Search results

I sorta feel like if this were some random post, it would have had an infraction for edition warring (style warring?).

I consider the game to be the GM's game. It is up to GM to set rules that are used, balancing game, theme - all of that - so sure. I'd shoot down a character that was "legit" I played HERO for decades - it's a point based system that can be very unbalanced - so generally all the balance came...

These would be great for 1 Player 1 GM - take a couple sidekicks as secondary characters, and the PC - they are more streamlined, so easier to build and keep track of.

For me - as a "Feel what my character feels" immersionist - The more details and consistent the rules are the more I immerse. The system that gives me best immersion is Hero 5th. No rule for the specifics of genre or particular setting - but knowing the system as well as I do, I don't ever have...

I read that one as B.A's player saying at the start of the game "I'm gonna play a combat monster who's sort of stubborn and obnoxious - you guys figure out ways to get to go along for the fun of it" - and then the players had fun trying to see how they could outdo themselves over the last time...

Given that player agency was the thing that caused my negative reaction.. this would be perfectly fine to me.

I read your initial post differently - this isn't something that I would be comfortable with... but it isn't a deprotagonizing as I originally thought.

We play very different games. My group (which admittedly has been together for 20 years) never does PvP in combat or in social skills. It is understood when a game is created that the PCs want to be heroes (we tend towards superhero and high fantasy) - so that kind of stuff doesn't happen. As...

I agree it happens, but it should NEVER be the result of a die roll of one player vs another - it's between the players and characters. That is what takes it out of roleplaying - the Barbarians player is not being allowed to roleplay his character the way he envisions him. Maybe that has social...

I don't know if that is a typo, but it is perfect roll playing to make the character/player do what the charismatic guy wants, but bad roleplaying.

But social contract trumps role-playing, in my opinion. Making this player do something he doesn't want to do because of skill and "roleplaying" is no better than the CN jerk who screws everything up and says "I'm just roleplaying my character". Who knows - maybe the Barbarian had a situation...

In my opinion the play has complete control of his character's choices unless affected by mind control/charm kind of spells. To me using a skill (even a social skill) to influence another character is tantamount to using combat skills (like swinging a sword) at that character. Personally If I...

That is a good point. I had a fantasy world that I ran from 77 through 2000 or so - used the same world, through multiple systems and campaigns - the events of previous games became the history of the next. So yeah, I had serious ownership of that world. :) I have an uncommon situation where...

One big thing is fairness. The rules of the campaign are set up at the beginning and DM and players agreed to it. Say everyone at the table (but one) hates dragonborn (for whatever reason) - so dragonborn are banned from the game (the one guy who likes them thinking "oh, I can play one in a...

:) That was just to indicate how different a feel it had than normal expected D&D settings, so yeah. I hadn't seen what you referenced when you posted, so cool you mention it. While I argue the "power of the DM" - in my own games I tend to allow just about anything in - I use a lot of third...

I'll admit I'm on the side of the fence that thinks the phrase DM entitlement is a non-sequitur, because putting those limits on is something I consider part of the GMs job (especially if it is non D&D game, Like HERO or GURPS that can easily be abused). But I do agree with you about...

Dragon 7 Giant 8 Undead 1

You know, you are right, I didn't specifically answer the question as asked. My answer would be "Because it is the DMs job to create his world from the material provided, and it is not incumbent upon the DM to include anything published that does not fit his world, in fact doing so may be...

I find the question and how it is phrased interesting. In some ways it's like the question is backwards - the world, and the game at the table is the GMs, and the rules are a tool for the GM to create the game. The question should be, in my opinion is "why do players expect a GM to use all the...

Which is exactly what I would expect from this kind of D&D book, with no ties to M:tG