need more advice on running games than we do building worlds. I personally found the Mothership Warden’s Manual to be an incredibly practical and useful guide for how to GM.
  14. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Well, there are some things to consider. Who made the decision about what the runes were? At what point in the example is the player ever in author stance?
  15. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    In-universe, the character expressed an idea of what the runes may be. Ultimately, it's the GM who decides what they are... in this case, the GM took that player's suggestion and, combined with the successful roll, decided that the idea was correct. The player never had to be in author stance...
  16. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Well, let’s just look at the cook example. Trad folks are advocating for the character’s action to have no effect. Nothing happens. Folks advocating for fail forward or similar methods are advocating for the player’s action to have something happen. Something seems easily recognizable as more...
  17. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Yes, you continue to fail to understand how these things are directly related. Nothing new at all!
  18. hawkeyefan

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    But why would I take an action that violated the game I was running? Don't you think it's more likely that I'm running the game such that fail forward is a valid option for the GM to use, that the participants know this, and therefore when it's used, it's not a violation of anything...
Top