Search results

I think there's several factors at play. 1) The system doesn't incentivize downtime, or give a penalty for not taking it. Which makes the neutral state of play "just keep adventuring". 2) The system doesn't have granular growth of character capability outside of leveling. It should be...

Tasslehoff is a pretty solid exemplar of the trope. I think another possible framing for an "Everyman" class would be "what would a race-as-class for human look like?"

Because telling a group of 5-6 people who all show up with shiny new 5e books "Actually, we're going to play this game X, which you've never heard of" is a social challenge. Certainly one I've failed in the past.

That seems to me to be the logical progression of the background narrative for pretty every system and GM style out there. Nothing there to dispute.

That would be difficult to do. Because he’s dead. Unless you were imagining he’s alive? :)

It’s perfectly reasonable to be annoyed at Faolyn for making critical statements about your GM calls for a system she knows absolutely nothing about.

I think it’s great fun myself; I like looking at fantasy maps and playing all sorts of top-down simulation games, so it’s right up my alley. But I would also agree that it’s not important to driving play at the table; at best, it just makes me slightly happier when I’m DMing.

What’s really odd about is that it’s gone from “I don’t like the ways these rules work” to “I don’t think you GMed this right, because of my personal view of how psychology works”. Which is quite a change in focus!

What’s the counter argument? Should RPG design be done by emotional intuition? On vibes?

You do realize, in absolutely standard English, something being the priority doesn’t mean that it’s the only thing that matters?

Why can’t you just say “In a living world sandbox, the setting is the priority, and that’s a good thing”?

Dude. Did you seriously turn to "hit points" for an example of a simulationist model? Hit points? Solid joke. 9/10. You almost got me.

Micah said this a few pages back. A table does not make a decision. A person reading the table does. If you make a setting with a powerful king as an antagonist, the king is not the causal agent of sending assassins after the PCs. The DM is, even if the DM is using impartial mental...

Sometimes people will be too scared to kill someone, sometimes they won't be. Hmm. If only there was some way to resolve such uncertainties!

I mean, are you simply arguing that a lot of people without agendas and principles? The DM just says "Well, this feels good, let's do that?" That's definitely true, but that doesn't leave a whole lot of play to examine!

There’s never one true way. But it’s there’s no sense of boundary as to what a “sandbox” is, then it’s a fairly useless term.

You made the decision to not have orcs in your fantasy setting. That’s not a judgment. It’s not a normative statement. It’s just a trivially obvious statement of truth.

If some sandboxes have DMs who shape aspects of the setting around player decisions, and other sandboxes have DMs who don’t do that, than the obvious conclusion is that “shaping the setting around player decisions” is not an intrinsic quality of sandboxes.