Search results

Not just mine, but also the other folks at the table. And it's not about dramatic weight... stop trying to shoehorn the drama angle into things. It's about play that is interesting and has stakes. Have we not all had someone who wants to speak in character to the innkeeper or some other NPC at...

Absolutely. It likely will involve something important between or to the characters, and so it's likely interesting to explore that. Like, the lack of explosions or swordplay doesn't make something uninteresting. "Ask questions and build on the answers" is definitely great advice. I think...

Nothing you're saying has anything to do with what I was talking about. "Lows" and "highs" in the context of this part of the discussion is now about failures and successes. It's about exciting play only being possible (highs) when there are bits of unexciting play (lows) to which we can...

No, I think that an argument that you can't have highs without lows is inherently an argument that for there to be excitement or interesting play there has to be periods of boredom or uninteresting play. What any given person may find interesting or boring will vary, but I think the general...

No, not at all. It's not something I disagree with. It should be applied to every game, I'd say. I just can't support the "highs are nothing without lows" argument that's been made in this thread and many others. It's an argument for boring play. Haven't I already explained? Do I need to do so...

I suggested you give it a try, yes. I didn't say you would "like my way if only you weren't too conservative to give it a try". Listen... I get it if you don't like when people offer advice that you don't think is relevant to the topic. But given the topic of this thread, I just don't see the...

Because it isn't even necessary? I mean, @DinoInDisguise is talking about how the mindset can be applied to any game, and how even a trad game can benefit from it. It's one of the things I incorporated into my trad GMing, and I would say that it's something that's improved my game. The...

I didn’t. You did.

It means “wanting to conserve” or to maintain things as they are. It’s literally what you guys are doing. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Yes, because your attitude toward D&D is conservative. There can still be plenty of uncertainty about play. What I’m talking about are the procedures of play. Make those all transparent… just put it all out there for your players to see. I mean… give it a try some time. I found that it...

I think that's what a lot of this thread has been about, when not getting sidetracked into arguments about definition and so on. I'll offer a piece of advice or guidance that I learned more from the narrativist side of the hobby than the trad side... as a GM, make all the dice rolls in the...

One of the best things about learning other games, for me, has been how it informs my RPGing overall. I think every RPG has things to teach players and GMs.

It doesn't bother me that you use it. It bothers me that you expect others to immediately grasp what you're saying when they don't use the term the same way. Clearly based on the resulting conversation, there are all manner of opinions about how useful a term it is, and if it's just an everyday...

But I enjoy some of the games that you and others here enjoy. I like and play D&D. I like and play other games as well. My point is that some terms simply don't suit all games, which some folks are insisting is the case.

I'd appreciate it more if you just came right out and told me to shut up, Micah.

No, I said I accept and understand your usage. All I have asked is that you accept it doesn't apply to all games or all RPGers. Nothing more needs to be said at this point.

But it doesn’t. The definition from the 5e DMG is different from the dictionary definition. There can be non-combat encounters in a dungeon. There can be non-combat encounters in an adventuring day. You are imagining that I’m saying something I’m not. I’ve now explained this to you four...

I didn’t say it was by you. @AlViking made comments about my motives, so my comment was directed at him. Then you responded to that.

I normally try not to assign motives to others… but when it’s done to me, I’ll do it right back. In this case, I should have also included “can’t” along with “won’t”. Clearly nothing. The word encounter has been used in this thread both as it’s standard definition and as game jargon. Now...

See I think you’ve been confused in how you’ve approached this topic. You said before you were just using the word per its natural language definition. You even quoted the Dictionary at me. Now here, you’re saying that you’re talking about it as a “game term” which I earlier described as...