Search results

....no? Like, literally, no, in no way whatsoever? I'm literally saying that the example given won't be meaningful or useful to Lanefan because, as far as I can tell, he doesn't play 5e and couldn't care less whether it does or doesn't do any particular thing. Hence, if one is trying to make an...

From whom? Because I've felt on many occasions that people are straight-up telling me that the rules I use are inherently anti-rational. Or taking actively, knowingly, intentionally uncharitable interpretations in order to paint something else as obviously stupid and wrong and bad. Smells...

This is a huge part of why I am such a cautious player myself, and why I have put in a great deal of effort into making sure my players know that they won't have their ability to participate in the game, nor the character-story they're interested in exploring, ripped away merely because of a...

Yeah...I feel that. Apparently, my players really are genuinely happy about most of the stuff that goes on in the game, but getting any feedback more specific than "great session!" or, when prompted, "I liked X" and/or "I can't think of any problems" is like pulling teeth. I guess a lot of...

Unfortunately, no clerics have been getting their spells for a while, so there's nobody around to cast true resurrection right now.

Seems to me pretty dang clear that most of the comments in this (six-month-old) thread are about seeing a direct connection between D&D slot machines and trying to fleece money out of children.

I would be extremely surprised if Lanefan has a positive reaction to knowing this, as IIRC he does not play 5e and has a skeptical view of many things it does. Might be better to give examples from one of the TSR editions.

I very much disagree. It is not FF. It's simply a thing wearing FF's skin. Like if someone used a roll as a pretext to nerf a particular battle when it ceased to be going in the direction the rails required. Such a thing isn't a "morale check"--even if one can make a case that it resembles...

Okay. That...doesn't really answer the question I asked. Why is this thing getting the constant chary eye, while the other gets a pass because you know there's a problem and you're working on it?

The best usage of SCs--which I have actually seen, from real GMs, including one who was running his very first 4e campaign with almost exclusively old-school experience prior, great campaign, still miss it--recognizes that a spectrum of possibilities, from the hardest of hard failure to the...

Okay. How much leeway am I permitted for developing advance information? Very very little in DW (which is the specific PbtA game I'll be building this from, since it's the one I've run for several years and know best) ever occurs without preceding context. The only thing that doesn't occur with...

You seem to be mistaken. I am not talking about extending infinite charity to players. I am talking about giving a charitable interpretation to other posters here, and to the rules of games you neither play nor even actually know. If I were to approach the "traditional-GM" "sandbox-y"...

Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't really get the issue. Like, to turn this around the other way: The books themselves for "traditional-GM" gaming, namely OD&D and 1e, contain some things which explicitly tell the GM to do some crappy, crappy things. There's no need for interpretation; it's...

...the context is massively, ENORMOUSLY important for what possible consequences might result from failing to pick a lock. I thought that was something everyone here agreed upon. Was I mistaken? If you're trying to infiltrate a thieves' hideout, the kinds of consequences which might arise from...

Doesn't a DM who posits a healthy, functional "wealthy person's country estate" necessarily posit the existence of the many, many servants required to maintain such a thing...? I don't understand how this isn't just "DMs should do prep work". Seems completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand.

Well, that would be completely contradictory to some of the things I know @pemerton said in this very thread, where he spoke of the importance of character-development moments that are not high-octane pulse-pounding mile-a-minute action. It seems to me that you are thus committing more or less...

"We could argue, but let's just agree I'm right." How about...no? Like I know you're genuinely trying to be peacemaker here, but your suggestion means asking us to simply surrender the point to you--simply agreeing that there's a difference without any evidence or discussion. That's not really...

Exactly. As with many of these things, and as I previously noted with the assassin example or with the lock example, we care about the context and intent. Failing to pick a lock does not, necessarily, mean "you literally just cannot get through this door, period, no matter what". With both...

Do you remember when I said, previously, that it was very frustrating that you instantly defaulted to the most anti-charitable reading possible, and then stuck to it even when others had (repeatedly) told you that that was not accurate? This is that approach occurring again. It would be worth...

And yet in so doing, as noted, you have disregarded what both of them actually SAID. Forgive me for hoping that a conversation involves listening to the words people do, in fact, use.