Search results

Really nice list. For me all of these except (1) and (6), and (7) are ok. (1) Is bad for obvious reasons; (6) has too high probability, and (7) is weirdly dependent on player action. I'll add 13: Fail forward quantum: if the players gather herbs and get a result of 7-9, they encounter an...

Improvise. I've explained my position at length in earlier posts. Even when I I explicitly tell you I'm not sayng something, you continue to characterize my views as such. So I'm not interested in explaining them to you again. You can check my post history in this thread if you'd like.

I mean it makes it so the actions I describe would be more "hunting" actions than they would in a fixed world game. I play the mechanics more than I would otherwise because as long as I hit 10, everything is gravy. Not every action can be reduced to that but in general I find it less organic...

Well, no. You could listen at the door or try to get the work schedule ahead of time or ask (or coerce) the night watchman if anyone came in at an odd hour or send a druid to scout in advance or scry or smell if anything is cooking...in short there are a lot of choices you could have made to get...

Here, meaningful decision making. If they exist beforehand than a different decision can bypass an obstacle. If they only exist after the roll, then my choices weren't so important -- the roll was.

I did not say this. I would not run it like this. This is also not my position. The reason I adopted the "mean between two extremes" language was to reject this idea that I don't like improvisation, so I am disappointed that it is being characterized this way. (unless you mean someone else by...

What? There is no explicit connection and that is the point. The world exists independently of the players. In the failed die roll case, the encounter exists only because the players failed. It is entirely dependent on the players.

I'm fine with a failed roll alerting her if her existence was decided prior to the roll. I'm not fine with the roll failing and the DM saying "hmm, it's a kitchen, I guess a cook is involved". Is the estate in question actually defined enough that the GM knows where the map is? That would...

I think that's true for some older mods, but it's not universal, and I prefer ones where it is not the case. That said, even if there is an endless supply, the existence or nonexistence is still fixed--occurring with a fixed probability--rather than depending on an unrelated skill roll. Yeah...

My apologies; you're right. I do find the monsters perceiving light as a threat to be plausible, though. Not for every monster, but in enough cases for it to matter. I guess the system could grade monsters by type for more realism but I think that's a reasonable concession to gameability. No.

I was responding to your point about light making the targets more visible.

Yes, certainly.

"Is fudging ok if my players can't tell", and more at 11. I'd suggest they find a different table; our styles aren't compatible. I disagree, for reasons that I've described at length by this point.

How so?

Yes, of course. For me, she is involved. She is in the house somewhere, and that will determine the consequences of the players actions. This sums up my main problem with the approach. It makes everything dependent on the rolls rather than player choices. For a bad roll, the complications can...

We discussed this already...it is better if there is an explicit connection between this and the result. For example, if the failed check causes noise and this attracts the cook, then that's an improvement. However, it doesn't address the core issue of the cook's existence being predicated on a...

Not in the Aristotelian sense. This is different from me saying they are morally wrong. But yeah, if I played a game with a DM who improvised everything, after I would say something like "X was a poor GM. You could tell they were making it all up on the fly and it felt like my choices didn't...

We weren't talking about that case. But let's examine it...it looks something like "bad lock pick => time spent => random encounter roll => cook". Here, there is some connective tissue between the bad lock pick and the cook appearing--the bad check meant we spent a lot of time and triggered a...

This is not a correct criticism of my position. I don't mind that the DM is making things up. I mind if they do so in a manner which prevents my choices from being meaningful.

It's not the same because the cooks location does not depend on the players lockpicking skill.