Search results

People (including me) have told you that they aren't interested in deeply analysing certain aspects of play, or semantics, or whatever. @zakael19 appears to be telling people that their analysis of their own feelings, when they chose to make one, is invalid, and it is this stance that...

It still sounds like you're trying to help me overcome my problems with your preferred mechanics. But they're not problems in that sense. It's a non issue for me. There is no problem I have that I need your preferred mechanics or playstyle to fix. And for the third time, I already understand...

No, I very specifically said "What some of us find implausible" and not, "This is implausible". I then concluded with an acknowledgement that, "You may not find it so implausible." I don't know how I can be any clearer that I agree it's not objectively implausible and that I understand that...

I understand your example, but I am unclear what point you are trying to make with it. I keep saying that some people don't like the way certain mechanics make them feel about the way the game world works. I also keep saying that I understand that plenty of people don't have that problem with...

Potentially, yes. There are many things it might depend on. That fact that someone who is unhappy with the effect at a certain rate of dice rolling may, potentially, not find it as bad at a different rate of dice rolling, has nothing much to do with the point I was making, however, which is that...

What some of us find implausible (not impossible) is that something interesting happens every time you roll the dice. We can also find it jarring that the interesting thing doesn't necessarily seem connected to the event that triggered the die roll. Sometimes "nothing much happens or changes"...

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. @The Firebird was talking about how the mechanic makes them feel. They never claimed that their feeling was or should be universal or was grounded in some objective reality of the situation. These games rely on our imagination and our feelings. For...

Sure, you can look at it that way. As I've mentioned several times, the things I'm arguing are simply that a single point of failure isn't some dire problem that will inevitably rear it's ugly head in any and every game, that if it does occur and is a problem there are other ways of dealing with...

But if you run a game where it's OK to not find out what's behind the door or in the compartment (which I typically do), then you can just accept the failure and move on.

That sounds pretty reasonable. There are certainly points of commonality (most of us don't like fail forward), but there are plenty of differences. If you want a hard list detailing all the points of similarity, you'll struggle, because one of the things we do all seem to agree on is that we...

I will say, I have disagreed with you very strongly on another point in the past, but your position here is consistent with the line you were holding then. It's clear you hold the events and characters that occur within the game much more sacrosanct than I do.

@EzekielRaiden, I can't help thinking that one of the reason you find this conversation frustrating and confusing is you seem to conflate everyone who disagrees with you into one group as if we're a monolith all thinking the same way. I mentioned a GM speaking up to correct a mistake, but you...

No, Lanefan hasn't said he's infallible. He says the table will play through a mistake because they have a more extreme need for immersion than I do. I find it a bit unusual, but so be it. It does seem to be the case that I placed too much weigh on my own preferences than I should have when...

If @Lanefan is clear and up front about this, the players are on board and Lanefan is competent enough that this is an extremely rare occurrence, seems fine. Not the way I roll, but if it works at Lanefan's table it's fine by me.

You can't see why anyone would value honesty and owning up to mistakes, then fixing them as a group, over trying to hide them for the sake of pretending the world is real? You've tried to cast traditional GM powers as a path to abuse and claiming infallibility, but we've been telling you for...

I don't know. I suggest you find the comments you're confused about and ask the people who made them. Cool.You and I are clearly in agreement on this, then. If no one else disagrees with me, that's great too. Maybe I misunderstood a comment at some point. No, it's not required for the entire...

If you would prefer to imagine me yelling at you for choosing to define something your own way, that's also OK. Go wild. You have a really bad habit of getting upset with people who don't want to argue with you, and trying to cast them as bad people for it. It's really quite off-putting. I've...

It's setting ground rules and a set of shared expectations for the campaign. I've repeatedly stated that I consider a set of clear, shared expectations to be essential to a successful game. If you would like to define that as "interfering with the world in order to create a better story" I...

This is where we diverged. Either I'm running a game where inexperienced adventurers are expected to be able to handle long distance journeys into the wilderness, or I'm not. If I am, then I can't forsee a sequence of events that will create such a dire situation. If a lost map and some bad...

Your scenario appears, to me, to be: A group of seasoned, skilled outdoor survivalists are travelling in the wilderness. They lose their map and, because the map is lost, are now out of options and their survival is going to come down to dumb luck or desperate hail marys. Can they not judge...