Search results

I think the issue we are considering is more complex than this. One element at hand is that we are playing a game, and that game effectively give results the players desire, or don't desire, based on choices. But, that game is also set within a fiction, and the game does not, by any means...

The snark is not likely to serve a useful purpose in this discussion.

I don't know when Mr. King made those comments, but if it is recent, there's an interesting point here: Mr. King just opened up the universe of his book The Stand to other writers in an anthology, The End of the World As We Know It. Now, The Stand, and the anthology, are all about the impacts...

Yes. And immersion is a chicken sandwich - despite being nominally a burger joint, Wendy's sells a lot of chicken sandwiches, too. Then, by all means, don't try to engage in it. Nobody's stopping you from disengaging. Just don't get in the way of others in case they want to try.

That you can make sweeping statements about literature and cinema doesn't mean you should, or that those sweeping statements actually have any utility in considering literature or cinema. The value in critique is not found in its hyperbolic statements. But, either way - there is no "must" here...

What, as if you only ever discuss things that are required? And, in general, even setting immersion aside, we each like different stuff - each person has their own personal desires for their gaming experiences. It is an entertainment. You should expect discussion of it to be figuratively...

Look, I get you didn't like it. And would expect that this kind of statement expresses some feelings you have about the game. But, as a flat assertion, it is unconstructive hyperbole that will more likely start an argument than communicate truth.

Everyone has their own definition of "fun", but somehow that word hasn't been stricken from gaming language, or normal language. Ambiguity is a thing you have to deal with by discussion. This is a discussion board. Exactly the place for it!

Mod Note: By the way, folks, if someone uses foul language, please do not include it in quotes you make of the original. Thanks much.

Mod Note: Please watch your language.

Noting, of course, that these days there are RPGs that codify that, such that using that codification well is a skill. Which is basically required for any other "skilled play" scenario.

The jokes write themselves, folks. And, of course the Giff killed you. 'cuz that was rude.

The secret is in realizing that the AD&D rules are themselves only vaguely compatible with the AD&D rules.

gasp! The very thought! It beggars the imagination!

I get it. All the bard shade is shtick. Fine. But, the most fun I had with 1e was playing a bard, as best as we could interpret it from what was written. Because, and this is the really important bit, running it strictly as written is not a value ever attached to 1e, by pretty much anyone...

I think the point is that whether it is wrong or not depends on what form of resolution you are using, and we cannot assert it as flat wrong without knowing the table expectations. Hey, if you have an axe to grind, please grind it on your own players, not us. Thanks. Players do get to have...

Right. But if the roll is for intent, then the outcome you want matters.

This thread is about Satine, not Zak. Let's keep it that way, please.

Hey. Someone asked a question. They did not make an assertion. Suggesting the former is the latter without cause is also uncool. When people cannot ask questions for fear of being scorned for doing so, we create an inability to make sure the truth gets around.

I think this generally comes to the point that there is no time in which the GM can cleanly assume that Effect is the only thing that matters. That would be like assuming that any time a player chooses to do something, it is followed by the phrase, "...at ANY cost."