Search results

Neither am I. :) When someone posts some direct-quoted rules text and that text says X, it's not my fault if I read it as saying X even though the writer may have intended it to be read as saying Y. And this goes right back to day one; Gygax was guilty of this on a far too frequent basis and I...

Nah - if it's remote, I'm out. But get us together in a pub sometime and hells yeah, count me in. Even if we didn't actually play anything, the discussion and arguments would be increasingly epic per beer consumed! :)

While I agree with your point about mechanics being more neutral, I detest rules that work one way for PCs and another for NPCs. I'm a hard-liner in the "it works the same for everyone" camp as I see the PCs as being, at their root, inhabitants of their setting just like everyone else and thus...

With the bolded, I agree. I don't need mechanics to force me to do it. It doesn't play nice with the "no companion left behind" types, but that's no concern of mine. :) Here we've really only got two choices in the end: 1 - rely on player-side good faith, or 2 - take away quite a bit of...

It's the logical flip side to success being defined as all or nothing, in games where "success must always be fully honoured" is a hard-coded guideline.

So, someone who doesn't like something is supposed to just bow out quietly rather than speaking in opposition to that which they don't like? Sorry, but that ain't how discussion works.

My experience with 4e skill challenges comes from the first 4e DMG and from converting some 4e modules to run. Seeing what was put forward as skill challenges in the modules really left me wanting, as I saw tons of opportunity being skipped over for some more detailed play and, thus, more...

Agreed. My issue with such rules is that they're asymmetrical; that they apply to NPCs but not to PCs. Sultion: take those rules out completely so they don't apply to anyone.

How do you square that with Manbearcat's "firehose of adversity" that he often mentions as an aspect of play? 'Cause yes, the way the words read it comes across as the PCs are never supposed to get a moment's respite, which is why those games come across as being stressful to play. As from the...

And we also want their peril to be reduced. As it's not our production to control, we can't do that with a movie or novel; as GMs running games, however, we can. It's a temptation we have to resist; and the easiest means for doing so is to be a detached neutral arbiter rather than a fan of...

When I see "be a fan of the characters" my first thought is that it's quietly advising the GM to, when the chips are down and a character's under serious threat, pull your punches or fudge things such that the character scrapes through; as opposed to just letting the dice fall where they may...

If they don't want things interpreted in ways they don't like then they should write them such that those interpretations can't happen. Taking the 'charitable' approach just opens the door for people to get away with stuff. No thanks.

And yet at the same time succeeded in making the climb he'd just rolled 'fail' on. Thus, a 'fail' was turned by GM fiat into a 'success with complication'; and while this seems to have suited the situation in question at the time, it still doesn't honour that original 'fail' roll. Now had...

I don't think anyone's really suggesting successes shouldn't be honoured. Sure there sometimes might be a complication attached but underneath, a success is and remains a success. The flip side, though, is that failures should also be honoured; and not everyone seems on board with that.

@hawkeyefan gave one not far upthread from his own game, where on a failed roll to climb [something, I forget what] he narrated it as a success: they got to the top only it took longer than it should have.

That may not be what they intend it to mean but it's what comes across in print through use of that phrase.

Not in the way I define "fan", no. A fan is someone who cheers for the team no matter what, and always wants the best for it. If you always want the best for the PCs and yet are also in the position of supplying their opposition, you're in a hard-line conflict of interest. Finding ways to...

Well, yes; if you don't have it listed on your character sheet then your character doesn't have it. And I'd likely port this requirement into a system like BitD as well, to replace its equipment-slot system that (IMO far too generously) allows you to "have what you need" as long as you still...

No. That's why in some leagues the refs have to disclose which team(s) they support, and are then not assigned to work those teams' games or, ideally, games which could overly affect those teams. Only to a point.

And now, just a few minutes leter, it's not working.