Search results

I think the difference in the actual rules would mean that there would be big changes. But wth that in mind, you can use a very similar mindset.

So why is it unwelcome to you? What exactly on those lists would actually prevent you from running the way you like to run? What on those lists are you not already doing as a GM?

They don't get the XP and +1, but aren't otherwise punished or hindered.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that there are no actual walls that don't also exist in D&D.

In Root, there's Plead With A PC, in which you get to ask another PC to do something, and if they agree, they clear 1-exhausiton. In Masks, there's Provoke Someone. If used on a PC, you can either add a Team to the Pool if they agree, or cause them to mark a condition if they refuse (or both...

I wasn't talking about Traveller or Pendragon. Although considering how old both those games are, it's no wonder they didn't think about player consent.

So: As a GM, you're (generic you're) going to act certain ways. But also, you don't want to see those ways written down. This makes no sense. OK, look at the GM role, principles, agenda, etc., from Dungeon World. Just about every single thing here is something that's done in standard...

I don't think Micah is running sandboxes.

In Monster of the Week, there's a move called Manipulate Someone. It can be used on another PC. If the manipulator succeeds on their roll, the target PC can choose to agree to be manipulated. If they agree, they get an XP and +1 forward. If the manipulator fails, the target PC gets an XP if they...

No, these are completely different things. Having a penalty to a roll is not the same thing as being forced to act in a particular way, nor does it force a narrative. Among other things, you aren't being forced to attack them or anyone else. You could literally just say "you're too annoying to...

Because they're new to you. Because if you actually read the books thoroughly, you'd see they aren't actually restrictions, and they're certainly not any different from what a D&D GM does. What they are is a description of your role as GM, codified in a way that previous games rarely did...

They're still not morale checks, and as I said, the game itself says to limit how they're used in fantasy genres.

But you aren't forced to take that trait.

While I'm sure there are narrative systems it's possible to game--it's probably quite possible in Daggerheart, since I'm sure some abilities are going to be stronger or weaker than others, although I haven't really explored that--I have a hard time seeing how you can even do that in, say, a PbtA...

Sort of. In that yes, because 5e is doesn't require targets to act in specific ways and yes, there's the implication that something has happened because it's called "Vex" and not "Cause Disadvantage On Target's Next Attack", but no, it's not mind control and it doesn't force the PC or NPC to act...

Apparently the Conan-Doyle estate holds (or held until very recently) the rights to the "nicer" or at least more emotional Sherlock and thus other people could only use the cynical version. https://www.ign.com/articles/why-sherlock-holmes-can-finally-smile

Sure. There are fear checks--which are pretty much limited to effects caused by creatures and magic, at least in fantasy games--but that has nothing to do with anything because they're not morale rules that force PCs to stop a battle because they rolled badly.

Every game is full of rules that bind how the GM acts. The game tells you how to run an encounter, how to give out treasure, how to set up challenges, all to show what is and what isn't fair. You're just used to it so it's become invisible to you.

You keep bringing up one bad example (instead of all the good examples that can be found by googling it, which you claim to have done), and you're saying I'm sealioning? Yeah, no. (Also, sealioning is constantly harassing people for evidence... which is what you're doing by constantly...

He's saying "don't have degrees of success, just make it easier."