Search results

In my understanding of the term, it absolutely should maintain the failure (the "fail" part), but that something else must happen to drive the narrative forward (the "forward" part). For example, with the following: The door remaining locked is perfectly appropriate, but perhaps the rogue (or...

I'll admit, I've not kept up with the 2024 version. I wasn't a fan of some of what I saw in the playtest material.

I believe @AlViking is using the term as set out in the article by John Harper I mentioned.

I have observations on this, but I'm not sure it would be conducive to a healthy discussion.

Indeed, that's what I linked to earlier.

Yes. I linked it earlier in this thread. Matt Gaston, a senior employee of Crystal Dynamics, made his own Tomb Raider RPG as a passion project, which was released on Crystal Dynamics' own website, but they've since purged it, ostensibly due to the one being developed by Evil Hat.

Bidet of Endless Water and Loofahs of Prestidigitation. Totally going in my next Eberron game.

You know, this puts your username into an entirely new light. Good that you're staying hydrated, though.

I think the reason for this is that with friends, we're friends with them for a reason - shared interests, shared values, etc. - so we have a tendency to presume we share more in common than we actually might, whereas with strangers, we make so no such assumptions. This contributed to the...

Please stop with the absolutes. This is very much (one of) the sort of thing I enjoy doing in RPGs. Admittedly, I don't always get to indulge in it because others at the table aren't really into it and I don't want to hold them hostage as it were, but that's a playstyle clash/table culture problem.

You seem to be suggesting that if you can't align on X game, then don't play any game with them at all; while @Micah Sweet is suggesting that if you can't align on X game, but can on Y game, then play Y game. I suppose it's a matter of how much energy one wishes to expend on such things.

Metacurrencies are a resource in the same vein as spell slots, power points, X uses per day abilities, etc. There's an entire strategic layer to their use that is absolutely gamist. Edit: I've seen @Thomas Shey said much the same thing, and your reply, so I'll assume said reply also applies here.

Those engaging in this thread, but I'm sure you realised that. Only you can answer that. It wasn't a trump card, merely that not even (seemingly) Narrativist-leaning persons are in agreement on how Edwards or Tuovinen define simulationism, nevermind persons who claim to be...

In 5e (2014) at least, the attacker absolutely can (if using a melee weapon) get to decide if the enemy they reduce to 0HP lives or dies. Per the PHB:

I prefer it when mechanics and narrative align myself, too, but it seems a more granular system would be more to your tastes (which you've alluded to yourself), so I'm curious why you stick with 5e (if you've elaborated before, I've missed it).

Putting aside the political connotations of the word, conservatism is simply about wanting to maintain some form of status quo, so if you're wanting to avoid changing anything about your game and how you run it, it's conservatism in a very literal sense. (It should go without saying, but just...

I've seen @The Firebird corrected that they meant director stance, but if it helps understanding in the future, it's worth noting that due to it's propagation outside the Forge, "director stance" and "author stance" are often conflated and sometimes even merged.

In some cases, yeah. That's not the gotcha you seem to be trying to present.

This seems contradictory to what you've said here: The setting is the purview of the GM in Apocalypse World, right?* I'm genuinely trying to reconcile these two views and struggling. *Hence the whole crossing the line article

Didn't realise Tuovinen was posting in this thread. If you interpreted my post as trying to pick a fight, you may have read more antagonism into it than was there.