Search results

For my own answer to the question, as I have said before, I think 5e is missing somewhere between six and twelve classes (and I favor the higher end). That would allow us to more neatly focus each class. With a set of, say, 4-6 total subclasses for each class, we can have enough depth for folks...

On the next exciting episode of What Rules Will We Delete?!, Archetypes: A concept introduced by 5e specifically to simplify and streamline class design, with several added benefits so that other options could be removed instead, are now ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. Because we all know...you can't...

This ignores the possibility that rules can help, by saying that unless rules are perfect defenses, they are useless. This is a perfect solution fallacy: since the solution isn't perfect, it is necessarily useless and should be ignored. Rules can do things like: Make it much more obvious when...

My assertion is that, all too often, they don't. Because the GM assumed that that was part of the "social contract" and thus beneath discussion, and the player couldn't have possibly known to ask, because nothing in the rules makes even a hint of the possibility, and the fluff text is fluid and...

Good Lord, this makes Mr. Finch's work even more vexing than it already was, and that's saying something. It means that it wasn't just pretentious garbage, it was actually self-congratulatory pretentious garbage the entire time, high on his own supply. I didn't think it would be possible to...

And yet I've never seen this. Not once. Your "Buddy GM" is a fiction you invented to make fun of others. It's extremely tiresome.

From experience: "seem" is unnecessary. That is, in fact, exactly what Bloodtide believes, and they pride themselves on being "cruel" to their players until only those who behave as you describe remain in the game. It has an extremely low retention rate and an extremely high rate of generating...

Given the kinds of negative consequences that come from treating bad people as if they were "nice" people, I'm not so sure about that last bit. I do agree that it is more complicated. But at least from where I'm standing, the simple solution is for the GM to have people that are more complex...

The single most frustrating thing about it is that most, not all but most, of the GMs who do this think they're being good GMs. Like they legitimately think that the thing they're doing is constructive and helpful, when it isn't. Most cases I've seen where a GM got a lightbulb moment about...

I do see the Cleric as being pretty openly "Christian priest in armor with the serial numbers filed off", and having universal abilities like Channel Divinity seems to me to fit into that structure. So...yeah. I kinda do think that D&D as it is currently written does that. Whether there are...

Something I am quite proud of with my Dungeon World game is that, on more than one occasion, the players have had this response, not to a "trap" per se, but to a situation or world element that they had partial information about beforehand. It was an immense relief the first time I heard one of...

Above and beyond anything else in the thread, this is a lesson I wholeheartedly embrace and wish more GMs would heed. Doesn't matter what the behavior is. Doesn't matter what system you're using. Reward the behavior you want to see happen, and cause genuine player-affecting complications for...

How does this square with the way a lot of old-school adventures are presented? Because, frankly, a lot of them look like"door-kicking hack and slash" to me, from the outside looking in. Especially if the adventure is quite linear.

Yes, very much this. "I made an exchange with a powerful being in order to have power myself" does not justify heavy-handed GMing, and all this "making patrons matter" constantly dances around what exactly it means for them to "matter", hence why I've asked. @Micah Sweet has made clear that it...

It's not a matter of asymmetry. I'm fine with asymmetry. Different kinds of powers, different kinds of limits. I'm not fine with one person being given absolute total autonomy zero accountability zero responsibility zero expectations, and the other being "here are your choices: submit, or...

But the umpire doesn't make all the calls. They make some calls--and they are subject to review and dispute. Further, the players have advocates. It isn't absolute authority. The umpire doesn't have the ability, for example, to tell a particular player they're forbidden from pitching in this...

Then why are players so obligated?

I don't accept this double standard. If players are subject to guaranteed automatic limitations, so should GMs be. Nobody gets a free pass. Either I have limits and so do you, or you don't and neither do I. Anything else is "I get power and you get nothing."

Okay! This is great! You are actually setting limitations here. You would not ever begin with getting cut off. You would have regular communication--not just in-character, but OOC as well. If a hard cutting-off were to occur, the player can and should expect alternative pathways to present...

Okay, but this is precisely the problem. You've opened with "go as far as they want" on both sides. So why can't I go so far as, "I don't accept this, this is not actually fun or engaging, I don't want to do that"? Why is that an automatic guaranteed violation of the social contract, but the...