Search results

I suggest that you are overstating your case. Many of us seem to enjoy our RPG experiences just fine. Players too, weirdly enough, seem pretty happy to limit their activities to their PCs. That's just us, though. You do you.

Agreed. I'd love to see that game, as a commercial product or otherwise. Diablo II remains one of my very favorite video game experiences.

I think what is being suggested is that, to be comfortable with the fiction and with play, there really should be a fiction of what those runes mean, before someone decides to try to read them.

Yeah, from what I read and the brief amount I played AW provides a fairly specific post-apocalyptic world.

Not really. Preference is preference, and I think it's clear that the goal of changing people's understanding of the rules to align with your own is not working at this point. Why keep banging your head against the wall and instead just accept that people have different opinions about the same...

Agreed. A significant part of my decision not to move on with official D&D was their movement away from historical and mythological concepts.

I'm glad you clarified. That's not what I got from your original statement.

So it's fine for you. You and your players don't have a problem with something other folks do. In short: preference. Why can't we all leave it at that? Does anyone by now not understand?

That's the difference that's being skirted around, IMO. It's not that what we're saying isn't true for us, it's that it doesn't matter to you.

But when was it decided what the runes say? I want that decision made before the roll, ideally before the runes are introduced into active play, and am uncomfortable with it occurring otherwise. It is important to me.

None of those connections should, IMO, affect the roll.

I complain about both things. I'd much we use downtime and training more often, but my players mostly want to, "get to the action" 🙁.

Agreed. I would have much more detail in my games as player or GM if I thought my fellow gamers would let me get away with it.

Ok. But in my games a specific attribute roll is for determining the success or failure of a specific task associated with that attribute, often modified by your knowledge and facility with a skill associated with that specific task (and possibly other circumstances as determined by setting...

Then why is it called, "fail-forward" if it sometimes doesn't mean failure?

I prefer the other way round. When something happens in the fiction, some sort of mechanics need to be there to compliment it.

Agreed. You can make the publisher stance clear without the public service message, and without much removal at all.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that if your players can't get behind the principles of narrative games, you shouldn't play any games at all with them. Or did you mean something else?

Mage Hand Press's Necromancer class from Valda's Spire of Secrets is a better take on the concept IMO. Seen two in actual play so far. It's on DDB from what I understand, but I know they fiddled with a lot of stuff to "update" the book to 5.5 so I do t know if it's still good.

This is what IMO fans of all D&D settings should do: move on from hope of official 1st party content and do their own thing.