Search results

Boring is, of course, relative. We're all welcome to ignore or abstract away what ever parts of play we don't find fun.

What do you consider "effectively said"? Delusional was the actual word used. I know I've never used those words to describe the play of others (as far as I remember), just that I feel some ways about some games and feel other ways about other games.

Agreed. I don't see simplicity as a virtue to always be strives for in and of itself. My preference is to have the rules cover as much as is practical to use at the table or in prep. Obviously, that line varies for different players, but I'm a simulationist and can handle a lot of rules.

A bit of an unfair exaggeration of most task resolution mechanics. I mean, an action in modern D&D (even 4e I believe) is six times that long, and older version use 1 minute rounds. How long does making an attack take in your preferred game, for example? On the other hand, I believe Riddle of...

And you wonder why I don't consider 4e all that close to the many other versions of D&D?

Now you are calling people who disagree with you delusional. This is getting increasingly insulting.

You do realize this is, by name, your personal way to play 4e?

Still too narrative-leaming for me, but fair enough.

The GM decided to make the player's hope true in light of the player's successful roll. Sorry I missed that part in this post; I got it the last time I posted about this.

Well, that is what I see gaming as insofar as the style I prefer, so I suppose that makes sense. Your descriptions of play have never really sounded enjoyable to me.

Is @hawkeyefan one of the posters irritating you with their wrong ideas about Narrativist play? If not, I'm not talking about them. And no, personally I don't see 4e as all that close to other versions of D&D, particularly the way you have presented yourself as playing it.

Did the GM decide that the result of the roll was or wasn't a dead orc? Did the player? In the runes example, the player expressed a hope, and the GM decided to make that hope real. They didn't have to. They could have provided some other beneficial result. They chose to make the player's hope...

I accept that is your opinion. I and others have a different opinion. At this point I don't think there's any bridging that gap.

I don't use the terms, "rising action" or "moral line" in my play, and I'm not really sure what they would mean in my games. "Player-initiated" I get.

Are any of the trad-leaning posters here trying to play these games that feature FF and similar techniques? My understanding (which could be wrong) is that there is talk about using such ideas in a more trad game like D&D and its relatives. If so, such techniques would need to be viewed through...

I don't think anyone is objecting to the spirit of what you're saying, but translated to the game, there's no reason any of those consequences have to be connected to the task resolution roll upon which we are basing our arguments. They can instead be handled by other diegetic mechanics, if needed.

The GM is certainly welcome to, if that's the kind of play going on. But it shouldn't IMO be assumed. Firstly, because the game really shouldn't "grind to a halt" due to a bad roll, and if it does it is IMO sn uncommon issue that needs to be addressed in the moment and steps taken to safeguard...

Why would the onus be on the GM? It's the player's choice what to do next.

Shall we set a time when everyone agrees to stop posting at once?

I don't believe it is. You deal with those less direct consequences through other diegetic means. It all still holds up even if you don't bundle everything into one roll.