Search results

Well, no, you don't need strong excuses. You just need to play the "well, that's what fantasy looks like" card. Tolkien designed Middle Earth around certain assumptions - race had nothing to do with biology. They were allegories. And, frankly, fantasy kept those allegories, even when they...

No, this is exactly what Hussar is saying. @FrozenNorth has it exactly right. Perhaps, since someone else clearly understood my meaning, it might be you that is mistaken?

And yet, you have zero problem with a method that just says "=100, make up any math you want to so long as it equals 100". And then claim that this is simulation. :erm: That's what I just don't get. If method matters, and I agree that it does, then why do you have no problems with systems...

One thing I loved in the old Scarred Lands setting was their elf concept of the Forsaken. The god of the elves had been killed in the creation of the setting. Killed in front of many elven witnesses in fact. Which meant that the current elven population was the last. They could no longer...

You straight up said that you would change an encounter because the party deviated from your expected path, had more encounters than you thought they would have, thus the final encounter would be too difficult. IOW, you are absolutely changing things because of completely unrelated events. If...

Hey, I'm not the one claiming it. You don't need to convince me. But, apparently, adjusting encounters on the fly is perfectly in keeping with traditional play. Removing baddies from an encounter because the party is too weak due to them taking on extra encounters is perfectly in keeping with...

Honestly, this is why I've pushed back so much in this thread. Over and over again, we see claims about how "traditional" gaming is done. Which, when you actually dig down a bit, is no different than how anyone else does it. It looks more and more like "traditional" just means "stuff I like".

So, you change the game world for meta-game reasons. The only reason you are changing this encounter is because of totally unrelated things that the PC's did. LIke I said, I'm really confused now since you have insisted repeatedly that this is something you refuse to do. You would never...

But, is there any difference between that and changing a monster's HP? Or modifying any of the numbers? Since, after all, I'm being told, again repeatedly, that this is perfectly fine and in keeping with traditional play. But, apparently, doing it for any other reason than "The DM feels like...

Like I said, it's a distinction without meaning. The DM is changing/adding/subtracting things from the setting. We're all doing it for the same reason - to make the game more interesting. Claiming that one method "doesn't work" for traditional play while doing pretty much exactly the same...

That's been my point all the way along though. I'm not the one insisting that setting changes cannot be done. Of course they are done. We all do them. Everyone admits that we do. I just find the distinction that some justifications for changes is acceptable and others aren't. It's okay to...

I guess, at the end of the day, I find the distinction between "improvise when things go an unexpected direction" and "modify scenarios in order to move the game forward" to be largely nonexistent. Change is change. Why you do the changes, whatever justifications happen to float your boat, are...

Oh, I don't know. Could be the endless complaints about adding in a cook to a kitchen. 🤷 Or maybe the endless complaints about players trying to add things to the setting. 🤷 I mean, if improvisation is a critical skill for a sandbox and for simulation, then, suddenly, all those meta-game...

And, frankly, again, there's a million ways to bias an encounter. Just off the top of my head: Do monsters "focus fire" - each monster uses all its attacks on a single target or do they spread out? Do monsters use tactics? Do monsters fight to the absolute last HP or do they run...

That's the point though. The disappearance of the elves is an established fact of the setting. Fair enough. It's not in flux. It's a fact of the setting, same as... Waterdeep exists in the Sword Coast. Once it's established, it's no longer in flux. But, that's not the issue is it? No...

It might not be irrational or hypocritical, but, it is pretty thin. After all, it's not like the DM is asking permission beforehand. I seriously doubt any DM in their session 0 straight up tells the players, "Hey, from time to time, when I feel it's appropriate, I'm going to fudge die rolls...

I suppose. I think that answer's a bit convenient though. "Everything is in flux, except for the things I don't like to be in flux" is hardly a very satisfying axiom for game design. See, I have zero problem with the idea that everything is in flux up to the point where it is introduced to...

See, on the issue of fudging - it's more nuanced than simply changing die rolls. I mean, I've been playing online with VTT's for about 25 years now. Not only are all my rolls in the open, but the players can see status bars showing how close to death something is. I can't just whack on more...

Heh. Funny how things are "in flux" before initiative is rolled, but, changing setting elements is off limits. How can things be in flux and carved in stone at the same time?

And, really, that's not even the connotative meaning in context. "relatively decent time" is pretty much the denotative meaning of a campaign. Typically differentiated from one shot or single adventure (which might be a couple of sessions long, but, isn't really meant as a campaign). So...