Search results

I’m not saying that I’ve never seen this. I’m just saying that it’s easily addressed without abandoning what is otherwise an interesting portion of the game. Just “no rolls made before the GM calls for a roll count” or similar pretty much gets the job done. Show the player how others are...

But do you see my point, Max? Or do you just want to keep trying to be technically right?

Again, I think this is mostly just semantics. My point is it’s not problematic in a game where it’s an expectation. And if loss of control of my character is a consequence of my actions, it’s hard to define as a situation where I had no agency.

Again… sounds like a GM problem. Or maybe a combo of that player and GM. This isn’t generally a problem in the games I’ve run or played in. I think the dice are a better randomizer. I think movies and novels are a good indicator here. I find in character dialogue to be a bit limiting, much...

I think you’ve missed the point. If you have “that guy” pushing for a roll without doing anything to inform the fiction, then you tell him no, don’t roll. Or you say “without making an argument of some kind, the DC will be 25” or “without making an argument, you’ll roll with disadvantage”. I’m...

Yes… that’s my point. If I say that modern conventional wisdom should be X, where X is something fr games you consider narrativist, you would argue against it. You’d remind me that it’s all preference and there shouldn’t be one way to do things. But if the conventional wisdom from 25-30 years...

I find the idea that you don't care about standards beyond your own game to be dubious given the nature of the majority of your posts. But having more than one way is an improvement. It's not the actual methods that were being compared in @TwoSix 's comment, but rather the number of methods...

A standard would be one true way... which given your tendency to rail against that... or even prescribed methods in many cases... I would think you would view the move past one true way as progress. No?

Right, but we’ve moved past the point where there is a conventional wisdom about this. Because the conventional wisdom aligns with your preferences, perhaps you're not seeing the issue. It’s not that incorporating social mechanics is better than roleplaying everything freeform… it’s that we’ve...

Isn't that the point? That there isn't necessarily conventional wisdom to be offered? That we've moved past the point where the “purpose of a role-playing game” is a bunch of in-character dialogue and thespianism. That there are other ways to do it would seem to me to be progress. We've moved...

Yes, they are. That's what makes them negative. It's the definition of the word. If it's a part of the game, and it's a known risk that the player is aware of, then it's kind of silly to say it's a loss of agency. Like if I'm playing hockey, and I slash one of the opposing players, I get...

I offered one not too long ago in a thread that touched on this topic. In Stonetop, there is a playbook called The Heavy. They're a fighter type character, and in this case, the player had selected a background option that the character was marked by the runes of Tor, the god of the storm...

Yes, we know. Yet others may find it desirable to do so. That you don't is both clear and also irrelevant to that. And that concern persists despite the many of us who use such rules telling you that it is not the case. It's not something you're going to try, and you're not going to change...

I think that when it comes to player loss of control of character… whether as a result of some kind of supernatural effect like magic or dragon fear or mind control, or via more mundane means like persuasion or strong emotion or whatever… is something that each game handles in its own way. I...

There's been plenty of antagonism in this thread. I've been responsible for my share of it... as has just about everyone involved. My point was not just the antagonism. It's the antagonism combined with ignorance. If I genuinely don't know something, I don't try to tell those who seem to know...

Oh, I’m not surprised by that at all. I’ve never played that way, even in the AD&D days. Sometimes you have to discuss things as players and you should do so. I think it’s good to remind players to make that distinction at times. Amazingly, the confusion was all on the part of folks who...

Maybe read the whole book is my point. It adds context throughout. Maybe the rest of the text will help you recognize why your reading of that one section is off. Because that’s kind of the point of the thread. How could D&D do things differently. How is this not clear at this point? This...

Read the book for yourself and then at least your opinion will have weight. I don’t think anyone has said that. I know what I’ve explained to you is that this thread is about the conservatism of D&D fans and by extension, the game itself. So… again… it seems perfectly reasonable to look at...

That's what you think, huh? That when Vince and Meg Baker wrote Apocalypse World, that they said "we need some marketing phrases that can be used in online discussion" rather than "we need to provide a list of useful guidelines to playing this game"? Not that they just tried to write the game...

In the game in question, there wasn’t really any option to negotiate their action declarations. The issue was a cliff that they needed to climb, and I provided all the relevant info, including DV and the consequence on a failure. They knew all this before they rolled. The point of sharing it...