Search results

Sure. But the core point remains: even from the very foundation of the hobby, even from the moment that what most folks see as the highest height of ultra-realism, generally-respected folks recognized that overly-laborious focus on realism wasn't actually productive. That there are, in fact...

No. What I mean is, Advantage and Disadvantage was used as the weapon of first resort. As in, it was THE go-to thing for functionally EVERY possible "here's a benefit" mechanic they gave to players. But it was also supposed to be the new GM's Best Friend, AND the new "this situation is helpful"...

And this, right here, is one of the things I find extremely frustrating about discussing game design. Note your comparison: literature. As in, you treat this as a purely creative enterprise, something that can only be critiqued in a very limited way and where analysis is (functionally)...

My favorite 3.5e/PF1e character was actually a monstrous hybrid shenanigan, but quite fun, with every part of the hybrid chosen for its thematic value rather than solely for power. The (brief) summary is, once he hit max level, Wizard 5 (Exploiter archetype, Void school)/Geomancer 10/Archmage...

No. But I expect that this will be a meaningful argument from within their own space that over-occupation with realism is not as productive a goal as some hold it up to be. There are a lot of people who uphold realism as being unequivocally the highest goal, that is, always higher than any...

"Appeal to authority" is only a fallacy if the authority is unsubstantiated. AKA, if I were to site Joseph Schmoe on the subject of double jeopardy in the United States and whether a mistrial will thus result in functional acquittal (due to the constitutional restriction against double jeopardy)...

The problem with this answer is that the limits are actually known, and the only random component is whether the actions will reach the win condition before they reach the loss condition. You know what your HP are, and even folks like Lanefan or Maxperson who very specifically don't tell their...

Well, if I may, there are two unanswered questions here, and a subsequent slightly different conception of this same thing to see if we're paying too much attention to the upholstery without paying attention to the engine, metaphorically speaking. Question 1: Does the player know that the...

While this isn't a bad thing, I can't really say it's that much of a good thing? Like if there are rules and the players have no idea what they are and far too little data to figure them out, I'm not really sure how that's that much different from not having rules at all. The players won't be...

No. An important figure frequently cited for his authoritative perspective on "traditional GM" play and whose name is often attached thereto (e.g. "Gygaxian naturalism"), commenting on the topic with a critical eye toward realism above all else, would be useful. Especially if it is as...

But this assumes that absolutely every "lowlight" moment always informs the next highlight moment, and further that nothing except those "lowlight" moments contributes anything at all. What is far more likely is that any given lowlight may have no effect at all, or some effect, or an awful lot...

Do you have a citation for that? Because God in Heaven that quote would be useful to me!

Just wanted to note that this is an example of something I consider to be perfectly legitimate use of "common sense" and "[GM's] instinct"--not because it's about drama, but because there are guidelines. The rules specify the context and appropriate ranges; the GM is expected to use these...

...since when do stakes matter for this? The one and only reason I argued against Lanefan's original statement was because it did expect players to consistently roleplay each and every shop encounter, every single time, with each and every instance requiring the players to opt out of doing so...

It's not just feeling different. As a child, I was obligated to chew fluoride tablets, unless I opted out. That is still an obligation. It is, in fact, VERY different from "we have fluoride tablets, you may take one each day". "We will do X each time, unless you tell me no" is not, not...

But there can. "You are obligated unless you object" is still forcing people to do something. They have to speak up to not do it. It is expected, unless you get a waiver. As a good example, when I was a child, kids in elementary school had to chew a fluoride supplement each day, unless their...

But, again, those two things are not the same! "We always do X, unless someone says no" is ENTIRELY different from "We can always do X, if someone wants to". Like...let me give this a physical implementation. "We always do X, unless someone says no" vs "We can always do X, if someone wants to"...

Note that the poster corrected the accidental omission of the word "don't", which rather heavily changes the meaning of the text.

And yet that's what multiple people at this point have told me that's what the conversation should be.

How is there any other interpretation of the statement, "I say the default should be to play them out unless the players say not to", other than we play out all the scenes unless the players say not to? For goodness' sake, this is literally the actual words that were said. There is no crazy...