Search results

And here's the problem; even if individuals sometimes don't think things through as well as they could, this assumes the group as a group, will do a worse job than the GM does. This requires, at best, a really bad atittude toward players as a group to assume. It only works if you assume the...

Well, gestures (which that is) are one of those things that are in their way, as varied as language.

I'm not sure I believe that's true with regular archers, and I think it requires a particular look at things to even believe it with mages with area effects. What its largely done is make it hard for a spellcaster to have a dramatic effect on a higher level opponent with any one spell. And I...

Well, as I might have implied, I consider the Hero System in many ways simpler than a number of editions of D&D because everything is genuinely built to a common metric, whereas in D&D there are special cases galore, even if most of them are character definitional rather than core rules elements.

Well, me too far as that goes, but I'll note there are a fair number of people out there who still seem to dislike PDFs, so...

I think the point is, you can't expect high quality art, paper and covers and then expect game books to not be relatively pricey. And game publishers don't have the option of having it both ways; if they're publishing for the people who expect high quality books, they're unlikely to do separate...

I'd argue, as I mostly did above, that's because PF2e being heavily evolved from 3e era and 4e era D&D, is very strongly exception based.

It was late so I probably didn't express it well. Let's say you're thinking about running across a set of broken turf, jumping over an obstacle, climbing up a short wall and disabling a automated weapon system. (Assuming here that you're using a system that actually distinguishes failure on...

I vaguely remember that too.

The problem is you have to do this every time, and project it down a series of events in many cases. Its not only one event that you have to have a sense of. The difference is you don't have to do it constantly. Because a lot of things are predefined.

Doesn't work. I've played with people I knew at least for two decades for that period (including all of my current group three of whom I've known for approaching a half century now) and you'll note I've not exactly been a fan of top-down game adminstration without limits.

As we've noted before, Lanefan, not all of us play with people who are incapable of understanding that sometimes things good for the game as a whole can impact them negatively. Admittedly, the majority of people I play with have at least GMed some of the time.

I've been halfway good friends with a number of game designers over the years, going all the way back to Steve Perrin in the late 70's. Unless you hit one of the occasional egomaniacs, they're usually good people to talk about games to because they tend to think about them in depth more than most.

I can accept that. What I won't accept is that the problems with players are of the same scale as the ones with GMs. As I've noted before, if I only played with GMs I never expected to make bad decisions, I'd never have played at all.

It can regulate movement that, say, archers or crossbowmen get what feels like an appropriate number of shots against those closing up. That's always been its big virtue; it allows avoidance of special interrupt mechanics while not making people feel like they're standing around while someone...

Not everyone feels that way, and where they draw a line varies considerably. Nope. But you aren't everyone, and I have every reason to believe a lot of people will tolerate a lot more, because I've seen them do it. I'm unconvinced. Edit: You may be talking about one poster I wasn't, since...

I think you seriously underestimate what players will put up with if they have limited options when to play. A set of house rules has to be massively off-putting before that will get a lot of players to jump ship. Its a little less true in the age of VTT play, but not everyone can or is...

I think that's a big assume. In some cases the person talking about it may not have thought about all the workarounds. When talking to a non-GM, its more likely to be applicable than "I solved this with this house rule." Probably. What I'm suggesting is that not all those three are created...

Given I've expressed that position multiple times in this thread... But in this particular context, it almost doesn't matter; the point was that getting into houserules as a discussion of problem areas isn't the all purpose power tool; its mostly only relevant to GMs, and not always even then...

In which case there's no intrinsic reason you can't do that with houserules players suggest, either.