Search results

Sarcasm aside, I want to, in effect, take something not all that far removed "mechanically" from my normal experience (at least when it starts out), play it in a completely different setting and milieu with different parameters, and see what happens. The personality etc., however, is likely to...

Could be a balance thing - Dwarves have quite a bit going for them including that they're tough (high Con), which would overwrite the great weakness of mages which is their frailty. I've run aground on this in my current campaign. I allowed Hobbit mages - Hobbits in my game also come with high...

Except for the very many times when what makes the most sense is a continuation of the status quo, i.e. nothing happens, which isn't allowed by said rules. And right then is where the overarching question of rules-first or fiction-first rears its head.

So if the established fiction has it that it's about 2 a.m., the house is dark and quiet, the PCs' prior casing of the place has shown there to be no watchdogs or pets, the weather is benign so no chance of sudden downpours or thunder etc., and the Thief blows his pick-locks roll on trying to...

And yet when I said the player can always choose not to climb the cliff you mocked me for it. So which is it - can they choose to bail out, or can they not?

There are, in war, acceptable losses. Obviously you try to minimize them when possible. But having one or more survivors who can regroup and carry on is universally better than having no survivors.

So again, it's a matter of skipping over details and procedure...which would seem to be the very stuff of investigative scenes and situations. If there's no win condition and-or no loss consition, it's not a game. And yes, you can "win" at RPGs in various ways, just like you can "lose" at...

Sigh. We can RP characters doing the smart thing and taking the path of lesser risk and-or resistance to achieve their ends, can't we? My friend needs saving at the top of the cliff. Do I foolishly risk myself climbing so maybe both of us die, or do I do the smart thing and ensure at least...

Or look at Google street-view. That Australians drive on the left is an independently veifiable fact. The verifiable fact here is that Crane wrote what he wrote. We have to assume he had only the best of intentions in so doing. But posting Crane's original words on the topic instead of your...

I'd go with the third one on that list - if they do have to be or become special, at least put it off until they've earned it. :)

Both at once. And it's done by having randomly-generated stats - those who are "born special" have higher stats across the board than the average and quite possibly higher stats then their PC peers. And then the "make something out of it" piece comes in. You can have the highest stats you...

I've always said Barbarian makes a far better species than it does a class.

Some of these kinda match how we do it, others don't: We've used 5d6drop2 forever and it works out OK. Fine with me. :) Those characters tend not to last all that long anyway. The only game I ever played in that used Comeliness saw it become a complete dump stat for every PC except mine, who...

What I saw of skill challenges was that they're fine for high-level fairly quick resolution of things but come at a cost of detail and granularity I'm not willing to pay.

I wouldn't. In a WotC edition, I'd instead rewrite initiative to run on a much smaller die than a d20 and then make each pip on the die a 'segment'. 1e worked this way - 6 segments to a round, and even though it had 1-minute rounds (too long, IMO, but 6 seconds is way too short) you could...

Also the characters would think twice before trying such a risky climb in the first place. Sure my friend might be dying at the top, but if I climb and fall (a very real risk) then instead of one of us dying, both of us die; so maybe it's better that I don't climb now, find another less-risky...

But you can decide not to climb in the first place, and bear whatever consequences that decision may carry.

What you're doing is playing characters in a game where the in-fiction risks and dangers are both real and relevant, as opposed to one where the in-fiction dangers are paper tigers or bluffs. War vs sport, again. I just don't get this take. Did you have fun playing the character up to that...

Sounds like a perfectly good Ahab and the White Whale moment to me.

When the table I'm using is written out on paper, "not having rules at all" no longer applies. I've never watched Matt Colville run a game and I don't intend to; what he does is up to him and has no bearing on what I do. So let me get this straight: by your take here, when the PCs see an open...