Search results

And that's exactly why I don't like fudging the dice: why IS there a flying broom in the sunken temple? What's its story? Who brought it there, and when, and why? Why was it left there? This is a part of what makes roleplaying games a unique entertainment for me.

The group was never given the opportunity to agree or disagree - that's the issue. Ignorance may be bliss, but playing on someone's ignorance is sketchy. I don't believe the ends justify the means. I think if the players wanted to play D&D, then they reasonably expected to play D&D, not...

And I don't enjoy a game where my character dies because the referee decided it was 'dramatically appropriate' to the 'story.' I can't speak to anyone else's campaigns, but in my games there are no "stupid random encounters." Random encounters are the expression of the living setting, and should...

Worth repeating.

None of 'em. Until a few years ago I still owned the three core books for 3.0e D&D. Now the closest I come is the 1e AD&D PHB and DMG.

But if that idea is roll in the open and let the results stand, you "won't play." Or was that just hyperbole? A referee can screw with the players six-ways-from-Sunday without ever hiding or changing a die roll. Every campaign involves trust.

In other words, these are the terms of your social contract, and they are not open to debate. Which is perfectly fine and, in my opinion, how it should be. Trust doesn't enter into it; a player in a roll-in-the-open game still must trust the referee, just not for dice results.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

Whose fun? Do you understand that your idea of fun and my idea of fun may not be the same? If part of my fun comes from letting the dice fall where they may and you decide that your perogative to fudge the results trumps that, then do you think it's unreasonable of me to want to make an...

:erm: There's no "might" about it. No, I most definitely am not writing a novel. Why bother presenting a mystery to solve if there is, in fact no, mystery? The reason to present a mystery in the game, in my opinion, is because pursuing the mystery is fun for the players. The real trick, in my...

Let me make sure I understand this: since new players don't know the rules, it's okay to run the game they agreed to play by rules which are not part of that game and of which they know nothing in advance? In any case, I think the relative experience of the players is irrelevant; either you're...

Just for the record, I was merely quoting Bullgrit there. And while some games to provide mechanics for exactly the sort of narrative control you're describing, it's disingenuous and, in my opinion, more than a little dishonest, to introduce them ad hoc into a game which doesn't explicitly...

I'm neutral toward evil characters and campaigns, but that doesn't mean I run them half the time; it's such a poorly worded answer that I voted other instead. I leave it up to the players to decide what kind of scoundrels they want their characters to be.

What difference does the label make? Illusionists are more concerned about telling a great story than playing a great game. That's why they cheat and fake out their players.

No, but surely where you come from two guys delivering a beat-down to two guys who aren't fighting back doesn't go on without someone getting involved - other bar patrons, the local authorities, -et cetera? There's gonna be a fight one way or another, at least in any game I'm running.

You were telling a story, not playing a game. Not really all that complicated.

If the adventurers are giving these guys a beating, then a bar fight is underway; the failure to fight back doesn't enter into it.

"Theoretically?" "I punch the big guy standing at the end of the bar." "And I toss my drink in his bigger friend's face." Mission accomplished. By player agency.

Mmmmmmm . . . mind flayer fondue . . . good times.