Search results

Now you are being disingenuous. Weird. The subject seems to be about effect versus intent. You decided to reframe the conversation to favor your preferred jargon.

My position is that it I'd the GM's job to listen to the players and adjudicate THAT, not to play a shell game against the players. There is nothing more frustrating than an intentionally obtuse GM that says things like "You hit the tree and nothing happens" when the intent of the player was clear.

That is the GM not listening to the player, as well as doing that thing bad GMs do which is decide that whatever they think must be the whole truth of the thing.

That is NOT the 5E play loop. The 5E play loop is that the GM describes the scene, the players ask questions, the GM responds, and this continues until there is a point of uncertainty, at which time the GM decides how to resolve that uncertainty (usually calling for an ability check of some...

Thanks. I might have missed some previous context. I agree that it is definitely easy for folks to share their work. One side effect of this, of course, is that it can be hard to be seen amidst all that work. this often means that creators have to spend more time being their own marketing...

Is it?

I am not sure I understand your point, here. Are you saying that creators should not expect to be able to make a living creating?

Also, the point at the beginning was not to sell the retroclone, but to have a foundation on which people could support the original game. In the time since OSRIC, the retroclones have become products of their own. Which may be good or bad, depending on one's view, but it is a shift.

I don't think the GM should call for a roll. Just describe what happens when the PC throws a rock. Otherwise, you are confusing the play loop (especially in 5E and similar systems, where resources might be expended to improve the roll). Also, asking for unnecessary rolls just bogs down the game...

Probably worth noting that WotC bought Beyond in 2022.

That's not really what I mean. Relative to the people in the same "class" as them (if such exists) where do they sit. So, if a typical superhero universe, are they the JLA, or the street level heroes? What I am trying to get at is the degree of (and I am making this term up on the spot)...

Because Riggs really means "the Golden Age of D&D"

I would literally leave that table.

The question is badly phrased and the descriptions in the OP are biased to make it sound like magical funtime storytime roleplaying. If a player saus "I want to throw and rock to distract the guard" they are NOT asking to hit the tree. They are asking to distract the guard. The GM in that case...

And it did nothing. That's a failure.

Double post. I will add that I think players are usually "rolling for intent" from their perspective.

If there was no chance for the player to succeed, the GM should not have asked for a roll.

^^^This. That said, a good game that embraces the ethos and feel of an older game is pretty great, too.

But what about how they compare to a broad cross section of the NPC population?

I am currently preparing a convention game in which the player characters are superheroes in a aetherpunk/magictech city (using Daggerheart) and one of the key conceits is that the PCs (and the villains) are the only "superpowered" characters in the setting. Basically, the PCs will be 5th level...