Search results

I think some GMs excel when they have done a lot of prep, while other GMs excel when they riff off the play at the table. Some of us even excel with zero or near zero prep. As it relates to Daggerheart, Daggerheart expressly advises GMs to hold on lightly and not overprepare.

I don't think the proposition is that it happens in "every room". It is a tool, like any other, that the GM can leverage to engage players and fill in the world and maybe give themselves some breathing room.

GM paternalism is such a weird position. "I can't give players control over anything, because they will abuse it." I think many, many GMs would do well to hold on a little more loosely.

It is possible, but campaign frames are pretty strong, thematically, and should keep stuff generally in line. Also, the players are not granted any authority here, so the GM can always veto an incongruous element.

Maybe I was wrong about "immersion" being an easily understood term. I feel like there are as many definitions for it in this thread as posters. It may be that my use of "engagement" is the same as someone else's "immersion."

Inflict Pounds (which I am pretty sure a witch cast on me a few years ago...)

A spell name, a class, an adventure, a monster, whatever. Change a letter or a word. Make puns. Commit word crimes. You know how this works. Ex: Magic Mussle.

I am still not convinced "immersion" is what we are really talking about here, as opposed to "engagement." That doesn't mean I have never been immersed in TTRPG play, but it is a rare event and almost always comes via engagement. The only times I can recall it happening are during those moments...

I think the degree to which you show the consequences of violence in entertainment is a function of genre and expectations as opposed to morality. When we are talking about violence in other contexts: sure, it's really important. But human storytelling has always moderated the impact of violence...

I think it is natural to push toward the edges of "what's allowed." One of my most wonderful campaigns ever started with my decree "no elves;no ninjas" and player choosing an elf ninja. The world we crafted based on that last legit 20 real world years.

Times change, my dude. Small publishers still deserve your support even if the economics of print don't work.

I mean, "immersion" isn't an esoteric term. It isn't hard to figure out. That said, I don't think it is especially important to TTRPGs. Others disagree, of course.

Maybe that GM bit off more than they could chew, and maybe have been better served to ask "You know NPC. Describe your disposition toward them in a word." Stuff like that is easier to manage and can be expanded upon should it come up.

I.wpuld like 6E to present species and cultures as a bunch of options that get chosen for inclusion in specific settings. Like,if you are running 1st Age Middle Earth, Elves are superhuman bastiches, full stop. We aren't trying to balance humans or dwarves with them. They are what they are.

At least you are honest and consistent. Also, Gamma World 4E fits solidly in that window, so I hope that is your pinnacle post apocalyptic game.

This is the kind of arbitrary adjudication I want solid rules to eliminate, as a player.

It is always a wonder to me that you espouse such anti-protagonist preferences. Please don't take that as a dig. If you are having a good time and your players are returning to the table, more power to you. But the idea that a player can't toss a rock to distract a guard is wild to me. It is...

I am a big fan of introducing minor NPCs that way. Immediate connection.

This is one of those times that I am.inclined to trust the design. This game had a lot of testing. I bet 5 is the limit for a reason.

First of all,we should not take anything the Alexandrian writes particularly seriously. Second, asking players to fill in details, either through description or world building, CAN break immersion for certain players. You kind of have to know your players and whether they care about immersion...