Search results

I have no idea. I just think it's probably higher than a couple of percent.

It's not boundaries. Nor is it any sort of restriction. It's guidelines on how to GM that particular style of game. In Daggerheart, the GM Principles, Best Practices, and Pitfalls To Avoid take up a total of five pages, six if you include the chapter's intro page and the art. That's barely...

I'm pretty sure that every table has had at least one of those people. But the thing is, you (generic you) may not recognize that behavior as not OK, or may have said "relax, it's just a game." Or you may have just learned to live with it ("missing stairs") because that's easier and less...

No, I meant some players (or GMs) that are horribly obnoxious or abusive at the table don't care. Like, there's a difference between a spotlight hog who's just so eager to play their character that they don't realize they're not giving the others a chance, and one who literally doesn't care...

It would need to be multiple scales. You can't have "really boring," "throws OP foes and traps and then laughs when the party dies," and "has the orcs gang-rape PCs" on the same chart.

That's my point. The book can't force you to run the game in a specific manner. It can't force you to, say, use Legendary Resistance the first three times the monster needs to make a save*. You can choose to have the monster hold onto them for when it needs them. There's nothing that forces you...

People are willing to put up with a lot of crap in order to not rock the boat and risk being ostracized by the rest of the group. Also, it's not just that people don't understand how their behavior affects others; it's that they often don't care.

So you've judged the entire genre by reading a single game. Bravo. That makes about as much sense as me refusing to look at any D&D book because AD&D1e had a lot of baked-in sexism. You've honestly never thought that later games by different people could be different?

You've explicitly said that the changes made are relevant because they're not specifically your tastes, and you've explicitly said that you don't follow the leading edge but instead play your own 5e/LU mashup.

Micah thinks that narrative games have rules that limit what a GM can do, when in reality, they generally have guidelines that provide information as to the GM's role. I mean, if you want to talk about games that limit a GM's power, then that's any game that doesn't say that the GM can do...

Probably because it was me vaguely remembering things from the Usenet days. And it wasn't so much an argument as an observation. I'm willing to accept your statement, though. I can imagine people getting annoyed over OP homebrew or doing the "in my day, we had to walk uphill to the dungeons...

I have no idea what the GM was thinking. Other than this was the 90s and people were somewhat more likely to think of it as "naughty" rather than "criminal."

Except that (A) if you read these other games, there's very often many things that can be houseruled (I've yet to read a game that is "perfect" or "complete" right out of the book), and (B) very often, those GM behavioral rules are actually simply advice--something you have said is OK. But you...

But it's also quite true. Y'all are just so resistant to change, even though D&D itself has undergone enormous changes.

This is true. That being said, I can't think of any narrative game that's tried to limit what techniques are employed except than those that rely too heavily on rolling skills. But I wouldn't consider that to be any different than, say, D&D failing to include rules for building castles. Just...

Yeah, a poll like this will need to be redone to determine why a player found a particular GM to be bad. I've had a GM who forced everyone into a dreadful railroad, and a GM who OKed one PC putting a camera in my PC's shower. Both are bad, but they're different types of bad, and they're also...

I'm guessing because, with more people online and able to talk about gaming, people couldn't as easily talk about their games anymore when they were using houserules. You had to talk about the RAW in order to have common ground, and that led to people thinking you had to play by RAW.

So? A book has to be written in a light-hearted tone for you to be willing to change things?

They all govern GM behavior. They govern how you address players who want their characters to act outside the rules and how you worldbuild. The books expect you to follow the rules, or houserule them away--which is pretty much what most narrative games say as well. But honestly, I just can't...

No, but look at the thread's title.