Search results

I have lost considerable PC time because my wife and daughters are obsessed with this game. I think they're on Day 40-something right now; I don't think they found Room 46 yet.

Assuming I don't have pre-knowledge of the type of encounters that might be coming, a 1st and a 3rd. One cast of shield/absorb elements/silvery barbs for emergencies, and you tend to get the most bang for your buck from 3rd level slots. If you do have some idea of upcoming encounters, than...

If I recall correctly, deeds were pretty common for DCC Fighters; you start out with a 1/3 chance of a deed if you hit, and it goes up to 2/3 (I think, can't remember if the deed die goes up to d6 or something higher). Maybe tie it to the die roll, such that any even roll that's a hit is a deed?

Yea, I would agree with this. The source of the setting notes isn't nearly as important as the fact that those notes can be asserted in play as a mechanic for resolution. But I would also clarify that I generally find an extant campaign setting more palatable for my own play style over a pure...

I really think the vital distinction between these playstyles is that for the "living world" proponents, what the DM works on and creates outside of the game space, in the time between table sessions, has its own authority and agency. The DM is allowed (and expected) to assert the authority of...

Agreed. I think a major part of the definition of a sandbox is not just the possibility, but the expectation, that the PCs will start in a place, and be presented with various options as to possible paths to follow, with various degrees of clarity. The most basic sandbox imaginable would be a...

Honestly, making up some exotic lore to justify weird results is one of my favorite parts of DMing. It's one of the main reasons I like to keep my campaign setting so loose.

I've 100% seen it play out in real life, most specifically in 3e. I remember vividly having two wizards and a cleric bring the warrior and rogue to a safe place for a tough fight because we didn't have the slots to spare to buff them to keep them upright. And this was at level 12.

You said it yourself. For a living world game to exist, the setting notes must occasionally thwart the PCs. Otherwise the notes don't actually mean anything! If a guard has been given the trait "Unbribable" in the notes, then the PC has to not be able to bribe the guard. That's the point of...

When a definition of something starts getting overly broad, I generally find it useful to try and define by exclusion. What sort of games are absolutely NOT a sandbox? Off the top of my head, a one-shot of something like Fiasco or Dread is not a sandbox. Pretty much any CoC game example I can...

I've said this in other threads on the topic, but I feel like that if you're interested in presenting the "living world" aesthetic, it's actually crucial that the DM will sometimes negate resolution based on pre-determined aspects of the campaign setting. A "living world" game that is...

Conservative and skeptical, not ignorant. We already established that yesterday. :) Mazel tov to you and your wife, by the way.

Fortunately, dice do a pretty good job preventing those sort of situations from occurring. Although it would be a little weird to bribe enough guards during a campaign to get a statistically significant sampling of guards’ openness to bribery. :)

If you don't view having a traditional monogamous long-term marriage as being temperamentally "conservative", then I agree that we're using the word very differently.

That's fine. I have no desire to argue definitions. I'm still going to continue to use the word, though, especially since it's the thread topic.

Sure, but they aren't being used to protect anyone from malevolent actions. They are there to prevent someone from tripping and falling into the Grand Canyon, or driving off the road while looking at your phone for a new podcast episode (example 100% not personal). :)

Sure. The former is "stubborn", the latter is "conservative".

Considering "guardrails" generally exist in the real world to prevent people from having accidents, that doesn't seem correct to me.

All you're doing is simply a defense of a conservative mindset when it comes to roleplaying game choices. Why not just embrace being who you are? If the label "temperamentally conservative" somehow offends you, I'm sorry for that. I'm temperamentally conservative about all sorts of things...

Honestly, this reminds me of the "player agency" thread from a few years back, in which everyone sort of assumed "player agency" (much like "player-driven) was an obvious virtue in play. It isn't. Plenty of games benefit from being less player-driven or having less player agency.