Search results

Easier than 1e...

I claim it is harder, yes. One must consider many more things when adjudicating an attempt than the person does when declaring that attempt. Taking risk is not hard. I take a risk every time I but a lottery ticket or ask my spouse on a date. Those are not hard acts, but risk is involved...

Um, I've tried both. I stopped because they're hard. Did I stop because I chose to? Yes. Was it because they're hard? Yes. Did legislation pass preventing people from choosing not to pursue activities they deem hard? I must have missed that.

Nonsense. Birdwatching is hard because I get stiff sitting in one position for long periods and am colour blind making species identification difficult. Knitting is hard because my manual dexterity isn't the best and despite repeated coaching I am incapable of achieving a good pearl. Could I...

OK here's a very specific case that is true in any game I've seen that has a GM: Adjudication of an action and consequence is harder than declaring that action.

I have several goals. One of which is to present opportunities the players can follow. Another is to evolve the presented world in plausible ways. A third Is to have the world react to player choice. The adventure hooks are there to give the players something to react to and make choices...

I think you are misusing forordained. If X is foreordained then X will happen. My goal may be to get them involved with those plots. It is no more foreordained than the me buying a car from a salesman when I walk into a dealership. After all, he has a goal to sell me a car. Also, that's...

Birdwatching is better with a mentor too. It's still too hard for me to bother with. Same goes for knitting. GMing is hard, but I still bother with it even though I had no mentor. It comes down to what people like to do. Things can be hard and still be personally rewarding. Those get...

Not foreordained though. I'd say between 50% and 75% of the adventure hooks placed in my D&D game get no nibbles.

The first is hard to fully interpret. Is it a simple refusal with a hint the situation can be reset by accomplishing the offered goal or is it a contract/promise that if you do X Y will follow? I'd be happy providing the first. "Nope you failed. You can't try again until the situation...

He is partially agreeing with me. He gave the choice of suicide or live with it. There are other choices including abandon it and move somewhere more ethically acceptable. Another is to accept it because taint is everywhere and is inescapable.

You discount emigration to a more ethically supportable culture then? There are always choices. My point is there should be and always has been points where the chain is disregarded. Either because of convenience or because literally no one considers it any more. If party A acquires the IP...

I believe you are in North America. (If not, humour me for a second) Do you eat food grown there? All the land is effectively stolen. All the food grown is thus tainted.

I tend to agree with the first 2.

What can I say? I'm a creature of habit. It wasn't meant to be a criticism of the encounter so much as it is one where I remember discussing the issue before. I have no doubt the situation that developed did so because of pure motives. To me it points out an area of weakness in DW where...

Indeed, I think knitting and birdwatching are hard for differing reasons. One cannot claim I am gatekeeping those hobbies as I do not pursue them because they are hard. I do acknowledge that DMing is also considered hard and understand why others would not wish to pursue it.

Well, there is only one way to guarantee the problem person is gone permanently, but it is generally illegal to murder people regardless of how annoying they get. The best generally approved approach is ostracism.

If the players have preferences about castle discovery, that simply changes the visibility of the application. If the players are looking for it, its visibility goes down. If the players are trying to avoid it and find it anyway, the application of force becomes more obvious. I don't think...

I'm assuming such would be normally acceptable as a scene, so you are correct. Force is being applied to achieve that particular scene regardless of player choice or gambit outcome. In effect, it is the same as having the castle at the end of whatever road the players choose.

Adding the dog initially isn't Force. Refusing to accept the mechanical outcome (outright failures should fail at what they're attempting) is Force. Continually adding/updating an element until the game state hits the DM preference is illusionism/force.