Search results

At the time, I was going to buy it regardless. At least it was a good read, which an instruction manual for brand-new GMs would not have been.

Let me get this straight: if in my game the active PCs are not the most special, unique, and important beings in the setting, my play is wrong and I should just "write a novel"? Do I understand that correctly?

It does as far as I can see.

I want the setting to be the focus, with the players exploring it, including NPC interaction, through their PCs. How many times have I said this? If for you it's all about telling the story of the PCs, have fun. But that's not the way I most enjoy RPGs.

Maybe not, but I learned to DM via Metzer's Basic and Gygax's 1e DMG. Not a new DM, so a book primarily aimed at them is not a very efficient purchase for me.

Then why does it, particularly in the runes example?

But then your explanation regarding MotW seems rather specious, don't you think? The real reason for all of it is what you just said, a clear narrative marker. And a good reason why I didn't and don't like it.

Then why are PCs special and unique in all the other PbtA games?

Do you think deciding to read something should in itself determine what that something means?

@The Firebird explicitly claimed his statements as personal opinion. Turns out we're all allowed to do that, even if other people don't agree with those opinions or think them harsh. At no point were they claiming it as fact. I'm sure you disagree with a lot of my opinions, especially about...

Fortunately for me, what I wanted from the 2014 DMG was a worldbuilding guide, because its by far my favorite part of the game.

Read my reply. I explained how that could work in a way that is both mechanically sound and verisimilitudinous. Just use different DCs, or distance in one direction or another from the target to generate varied results.

For the record, labeling the issues some folks have with presentation of material as "idiosyncrasies" comes off as demeaning, at least to me. Like only mechanical results really matter.

If the roll is to determine success or failure at a specific test, as many if us believe it to be, then yes, it absolutely is a violation of the integrity if the roll. Just one you don't have a problem with.

I guess the question is what constitutes "all of 5e"? Just the two versions WotC put out? Other games that use the 5e rules?

I thought a structure had to be built for defense to be considered a castle.

Wasn't the whole issue that PbtA doesn't have "you just fail" as an option?

Wouldn't you be the one to answer that question?

This is why we play different games. The one would feel like the other to me.

In my version you can get skill specializations in skills with which you aren't proficient. So you are proficient in the specialty, but not the whole skill.