Search results

I don't think it really matters whether it's over 9000 or just a couple of points beyond the guidelines. They are still unenforceable and, thus, completely meaningless. The fundamental issue doesn't go anywhere: GM has to pull punches and can't create the most brutal adversity she can, so...

I'm not talking about the narrative, though. I'm talking about the test of player skill at playing the game. The player negotiating about the challenge at hand a) runs contrary to the Czege principle (which I personally don't subscribe to, but still) b) again, hinges upon the GM being willing...

They would, if the text of the book didn't stress so much that they are completely optional, and they were enforceable. What can you do, even if you know that the current encounter is CR over 9000? Especially considering you are not even supposed to know that in the first place. And then there...

Rolling dice in BitD doesn't really require comparison, though, just basic recognition. You don't need to compare 6 to 4, you just know that 6 is more than 4, and you know what 6 looks like.

This is the point. The only possible way a player can succeed in dnd if the GM lets them succeed. The only reason they won a fight is because GM decided not to bring reinforcements. Didn't, but could. Could, but didn't. Ooh but she needs a narrative justification! Yeah, those cost nothing. I'm...

If you are talking about dice rolls, they have nothing to do with it, "knowledge check" is a term from fighting games, and I've included the definition right into my post: "things that work if and only if the opponent has no clue how to deal with them". Here's a more in-depth one from the...

I can see how it can be the case in the AD&D days, I'm not sure if it's applicable now, when the internets exist, AND the current edition is "mature", with more or less established meta. There's a concept of "knowledge check", things that work if and only if the opponent has no clue how to deal...

Aside V: on skill To be frank, I don't believe in "player skill" in RPGs, at least those which pride itself on it (like OSR), as there's no real way to measure even an approximation of it. Even outside of all the high-level competitions with prizes and stuff, when someone says, "I've beaten...

As I said, I don't think it makes much sense to classify things at this level as "fun" or "not fun". Before TPK happened, there was, well, the rest of the game. A game that started with TPK was probably not fun, thus, failed, yeah, I don't think it's crazy to suggest so.

Yeah, sometimes. Often, I'd say. This was not the case here, though.

My definition of fun is very simple: I'm having fun when I don't wish I was somewhere else doing something else. There are things that are frustrating on a minor scale (like losing a character and having to create another one), but I'm not sure if it makes sense to classify things as "fun" or...

Aside III: on "fun" "Fun" is not the goal of playing a game, it's a bare minimum requirement. A game being fun is like your meal being edible. The lowest possible bar to clear. If the game isn't fun, then it utterly miserably spectacularly failed. "You do everything right as long as you didn't...

...and? I didn't even imply it's a better approach. Regardless. OK, some people enjoy optimizing trivial problems (hm, I wonder, what is better, running into the battle with your hairy chest on display or wearing a ballistic vest?), so? I don't care. I'm not among them. I don't need to say...

Probably, yes. I tend to repeat myself.

Aside II: on things not mattering I play Team Fortress 2. For those who don't know, it's a hat simulator. There are tons and tons of cosmetic options that can be mixed and matched together. They don't matter. They do not influence the gameplay in any way, shape or form. And precisely that...

I mean, a rifle in GURPS makes multiple shots that deal ~8d6 damage each, individually affected by armour so... There are plenty of buckets and arithmetics there.

I'd say hardship being a reward is a necessary component of any PvE game (which RPGs tend to be). Consider this hypothetical example: PCs have ventured into a tomb of a long dead god, survived all the obstacles on the way and stole its power, becoming god-like beings as a result. What now...

Aside: on quantum ogres and disregarding of player agency. The chief reason why I love Apocalypse World is because it drowns PCs in trouble; it doesn't matter what you do, you will experience hardship and there's no move you can possibly make (pun intended, I guess) to escape. If you do...

To reiterate this branch of our conversation: I mentioned how I don't see a grand difference between starting from a vision of a dramatic scene and starting from a vision of cool gameplay, and how both seem to contradict the idea of world simulation, as both require forcing the scene. That's...

I honestly can't say I can name any game that ever needed another edition. It's always either: A) A completely different game that is tied to the previous one loosely at best, if not at all B) A minor revision that could've just been an erratum