Search results

I guess they didn't have another good place to put that tidbit. Honestly, all the GM sections there could be spelled out more, with actual guidelines that are useful for the more socially-awkward GMs and players and make for good reminders and tips for the less unsure ones.

That is also true. And, of course, there are non-cheaty ways to get around these issues as well. Like running away. Weak enemies could flee into a area they know well enough to avoid the hazards but the PCs might have problems should they choose to follow. A too-powerful BBEG could leave if...

I'd say technically yes, but otherwise you may have a very bland or far too difficult fight, and neither of those are really good for the game. Even in a game that relies on strict mathematical formulas for determining adversary strength, there's no way to ever be truly accurate since it can't...

"Hidden Die Rolls. Hiding your die rolls keeps them mysterious and allows you to alter results if you want to. For example, you could ignore a Critical Hit to save a character's life. Don't alter die rolls too often, though, and never let the players know when you fudge a die roll." It's in the...

I agree here. In the D&D game I'm in, a couple of weeks ago, another player and I managed to pull off a life-and-day-saving one-two punch that would have been impossible if we hadn't rolled initiative the way we did. Admittedly, the rarity of the setup made this event incredibly cool, but it...

Imagine you're in an adventure and there's a monster between you and your goal. The GM expects you to kill the monster, but instead you decide to negotiate with it or even befriend it. In a linear adventure, the GM will be OK with that. In a railroad, the GM will do their darndest to make you...

Not really, because a railroad only happens if you try to step off the path and aren't allowed. If you can go and do something different, but choose not to, it's not a railroad. Your Star Trek example is probably an example of a railroad (at the least, it certainly sounds like the GM had a scene...

Except for the ones who do because the players have no one else to GM for them, who don't realize that no D&D is better than bad D&D, or have no idea that the GM is bad. The Geek Social Fallacies are a thing for a reason.

The issue got fixed because we had a player who had no problems being loud and angry at the GM for not letting him play his character the way he was supposed to be played. The rest of us? More "table polite." I like to think that if his player hadn't been there, we would have stopped the GM at...

Except for all the people it helps.

As I said elsewhere, to accept that the runes mean what the player wants them to mean also means that the player has decided on the nature of the runes' creators and how these runes would even exist in the first place. If these are neatly carved, official-looking runes that mark the exit, then...

Nah, we stopped within the first session. It was disappointing because I really liked my character idea and background and I've never had an opportunity to recycle it. That text certainly can't. It doesn't give guidelines as to how to do it. You'll also notice that that particular quote is in...

I've had a railroading GM--he changed backstory and ignored extremely important character traits to tell his story, and got extremely angry whenever players tried to do their own thing or pointed out those extremely important traits. They do exist. The thing is, you get railroads where the GM...

<shrug> Take a look at some of the example experiences. Several of those are pretty double-edged. Even "Assassin of the Sapphire Syndicate" has some pretty strong negative connotations, since you're, you know, an assassin. I don't think it's a waste of time to read the Fate rules; I think it can...

Yeah, I just saw that.

I looked at the thread here, since that's the only Banneret I'm aware of. There's not much of a complaint that it's new. There's some posts complaining that it may be going against established lore (with other people saying it's an evolution of the established lore, not a rewrite); some posts...

Might as well get rid of this coz he's not in the thread anymore.

You honestly can't tell the difference between what you did and AW's example? OK then... If the players decide that slavers use ears as currency, you don't have to rebuild an entire complex to reflect that. If it had already been established that slavers use toes as currency, you wouldn't ask...

That's why I said "almost". No, the mechanics are different, because they're different games. But what goes into making an aspect in Fate is basically the same as what goes into making an experience in Daggerheart.

Because then you would likely have to go back and rewrite all of your history to match the newly created reality. Do you, or the players at your table, do that? Now, when the players encountered the runes, do the players also get to author their appearance? Or did you do that? Because how the...