Search results

Incorrect. Fudging means something that would have gone against you goes for your or vice versa. At no point did I claim it must always equal 'you winning.' What I said was it removes challenge--because challenge proceeds from the knowledge that your decisions matter. Fudging changes the...

That is why I included the phrase "properly run". See: If you can climb, fail, and nothing happens then the GM either should not have made you roll (there was no time pressure, you had hours to set up ropes, etc) or the GM should have set up something that activated if the players didn't act...

For me fudging is when there's a die mechanic _the players could potentially know about and therefore be using in their problem solving_ that the DM alters the result-of mid game. A 50% chance turned out not to be. So the players have been sitting their trying to solve a rubik's cube and you go...

In the short term, yes, but in the long term if you begin to realize that you can think really hard to solve the situation and the GM is willing to just alter it halfway through to make it harder then you realize there's no point to thinking as it provides no benefit, and it ceases to be a...

It's impossible to not fail forward in a properly run game. You only call for a die roll when there are consequences to failure. You didn't open the door? One more wandering monster check. Tension ratchets up. The game just went forward. Fail to climb? You got hurt. You are more vulnerable...

Lets put it this way: I want my DM to create a fun, challenging and engaging game, and if the GM is fudging, it's less challenging. So it's less fun.

This is not accurate. it seems like just a sort of sidelong way of saying "We have proof (in the pudding) you don't". I have described (descriptively) bad outcomes to using GNS terminology and pointed to proof (in and out of pudding) of real world bad outcomes created by using it. Everyone in...

Nah, at that point Balesir was passive-aggressively needling and I said "Hey, stop doing that, it's not ok, I don't want to go on with this conversation with you if you're going to do that" and then Balesir bowed out. If you would like to see the rest of the conversation I can post it, it's...

GNS has no such markers. Everything that might count as a "marker" was already in the (dumb) Threefold Model. The ONLY thing you could say about GNS was that somewhere along the line someone decided "narrativism" was a thing--but that's not a Freud amount of progress. That tiny upside must be...

You're completely wrong again: Someone directly questioned whether Ron ever claimed no 2 creative agendas could be fulfilled at once... ...the screenshot features him saying exactly that thing.... So, Chaochou, you should apologize to everyone reading for your terrible mistake...

Typing the words isn't evidence obviously--but you are allowed to claim you have it. If someone wanted to contest that you then what they do is ask for footage with time stamps, etc. If you'd like to contest (for example) my screenshot of Ron Edwards saying stuff that makes no sense, then go...

Strawman. I said GNS was worthless, as is your theory. Your theory proposes new things and old things. The new things are false and the old things were true but already known. Nobody needs your "theory of dogs". The only parts that were worth anything are old and existed before your...

Also, this whole discussion of tone is the result of goal-post moving: "But GNS tho..." "People shouldn't talk about GNS because it's a flawed theory and has cause lots of problems" "Flawed in your opinion" "Nope, flawed objectively, here's evidence" "Ok, sure, but, like it's had good effects"...

Like any broadcast, not everyone who CAN read me is relevant to what I'm saying. Anyone can read a post asking who wants to play Shadowrun at my house next week, only people who actually can are relevant. Likewise: people who think irrationally may be able to read what I write, only people who...

You have many mistaken assumptions up there @Umbran the major one being that the goal of these conversations is to persuade the kind of people who respond more to (imagnined ) tone than to facts. What a person like that thinks isn't very relevant since they're, by definition , not thinking...

So quit worrying what I say then. "Incites Maxperson to tone-police you" and "Hurt you" are not synonyms. Please do not extrapolate from your own feelings ("I wish this person would stop talking about things they believe to be true") to real-world externalities ("This person has somehow hurt...

But the claim that multiple creative agendas can't be simultaneously satisfied is the ONLY unique thing about GNS. The other claims ("different people like different things in games", "different games promote different playstyles") are already made in other theories before and since, for...

When you say what you think I don't call it a "campaign" or say "Oh I see you seem to have an IDEA I hope you have FUN with that" I just respond to the idea. That's what people should do. Expect people to post ideas and then respond to them rationally. What you believe is what you believe, not...