Search results

The breaking rope is purely flavor. If they don't like the flavor, they can come up with one on their own. It won't change the fact that they failed the climb. Or you can always say. "Well, it's either you screwed up somehow or you can blame it on equipment. Which do you prefer?" I'm willing...

But you were saying any info, not complete info. You insisted at any info would be acceptable. In fact, you said that repeatedly. The math provides some info. And yet you're still complaining and claiming there's none, or at least not enough. So to answer your question, "Why does everyone take...

Sure, there's no mechanics for it. But if (generic) you won't accept "broken rope" as the reason a climb failed, because a hemp rope is too strong, you might be more likely to accept it if that rope was also ingested by a gelatinous cube last week and then got caught in a cone of cold yesterday...

...how many bipedal hoofed animals did you know growing up? What kind of farm was this? But in seriousness, this calls for some real questions: In-character questions: Was your character as skilled in recognizing the sounds of hoofed animals as you are? Was your character skilled in what...

If the player rejects the DM's narrative, then they should have a mature discussion, either there or after the session. As for the rope breaking, or not breaking, don't forget that your equipment goes through all the same stuff you do in the game, meaning it's also been subject to all the same...

Because the game does provide "any" information. It's quite clear how the stat, skill, and other modifiers affect your roll to show you how you succeed or fail. But you continue to say it doesn't provide any info at all. And the only reason I can see for that is that its not specifically written...

I do agree, and sim is fine--I always like having some more information, as long as I'm not restricted to that info. It's just that Hussar seems to be taking it to an extreme level. That unless the game very clearly spells out how something worked, it's useless from a sim point of view. It's why...

For the record, I have both played and run GURPS 3e and 4e. OK, problem number one here is that you are misunderstanding what I mean by illusionism. In reality, if the game tells you you failed to climb the cliff because of XYZ, then that's basically the same as if the GM tells you you failed...

Simulation is an illusion, because you're just using the ideas the original writer came up with instead of the ideas the GM or players came up with. My question to you is, why is simulation so important to you?

Well, the order of operations is d20 + stat + PB. So if you roll a 12 against a DC of 13, your stat mod was what did it.

A site for selling indie products--heavily video games, a lot of TTRPGs, some self-published books. From their site: "Collective Shout is a grassroots campaigns movement against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls." So technically a good cause, but they're going about it...

Then that's the die you're rolling. Like I said before, you can do the math if you really want to in order determine what actually caused you to succeed or fail. The 5e books all put it in this order: d20 + your stat mod + PB + any other mods you have. So let's say you have a stat with a +3...

There's plenty of information. Yes, you failed because of the darkness, since you wouldn't be rolling with disad if it weren't for that. It's not a reroll or even roll one die than a second die. It's rolling two different dice, yes, but only reading one of them. The other die is ignored. So you...

Lots of games have similar things--scene aspects in Fate, for instance, which is a game I've run. Monster of the Week, which I currently run (although it's on hiatus), gives areas their own motivations, and those seem to act in a similar way.

Really? You know that? How, exactly? Since I've never posted anything more than brief, extremely summed-up descriptions of any game I've run or been in, I find it hard to believe you know much about anything about my games go, let alone how I distinguish the scenes. No, I'm not asking you about...

Do you truly believe that all gamers think in exactly the same way? That there can only be one argument for or about it? That because some gamers say it's not simulationist that all gamers think that?