Search results

They're still not morale checks, and as I said, the game itself says to limit how they're used in fantasy genres.

But you aren't forced to take that trait.

While I'm sure there are narrative systems it's possible to game--it's probably quite possible in Daggerheart, since I'm sure some abilities are going to be stronger or weaker than others, although I haven't really explored that--I have a hard time seeing how you can even do that in, say, a PbtA...

Sort of. In that yes, because 5e is doesn't require targets to act in specific ways and yes, there's the implication that something has happened because it's called "Vex" and not "Cause Disadvantage On Target's Next Attack", but no, it's not mind control and it doesn't force the PC or NPC to act...

Apparently the Conan-Doyle estate holds (or held until very recently) the rights to the "nicer" or at least more emotional Sherlock and thus other people could only use the cynical version. https://www.ign.com/articles/why-sherlock-holmes-can-finally-smile

Sure. There are fear checks--which are pretty much limited to effects caused by creatures and magic, at least in fantasy games--but that has nothing to do with anything because they're not morale rules that force PCs to stop a battle because they rolled badly.

Every game is full of rules that bind how the GM acts. The game tells you how to run an encounter, how to give out treasure, how to set up challenges, all to show what is and what isn't fair. You're just used to it so it's become invisible to you.

You keep bringing up one bad example (instead of all the good examples that can be found by googling it, which you claim to have done), and you're saying I'm sealioning? Yeah, no. (Also, sealioning is constantly harassing people for evidence... which is what you're doing by constantly...

He's saying "don't have degrees of success, just make it easier."

Yep. Once you add mechanics, players will find ways around them. Have players buy into the idea of a narrative and group storytelling, and they'll work with that.

The effect has to be plausible but the mechanics don't need to be the same. As I said to Lanefan, this is to help provide balance, to help prevent the GM from making their NPCs untouchable. The character can be influenced lots. The player is the one who allows the influence. Good players will...

But again, you chose to take the psych trait. You don't choose to run away in the above instance, because the dice say you have to.

You implement it in the way you describe events, that's all. Instead of saying "no" you say "yes, but" or "no, but." That's all. It's nothing so amazing or difficult as to require a new set of rules.

You're kidding, right? The fact that many of us have said that it was a bad example, and yet you keep bringing it up as if it's the way to do fail forward, is a ginormous strawman. Even though we have shown you many other examples. I pointed this bit out earlier, although I will admit I forget...

If you're talking about the weapon mastery thing in 5.24, that doesn't say how the other creature is supposed to react at all. It just says you get advantage on your next attack against them. (If you're talking about something else, I have no idea what it is.) So two things here: If a player...

Because you can't. Because why should they? Nearly every other roll involves the players choosing to do something, or else succumbing to magical compulsion. This sort of roll has neither choice nor a good reason beyond GM fiat for the players to accept.

I do have to wonder if this mentality is due to crazy ideas being hindered, vetoed, or outright punished by the GM. Edit: I don't (necessarily) mean you, unless you are the only GM they've ever had.

My point is that with games like GURPS and other games with traits you buy or make for yourself, you're choosing to buy that trait. With GURPS, there's a roll, and when you buy the disadvantage, you choose who severe it is, which affects the difficulty with the roll. In SWADE, a trait like...

I disagree here. Killing a character is permanent, yes, but taking them over and making them act in ways contrary to what the player wants is kind of worse. It's akin to mind control in a way, made worse because it's not caused by a magical effect.

Wait, wait, wait. If you let dice determine what your character is doing, that's playing in character. If you decide what your character is doing, that's not playing in character. Uh-huh. I also think I'm going to need a citation on that "Players will always do the cost/benefit analysis and...