Search results

The irony is that Starfinder straight up erased the planet. Completely. Golarion is gone, and nobody knows what happened, where it went, or whether it could potentially be restored. (Indeed, nobody remembers anything for a period of several centuries surrounding Golarion's disappearance.)...

In my experience, whether a campaign is breadth-first or depth-first is not super important for campaign longevity. Instead, the two things that are the most important, by a country mile, are GM investment in the premise, and GM desire to cooperate with and riff off of their players. An...

Three reasons. Good creatures may aid the party at least some of the time. Hence, their combat statistics matter. Good spellcasters may use spells which summon or conjure good creatures. That requires combat stats. There can be times where you have Good vs Good conflicts. Rare, and difficult to...

I believe it was @pemerton who, some months back, actually engaged with the "well if the players aren't happy they should vote with their feet" answer by saying that he and his group did exactly that. He described the situation he went through, that he had spoken with the other players and they...

As was already said by Umbran: Your deities are rather...small...if they're incapable of handling more than one thread of thought simultaneously and always located spatially and temporally in a single spot. Like...if you're having a deity that's supposed to be multidimensional and/or managing...

I did not say it was something specific to Lawfulness. I said I felt Lawfulness was better at it. That doesn't mean I think it is, in any way, exclusive to it. I don't. I think anyone, and any group, can self-correct. I just think it's easier for one thing than the other.

I mean, I still think that that is "chaos"--after all, mathematical chaos is 100% deterministic, it's just extremely difficult to predict because it's extremely sensitive to small changes in input conditions. Isn't that what all that "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" captures? You're...

Is it? I have always understood it as being individualist, where Lawful is collectivist. You can have a non-anarchic yet Chaos-favoring society. Some might argue that that's precisely what the United States is, for good and for ill. Again: Why? You're talking about someone abusing others...

Sounds to me like you are presuming alignment and then using it to derive other things. Perhaps it would be better to start from what tricking people is like? Pranks aren't chaos, they're just frivolity. "Dismantling of hierarchies" is often done specifically by bending the system back upon...

You keep presuming it is a form of being used. You have not actually established that. That's what I'm asking you to establish. How is this using someone? How is this NOT the same as calling on your deity's power to heal someone else? You haven't established either of these things! ...I mean...

How is this being "treated like a servant"? Like what in the actual hell is wrong with this? They're spells. That's like saying the Cleric casting cure wounds is making a "servant" out of their deity. For God's (or should that be "gods'"?) sake, it's literally the thing the deity asks the...

Really? I should think that the cleric of a trickster deity would embrace gaming the system. Chaos is the domain of destructive deities. Twisting things so you win even though you shouldn't, however, is very much what tricksters love--they bait-and-switch, they deceive, they weasel out of deals...

And on the relationship the cleric and deity have. If, for example, this cleric has been routinely very good at carrying out this deity's described doctrine, and doing so with subtlety and wisdom rather than as a blunt object, why would that lead to such horrible wrathful deific behavior? The...

Again: Are you not claiming--as the very core of your argument--that running games is a radically different experience from playing them? Is that not literally one of the most important parts of your claim? No "potential". It is 100% imaginary--in my experience. This advantage never happens.

Then perhaps you should consider the hypothetical when several other people are telling you that your experience is not as universal as you believe it to be. That having a player host, rather than the GM, can in fact be an established pattern. In other words...considering that the question is...

No matter how many times anyone says, "Well if you want to play something, run it!", it never becomes even the tiniest bit more relevant. Running a game isn't playing in a game. It never will be. It is literally the very core of your argument that running a game is radically different from...

Which is just ignoring the question. Kinda funny to say "hey you ignored the context" in your literally immediately previous post, only to then do that to my own. Typical completely useless "advice". Not worth further response. One v one? Odd group, considering that means the singular player...

How old-school are we talking? I personally prefer taking the ten alignments (nine grid + Unaligned) and giving them a completely different mechanic to express through. I strongly dislike many of the ways alignment was implemented in past editions, especially 3rd edition, but I understand why...

I am very much of the same opinion. This, so so so so so much this. It breaks my heart to see so many players trained to never ever do anything creative, because they had a previous GM (or, usually, several previous GMs) teach them that creativity is pointless, tedious, or (worst of all)...

Do you have anything to actually add on a discussion about alignment? If not, how is this any better than anything else not actually discussing alignment? Because it seems to me that the discussion about alignment played out quite some time ago. If you think differently, why not...discuss that?