Search results

The Mothership Warden’s Manual. It’s notD&D, but it’s the most practical and applicable GM’s guide I’ve seen.

Asking people to explain is not refusing to accept. It's interesting how such a simple question has evoked such a strong response. It's because it highlights what's happening at the table. Okay. Like I said, you can use whatever word you like. Well, regardless of the daily encounter, it...

Why would you not accept other peoples’ verbiage? Isn’t that just actively trying to not understand them? I said I understand your use of the word encounter. I do think there’s something interesting to come from examining it, that’s all. All I’ve asked is not to expect me to use it in the same...

You can use whatever term you like. I follow what you mean in this sense. I think questioning the usage is interesting because it reveals a lot about the expectations of D&D play. I don’t think so. I think that D&D views interactions with NPCs or the environment as being encounters. This is a...

No apology needed! I only pointed it out so any continued back and forth would make sense. I think it’s more about the “bypassed encounter” which is a bit of an odd way of looking at it. It’s more a “potential encounter”, and people seem to be shortening that to just encounter. It’s that...

Yes, very much. Spire uses many of the principles of GMing that you find in Apocalypse World and similar games. It doesn’t have a formalized way of handling threats… no Fronts or Countdowns or the like… but it otherwise expects the GM to perform similarly.

Again, I think this makes sense for a certain approach to play. When I ran Mothership, this may have applied to some extent. There would be random encounters as the PCs made their way about the space station where they were based, and also when they were on other planets. There were some planned...

You’ve mistaken me for @pemerton . I’m simply offering a slightly different take to perhaps bridge the gap. I don’t think “encounters” is a universal term in RPGs. I know what it is for some games, but I’d also say there are games for which the term doesn’t really make as much sense...

Is it? Do you think this situation was written down ahead of time? With boxed text and a statblock? Or do some games work differently such that the idea of bypassing an encounter is an odd way to view things? Bypassing, to me, implies something set… something that’s already established...

No, I understand what he said. Why does he need to defend his playstyle preferences to? Why would anyone feel that need? What I'm saying... and this probably applies to you, as well... is that when someone identifies so closely with a thing they view a criticism of the thing as a criticism of...

Micah, is there anyone involved in this thread at this point that you really feel has any doubt about your preferences? You point them out routinely. No one is attacking you. That your thinking aligns so closely with a specific approach to play doesn’t mean that criticism of that form of play...

Constraints are necessary. You clearly agree based on your opening “some limitations are necessary”. It’s not “rhetoric”… it’s just a simple truth. No one said “all constraints are good”, so there’s no need for you to disagree based on that. So why not go seek out threads that you think will...

First, I’m not claiming to be non-confrontational. I don’t mind if the discussion gets a bit heated at times. It’s part of what to expect when people talk about this stuff. I’m responding directly to an indirect criticism. I am confronting the person who made the criticism. Second, my use...

“Rhetoric”? Do you really disagree that constraints are necessary? Considering this thread does not appear to be a casual conversation, and considering that you continue to contribute to it, mostly with confrontational posts, I’d consider the idea that maybe you’re not really looking for...

I think you may have misread his post. He changed his decision so that the PC was not killed by the critical hit.

I don’t know, Max… read his account and decide for yourself. I read it, and I know how I view it.

I’m not sure what you mean here but I’m reasonably sure it doesn’t pertain to what I said. Are they self-imposed? Look at @Enrahim’s example where as GM he was ready to honor the dice but then changed what he did based on his players’ dissatisfaction. It’s hard to look at that example as...

The two examples I gave were honoring player rolls and honoring GM prep. You said such things should be “suggestions”. I don’t agree. That doesn’t make my response a bad faith argument. Maybe look at what you wrote next time and consider the possibility that it may not be as clear as you think...

It’s nothing like what you describe, Rob. I’m not trying to trick anyone. In every RPG, the GM operates with some form of constraint. Different games use different constraints, but each game has them. They’re what defines the role of the GM and the authority of the GM. You can disagree with...

You think that honoring rolls should just be a suggestion? Okay, I guess.