Search results

You have a well documented preference for A5E, so it is reasonable to guess that you are more forgiving of Voidrunner than you might be of Starfinder.

I'm saying that Star Wars does not need deep world building, and in fact directly benefits from its shallow worldbuilding.

Sure. But A5E and ToV both did a pretty good job of back working a system in, and Alphastream put together a solid set of trends that is useful for design based on the 2024 MM. WotC could have done it if they wanted to.

I am not sure I have ever encountered a "roll for intent" game, at least not one that doesn't want a fairly detailed explanation of action. And that I would call more a "one roll resolution" system than a roll for intent system. The biggest problem with roll for intent as described in the OP is...

You can have a detailed system of monster creation and still have some CR failures in edge cases.

The problem.here goes well beyond NPCs. The lack of detailed mobster creation rules in either (or both) the DMG or MM is a major oversight, and really the only reasonable take away is that WotC did not have detailed monster creation rules with which they set CRs etc.

No deeper worldbuilding in Star Wars is from Lucas or even Disney. Most of it comes from WEG because when you sell books full of prose you have to have something to say. And I don't think Star Wars has particularly benefited from areas where writers of game supplements or novels have aimed for...

One of the great things about Star Wars that makes it so accessible is its shallow worldbuilding, including its built in morality.

These seems like a good foundation of how to make a superhero "west marches" since superheroes tend to be more reactive. Of course, the ultimate would be a gamecwhere there are villain and hero players all in the same player driven open world.

I love MYZ but is is only superficially like GW. MYZ is intentionally coherent, especially when considering all of the parallel games. GW is intentionally incoherent, much more Thundarr than Mad Max.

It seems strange to come in to a discussion and attempt to make an end run around the point by shifting the goal posts. You decided to latch on to a specific word -- supernatural -- to then attempt to argue that deceit is mind control. That's both nonsensical, and besides the point.

Context matters.

Nothing in that example is "mind control." It is trickery.

I am not sure why you are imagining an end of mental continuity. It is essentially the same as misremembering soemthing: a fact that you knew yesterday is different than a fact that you knew today. Even if you go with a more extensive personality change, it doesn't make sense to me. If a person...

Hit 2 birds with one stone and set Kingmaker in the Indigo Isles?

That seems pretty extreme and completely lacking nuance. If a slight, innocuous change is "horrifying evil" where do you go from there? I get that people think of mental autonomy as an absolute red line, but "You now like Bob" is not on the same level of "You now serve Lord Baddy with fervor."

On the upside, maybe the big players are finally moving away from campaign length adventures. I think one big long adventure per tier of play is a good compromise and move back toward "adventures" instead of "campaigns."

I think posts juxtapositing mind control versus killing are sort of missing the point. The idea isn't "Is mind control more evil.than killing?" The question is "Is mind control, in and of itself, an evil." And while as I stated in my response previously, I think the answer is "It depends on harm...

And undoubtedly going to break site rules. Andor 4ever.

Did you really just spoiler block a decade old story point?