Search results

Yeah, its either spotlight-hogging in disguise, or just contrarianism.

It might be worth taking a shot at DragonQuest too. I had problems with some elements (particularly to do with how mages worth) but it was a system with some virtues.

For what its worth, I saw a lot of GMs talking about doing it back in the OD&D days though. Most of them at least claimed they were doing the thing Nevin said above and fudging to backstop really bad die roll chains, but if they were willing to do it there, its hard to see as a given they...

"Every" is doing some lifting there. Some people are willing to generate it as they go, even in a sandbox if need be.

Deception is force. Its just a subtle form of it, and that's true of a lot of forms of force. If you provide false information to people so they make different decisions than they otherwise would, its fundamentally indistinguishable from force (and perhaps worse, since with compulsion someone...

Challenge accepted. :) I'm 68 and my parents bought this house before I was born (it was built 8 years before, but I don't believe they bought it immediately; I'd have to dig out the deed to check). (Though you could argue about the years I lived away when going to college.)

I think you've hit the button; illusionism has a negative connotation because its often used to violate expectations. The cases where its sometimes expected instead are the difference between a con game and stage magic. No one likes to be conned, but some people really like stage magic.

I think the thing that makes Lanefan's campaign a notable outlier is not being a sandbox, but the length-of-run.

I still tend to do that, though the campaigns last 18-24 months because a given campaign only gets run every other week, so by the time I'm done I want something fairly different usually.

Well, that's just a normal sandbox style campaign, far as I can tell. While those aren't as common as they once were even within the D&D sphere, I'd hardly call it really unusual.

Ah, well, its something I deal with a fair bit here.

I will just note this is the card that's almost always played by someone who was sloppy with insulting someone else but doesn't want to take responsibility for it. If that's not what you're trying to do, its a bad tact to take.

Its hard to say. I was around then, and while ongoing campaigns were not unknown then, I don't recall seeing any that went for more than a couple of years. On the other hand, most of the people I was interacting with either in person or via other means weren't sticking with the same game...

I think @Hussar had a good argument relating to this; "campaign" is a relatively neutral term in the hobby (barring a small subset that are particularly hostile to the wargaming origin of both the hobby and that term), so its not going to be viewed as insulting that someone uses it for someone...

And it wasn't like sponsoring scientists wasn't kind of a thing in the 1800's in some cases. The only difference really is that modern experimentation has reached the point in the sciences involved that you usually can't do it in your basement, so the needed resources have expanded in scope.

Its not insulting per se. It might get so if he was insistent that other people weren't running a campaign every time they talked about doing so but weren't applying it the way he was. In other words, using it for gatekeeping purposes.

Don't unwatch a thread often, but time to do so there, I think.

Honestly, you can argue always was there.

Yup, my instinct not to let myself slide into another MoS adjacent discussion was sound.

Oh, that explains a lot. Yeah, with that low a probability of success per die, you're going to need a very large number of dice before you have any stability. My experiences have all been with die pools that were between 30-50% chance of a success per die.