Search results

How are you going to measure this happiness percentage and how high it needs to be to be acceptable you? Like is 95% happy good enough? It the players chose to play, then the campaign was successfully "sold" to them.

Well, if they have enough players for the campaign, they obviously sold it well enough!

Do what?

I think it is rather obvious that the frequency of character death is pretty significant contributor to how annoying a player having to sit out a session or two until the new character is introduced is. If it is something that might happen once in a campaign if you have bad luck it is fine. If...

Yeah, I said pages ago that for rules to be sim, it requires that "the operator" (usually the GM) actually uses them that way, and you absolutely could drift 5e into narrativist direction this way if the operator chose to use narrativist logic instead.

Yes. What is not the same is the causality. Why you keep ignoring this? I absolutely do not understand why you always champion narrativist ways to play, but then adamantly refuse to accept that they are any different from trad methods. Presumably the difference is actually why you like to do...

This is just your strawman scaremongering you always resort to in these discussions. Of course the GM needs to sell their premise to the players, otherwise they have no players and no game. And there can be discussions, but ultimately the GM needs to run a campaign they want to run and the...

Here I agree with you. I think it is perfectly fine to say "only one of X" or even "only one from group of X+Y+Z." I find it is unlikely that several people want to be the same rare thing anyway, and if they do, they can work between themselves who plays it. It is already pretty common to do...

Yes, some of your original sets did not include dragonborn. However, in the later example a GM has chosen a set, and the difference between jerk and non-jerk GM to you is which of them is willing to alter their initial set to include dragonborn. And ultimately the question is whether the GM is...

So people who allow dragonborn no matter what are cool whilst those who don't are jerks. Also people with who create settings with traditional elements are just mindlessly copying whilst those who do not do that have proper reason even though they might be just copying Greek myth or something...

Yes, absolutely this! Such curated palettes are great for setting the tone of the campaign, and it would be awesome if the official rules would advice how to do this and give such examples. I however find it wild that this is coming from you, given that every time anyone else has expresses...

This obviously is not true. Causality is completely different in these cases. If the character attacks an orc and the orc dies from it, the causality is the same in both the fiction and the mechanics. This is not true for the runes. And this is not a trivial matter, but one that will become...

But what the mechanics do, is cause the player's conjecture to be right. That is not what happens in the fiction, and that's why there is a disconnect between the player and character decision space. That is why it is completely different than killing orcs and whatnot.

It is mind-numbingly cumbersome and overtly detailed spreadsheet hell with zero considerations for drama or narrative appropriateness. You'd love it.

I think it was a mistake to allow finesse to fully substitute strength with dex. It should have been so that it only does so for to hit, but not for the damage.

Perhaps this might happen to some degree, but also I think most of this could and perhaps should be agreed upon beforehand and then everyone treats it in the same way. Like for example the spell levels either are or aren't diegetic in the setting.

I think Rolemaster is great warning example for those who wish to pursue simulation, myself included. All things in moderation and so forth.

But is that a diegetic sound? I don't think it is practical, possible or even desirable to have a RPG where the GM doesn't to some degree make decisions that affect the direction of the game. It is just about under what sort of principles the GM operates when making those decisions.

You think eleven-year-olds have not heard all these swear words and use them regularly?

I feel that the GM fixing rarely occurring edge cases and unusual interactions on the fly is fine, but if the normal base execution of the rules produces undesirable results (such as the fall rules) then the rule simply needs to be permanently changed.