Search results

How does this square with the way a lot of old-school adventures are presented? Because, frankly, a lot of them look like"door-kicking hack and slash" to me, from the outside looking in. Especially if the adventure is quite linear.

Yes, very much this. "I made an exchange with a powerful being in order to have power myself" does not justify heavy-handed GMing, and all this "making patrons matter" constantly dances around what exactly it means for them to "matter", hence why I've asked. @Micah Sweet has made clear that it...

It's not a matter of asymmetry. I'm fine with asymmetry. Different kinds of powers, different kinds of limits. I'm not fine with one person being given absolute total autonomy zero accountability zero responsibility zero expectations, and the other being "here are your choices: submit, or...

But the umpire doesn't make all the calls. They make some calls--and they are subject to review and dispute. Further, the players have advocates. It isn't absolute authority. The umpire doesn't have the ability, for example, to tell a particular player they're forbidden from pitching in this...

Then why are players so obligated?

I don't accept this double standard. If players are subject to guaranteed automatic limitations, so should GMs be. Nobody gets a free pass. Either I have limits and so do you, or you don't and neither do I. Anything else is "I get power and you get nothing."

Okay! This is great! You are actually setting limitations here. You would not ever begin with getting cut off. You would have regular communication--not just in-character, but OOC as well. If a hard cutting-off were to occur, the player can and should expect alternative pathways to present...

Okay, but this is precisely the problem. You've opened with "go as far as they want" on both sides. So why can't I go so far as, "I don't accept this, this is not actually fun or engaging, I don't want to do that"? Why is that an automatic guaranteed violation of the social contract, but the...

How can I know which is which until after they've done it, unless they talk with me about it and specify some things? Okay. I ask, as before, what does this mean? Because "matter" is about as telling someone over the phone that something is "over there". Technically, it's a nonzero amount of...

Okay. It's hard to "trust" something when you're told, "Oh, it could mean anything!" Yes. That's the problem. It could mean A N Y T H I N G. It'd be nice to have a dialogue that includes even hypothetical examples. I don't know the warlocks of CR, so I'm afraid that doesn't really tell me...

Okay. What on Earth does that bloody MEAN?

Ah yes. I'm "cheering for absolutes and a singular way" by analyzing the reverence relationship between a powerful living concept the mortal representatives thereof and saying how the former in the vast majority of cases should consider such people assets to be cultivated and preserved, rather...

It makes me profoundly sad that you see this as something horrible. God forbid we try to tell stories of hope. That would be the worst thing.

Then why in God's name are YOU pushing the one narrative of the divine sugar daddy who cuts off their clerics the INSTANT they do something undesired?

The point is that the deity can see what most can't, and they have every reason to want engaged, enthusiastic, proselytizing shepherds. I'm not saying relationships can never be dysfunctional. I'm saying that the idea that ABSOLUTELY EVERY deity is just gleefully waiting to pull the plug the...

You....do realize that the Old Testament also includes the Psalms, right?

The horrifying reality is that people keep talking about all the things that get done that will hurt the players. We've had all of ONE person in this thread talking about carrots. Everyone else is talking sticks. How am I supposed to have an upbeat attitude about things when time after time...

Is it narrow? For real. Is it? The Cleric is a priest. Why would a priest be treated like garbage by the being they have devoted their life to?

Then why are you hostile to the idea that if a class is designed to be balanced with other classes, it shouldn't have special extra penalties? Maybe then you should communicate what you actually want. Rather than repeatedly talking about the bad things and never once bringing up anything else.

But you are 100% knowing what the things that affect the Warlock are, when WotC doesn't say? Do you not see how this is a double standard?