Search results

I read the whole thing thanks. Just wanted to point out that referencing how many years you've played is not a "useful comment" in this context.

You seem to be missing the context that this discussion is in a thread where certain behaviours are derided and called "immature" etc. It's abundantly clear that many posters need to be reminded that preferences are preferences, and that people can have different preferences than yours without...

No such assumption was made. There are many ways to act while considering the players - fudging is only one such possibility. Nothing in my post suggested otherwise.

I see you've never played Gatekeeper: The Belittling.

...different from my 35+ years of RPGs. Not sure what that brings to the table exactly.

Hey that's great, whatever floats your boat. Next step is to learn that not everyone likes to play the same way you and your friends like to play, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It might be better if we didn't choose to judge people based on how they like to play recreational games with their friends.

Very uncharitable. It's not "no reason" it's "whatever reason" meaning that there are a variety of reasons being presented.

LOL. I did no such thing. I challenged your specific use of the word because of its meaning. And by "challenged", I mean "said that using this word is probably too harsh in this context." Escalating from there. The only other thing I'll point out at this time is that every example you provide...

This is hyperbolic. Your paradigm is that if a DM changes an AC by a single point, that's cheating if it's done after battle is joined. "Sizing up an opponent" is not equivalent to "knowing its exact AC." Some people are talking about that, but I'm not talking about that. My comments are...

Or, y'know, they can play D&D how they like to play D&D, without worrying about whether someone thinks they shouldn't play D&D that way.

You mean a game such as a D&D game where the DM fudges to prevent too much death by randomness? That sort of game?

And the assumption in this comment is that the DM is acting without regard to the players. But many DMs have a very good idea of what their players like about playing D&D. My current group have been playing together for 14 years now, every two weeks. We know each other and our gaming preferences...

Correct, they're RPGs, which are their own thing. The idea that a DM doing some amount of fudging means that the end is determined and there are hard rails is untenable. Your description is hyperbole.

I like the succinctness of this. It actually changed my perspective a little bit. Thank you.

You understand that this is an argument from personal experience? If you share the same preferences and biases as the authors do, for example, you should expect to find it convincing.

I didn't say many people don't find it influential, but if it's immune to analysis of whether it accurately reflects RPGs, then it fails as a theory. It will always remain conjecture.

I have found that the "toolkit" explanation comes off as a post hoc justification by fans for the incoherent nature of the ruleset.

And what is their behaviour when there is another predator right there, trying to kill them?

Nothing about my post suggested otherwise, because the DM is also a player. But the DM does have more responsibility for everyone's enjoyment, since they're ultimately in charge of the game world. And if the DM's idea of fun does not match the rest of the players, they probably shouldn't be...