Search results

This reminds me of how I explain the role of IGOs in Global Governance to students. It's like a group of people of equal status (nominally) getting together to play a game of football and choosing one of their number to act as referee. The referee in such a situation has no genuine authority...

I think you are overly focusing on the example I gave here. My point is that you don't need to give the GM power to overrule the rules in the name of the fiction when the rules only give players the permission to do things if they are consistent with the fiction. Also I've found that when...

Ok I'll stay out of it then as I think there's so many things in there that don't necessarily follow from each other that the whole thing could be broken apart.

What is actually at stake here in the argument about how rare bad GMs are meant to be? Now, as in many times in this thread, camps seem to appear without it being actually all that clear what the argument is supposed to be about.

No don't be silly. The guy is calling his players idiots. "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?".

There seem to be an awful lot of posts on reddit that say things like "We couldn't solve the GM's mystery so he said we are all idiots. How should I deal with this situation as he's a good GM?" So I don't think bad GM's are that uncommon - or players who put up with then far more than they should.

It does perhaps from that perspective. I offer it as food for thought - it's not a position I'm committed to. Personally I will have always have a desire for really tight detailed rules.

I feel that in some ways the tightness of a little of rules in many traditional games both restricts the GM heavily (and the players of course) and it is why you have the safety valve that ends up giving the GM the power to override any rules. In a game with more narrative rules (I'm not going...

Sounds pretty much like what I said, mundane, mundane weird and magic. And if in the case of a situation when it is uncertain where something belongs - such as a Fighter surviving a 100 ft fall - how does this help us decide? Is a higher level fighter mundane or mundane weird? There is...

Can a Dragon fly in an anti-magic sphere or a Giant walk? I don't believe it it's that simple. I would have at least 3 spheres, the mundane, the mundane weird, and the explicitly magical. But I wouldn't have these as rules. I don't think you could make a rule to sort everything into these...

I think we need to think of it as more like a collage then a system running on consistent rules. There's certain overlapping circles - one in which real principles like the normal rules of gravity seem to apply - or something somewhat like them at least - and others in which they clearly don't...

You did note I was referring to the context of running a historical game right? I bring this up because I have the strong impression you think I was making some kind of broader statement. I mean obviously I know that mice with swords are unrealistic and that you have to not avoid mice with...

Do I agree that in order to imagine fantasy worlds you need to be willing to imagine things you know are unrealistic? That's what you are asking? I'm going to assume that either you have an actual point you are not stating for some reason or you think I was making some kind of implied point...

What is "this" supposed to refer to?

Yes. Not being realistic is not avoiding the things you know to be unrealistic.

If there is a strength to Free Kreigspiel I think it is less in the approach itself than in the weaknesses of the typical rpg approach. Like if you want to know what are the chances that my character without a background in hunting can catch a rabbit for dinner - a judgment that it's about 20%...

Isn't this missing the option that I though was under-discussion --- override the rule? I mean I think there is a big difference between saying "I'm just going to override this rule" and "This rule is clearly not working - let's agree to change it now".

I tend to think a lot of the issues of this kind are that while NPCs don't have to follow the exact same rules as PCs they should at least feel like they do.

I mean this is the existing rules. This is explicitly how AC is produced already. Take your armour off and attacks that would have been stopped by your armour are now not. D&D has always been very good at simulating two people who stand there hacking away at each others' armour while doing...

That's sort of already implied by the rules already though. There's just not much point spelling it out because it would be another thing to track that doesn't do anything. To make it meaningful you would need to have some rule by which you check to see if you're shield is actually broken.