Search results

That's a different statement than "didn't give me what I wanted." It's moving the goalposts, though it's more accurate to what I know about you from prior interactions. You didn't mean to imply that you disliked prior editions, but the way you wrote it did imply that.

It actually does imply that, even though I know from prior interactions that you didn't dislike all previous versions of D&D. If you say that 4e finally gave you what you wanted from D&D, that means that the prior editions didn't give you what you wanted. Most people dislike things that fail...

It's interesting how many different ways the game was played back then. None of the games I was in would have done those things. I remember one game where we were attacked by trolls at night and my character who had no knowledge of trolls ended up without a weapon due to a fumble chart...

So?

Metagaming exists and is antithetical to the kind of game that I enjoy playing and running.

Metagaming is something used at many gamist tables. Not all gamist tables would use it, but I've seen it mentioned here as acceptable many times.

First you say to drop it, and it's not derogatory terminology by the way, then you proceed to tell me(wrongly) again that I said it would be wrong to place the cook there. Do you want to drop it or continue it, because continuing to falsely accuse me of saying it's bad wrong fun to do it in a...

And if the narrative is the priority, you might arrive at a third.

But you will never be right since one involves the DM and the other the player(s) which makes a difference in whether it's quantum for the players or not. Those are differences. And you clearly did not read my forest encounter, despite my posting it multiple times, since it not only did it not...

There's wrong stuff here. Gamist =/= mechanics. Gamist = treating the game as a game. For example, the player knowing and using weaknesses, AC, etc. for monsters the PC would have no way of knowing about. Mechanics exist in games of all types, not just gamist ones. Simulationist =/=...

Context. That was in the context of being the DM. Quantum is not relevant to me, because I'm not the one encountering the monster. Quantum doesn't apply to players, because players in a traditional game don't encounter quantum unless you have a DM engaging in illusionism or something. A...

Uh uh. You have no ability to shove false words into our mouths. We are saying it's quantum because the player's die roll causes the cook to be there or not be there and we only find out after the box(die roll) is opened. Not because we're saying it's objectively wrong. We do say that it's...

I mean, if it's not in the middle of the night, the something bad happening is still unrelated to the roll, because it doesn't matter if it's a success or failure. Someone is probably going to see them and react. :ROFLMAO:

I didn't see the original example, but I assumed the party wasn't being stupid and trying to pick a lock in broad daylight or when people would be likely to be walking around after dark. My bad for not realizing the PCs were morons. :P

That doesn't fly, either. From the very first instance, I was talking about from the player's perspective. On top of that, at no point did I ever say or imply that I don't care if it's quantum. It's not. Not from the perspective I've been using since moment one. The DM's perspective isn't...

I missed the original post by @clearstream, so I don't have any context for why he wants to analyze something like this. In all my time playing I've never seen or heard of something like that situation. It's like a Goldberg Mousetrap. A DM randomly determining the duration? Sure. Waiting...

The first season was for sure. Then suddenly a flawed crew doing its best became a perfect crew doing little wrong. I really liked it best when they were all flawed and doing their job in spite of those flaws.

And Pizza the Hut.