Search results

Well, what’s satisfying or not will vary from person to person. And the level of complexity for rules will likewise vary based on the game and what it’s trying to do. A game that is as combat heavy as D&D is likely going to increase the number of rules and therefore the complexity because...

Yes, very much so. The game very much relies on prep. The GM is meant to create towns that the Dogs visit, and those towns are meant to have sin taken root in various ways. The point is not about can they discover the sin… it’s about what will the Dogs do when they discover it. That’s the...

But wouldn’t this just be the equivalent of when the badass hero shows no signs of fear or concern that the mook can really hurt him? You see it all the time in genre fiction. I mean, I’m not all that crazy about Hit Points… especially how inflated they’ve become… but if someone doesn’t want...

Really? Why? That’s so odd. How can you even tell that’s what they’re doing as opposed to like, being brave or whatever? I mean, as of third or fourth level, characters aren’t anywhere near as fragile, and in my experience start getting played that way. It doesn’t need to be complex...

I'm not saying all guards can be bribed. I'm saying there are other ways to make that work. One... make a roll (Persuade, Bribe, whatever is applicable). If you fail the roll, then it turns out this guard can't be bribed. Two... telegraph that the guard cannot be bribed so that the players can...

Yes, of course it is fine. It's a preference and all preferences are fine. I think where we run into an issue, or difference of opinion, is how this impacts player agency. Gumshoe is an interesting example because I'm not a fan. The reason for that is it's the meaningful events that don't...

This is exactly right. "But we're able to converse so that's the same as a social encounter" simplifies things so much. It eradicates the gap in expertise between the average RPGer and a person who can negotiate incredibly complex and fraught situations (surrender of a hostile force, hostage...

Sure, that's fine! I absolutely understand that. I probably consider the game more important, but it's not like I'm setting up nonsensical things, or contradicting what's been established. I think setting logic and verisimilitude are pretty mutable... like there's a whole range of what's...

Well, I think that most combat mechanics can indeed produce excitement and drama. I'm sure we've all felt that thrill as a die is tumbling across a table, hoping we roll as high as we need to! That combat is not easily and fairly handled seems to be about uncertainty, no? Like, we can't say how...

Sure, but if a GM chooses not to telegraph, what skill are you measuring? Isn't the telegraphing of danger serving the purpose to see how the players prepare themselves for the indicated danger? If you take away the telegraphed info, then what's left?

This was a great post overall, but this bit really jumped out at me. It shows how differently the GM can go with his decision making, all while still remaining within the realm of plausibility and consistency. You could simply say that the NPC is a master knife fighter, and cannot be defeated...

Yeah, the system and rules matter quite a bit. My original point in this branch of the conversation, was that a GM should not just be concerned with the content of the fiction and its plausibility or consistency... though he should be thinking of those things... he also needs to be looking at...

I'm not "making it about combat rules". I am not commenting on trust. I'm asking why combat has rules. As I said, I think it's about uncertainty. Would you agree with that, or no?

No, I don't think that's really accurate. It's not about bad faith. It's about the purpose of rules, and how that creates uncertainty. Set aside the idea of bad faith... a jerk's gonna be a jerk and will break rules just as soon as abuse rules. With that in mind, knowing rules aren't about...

Right! This is the kind of stuff I was getting at... that there is information that the GM can share or not... create or not... and that plays a large part in how a situation will play out, and the players' chances to navigate it effectively. The presence of fallen rocks to indicate a...

I don't think this has anything to do with what I said. Someone can cheat, yes. I'm uninterested in discussing bad faith activity. What are the combat rules for? Clearly you don't think they're to prevent someone from cheating. So... what are they for? I would agree that they are better...

I wasn't going to respond to this, because as you say there's little point in going over it again... but I want to clarify. I am not saying it is entirely your fault. Clearly, there was a communication issue. I was asking a question and requesting specific examples for answers. You repeatedly...

I have been saying quite a lot that these things are not about trust. Like, when combat breaks out, I don't think to myself "oh, here's the part where there's no way I can trust the GM, good thing there's all these rules!" Are combat rules about trust? I would think that what they're about...

I think this is a really interesting post. I really can't stand Perception as it applies to modern D&D and similar applications. Perception is so broad that people tend to overuse it... they call for rolls when they instead should just provide the information to the players. I think I'd...

I wasn't being aggressive, I was trying to explain what I was looking for since after many back and forths you still were not following, and then saying I wasn't following you. I was letting you know that you never have to answer any of my questions or my posts, just so that you know I'm not...