Search results

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.

Unlocking things on DM Guild is literally all I want from WotC. That's it.

I believe @Paul Farquhar is looking at the question from the soulless corporation point of view.

Yeah I'm sorry, but 5.0 was not about catering to a new audience, and that's the game that took off in popularity. They started fiddling with it after the boom, not before.

You say that the mode of the story matters, and then proceed to tell me how it doesn't.

A new book in an old setting is meant for fans of that setting. Ask WotC if I'm wrong about that, and see what they say. Let me ask you this: they make new stuff for Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel & DC, etc. Are those meant new people in an old franchise, or for fans of that franchise?

This is excellent support for my, "stop hoping for 1st party content for Hasbro-owned D&D settings and just do your own thing" stance.

I've said I don't personally don't like that kind of play, and don't want it in my games, many times. So have others (@AlViking comes to mind). I'm sorry. I thought that was clear.

It is the former, and yes, in the future I will try not to judge the play of others based on games with different assumptions, provided it is clear to me they are talking about different games.

Quite frankly, we are all welcome to like what we like and talk about what we want to talk about (within guidelines of decency and politeness of course). We are also welcome to respond or not as we wish. I mean, the OP called this a rant. Do you think they weren't expecting pushback?

Bad for us (to my understanding, and certainly for me), in at least those respects. I don't see why this is a problem for anyone.

That is an excellent explanation of why we (or at least I) don't like it. Well done!