Search results

Correct. I have zero interest in playing in those sorts of environments, in part because dealing with those sorts of behavioral problems from random strangers sounds utterly unfun to me (and, since my tolerance for it is basically nil, stricter language that reduces some of the conflict is of no...

Indeed. And I absolutely do rely on the honour of those who I've invited into my house to particpate in my game to not steal my wallet.

Yes, people claiming it's not possible really confuse me. Is it really so inconceivable that a group of people can have an understanding as to what is and is not acceptable at their table and play within those agreed norms?

I don't recall the context, so I'm just making a wild guess here, but I suspect it may relate to the advice to just start with the immediate area the PCs will be engaging with, and build out from there as required.

I said I allow a wider range of commands. You stated that even if the wording was less restrictive, it wouldn't be possible to come up with creative uses that aren't already allowed. I came up with a list of possible uses that a player might use if the wording was less restrictive. These were...

I was talking about things that I would allow if the players did them. Every comment I've made in this thread has been made from the perspective of a GM, except where I specifically said I could not see myself as a player at your table but, if I did somehow end up as a player at your table, I...

And yet, despite my flagrant disregard for RAW, the RPG Police have never been able to catch me and send me off for reeducation. :rolleyes: :ROFLMAO:

I find this part of the discussion interesting because, while I can agree that tighter language may serve to reduce player-DM friction, I feel that this is at best going to reduce the issues slightly, not eliminate them, and the ideal solution must surely be to have participants that aren't...

OK, now that you have unambiguously declared yourself the official arbiter of whether or not saluting is allowed to exist in any D&D world, I really, truly am done wasting my time engaging with you.

I don't think anyone has said you have to use our preferred version of command. I certainly have no problem with you saying you prefer a more restricted version, and playing with a more restricted version with people who are good with that. All I've been doing is saying I agree with the OP, and...

Surely, if there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that anachronism has never had a place in D&D. Never! :ROFLMAO:

Most creatures that can inherently self-immolate aren't harmed by doing so. But again, whatever. If you wouldn't allow it, great for you. Forbid such use at your table, I'm perfectly OK with that. As stated however, I would allow it, and the fact you claim it is not allowed has no bearing on that.

You certainly can, if you'd like to. (y) For myself, I'd only allow ignite if the target has some inherent means of self immolation

Sure. If a player tries to do something clever, the appropriate response is absolutely, "Salute isn't a verb!" And when the player says, "Umm, yeah, it is," that's when you know they've fallen into your trap, and you follow up with the real zinger! "Haha, you used anachronistic language so it...

As much as I love the RM experience system in principle, these days it's too much work in practice. However, I will never ditch the EP for crits taken.

Huh ... I could have sworn otherwise. No idea how I came to that conclusion.

This lengthy response mostly tells me that I mangled the point I was trying to make. To rephrase what I was trying to say (hopefully) more simply: I GM in a "GM Rulings" style, and will do so in just about any system, but I understand that there are other, equally valid approaches, even in...