Search results

I don't think it's a bitter pill at all. One of the key things I like about 1e combat is that it supports reasonably large scale combat with multiple formations (15 - 30 combatants to side) where manouevre, formations and morale are important. If 4e was trying to do the same thing, it was only...

But what if using the feat as written will deflect the asteroid onto a collision course with a bubble in space-time containing an entire pocket universe, filled with millions of peaceful civilisations? And only you have the power to decide whether to use feats to save the Earth, or allow the...

Instead of changing feats or sticking with an unfun RAW version, have you considered just using the version that you all like and thought was being chosen?

It was bad in that it is basically impossible to derive a clear, RAW interpretation that isn't contradictory in some way. In that respect, it is definitely unusable as it reads, without some kind of modification. Weapon speed factors interacting with spell casting times was especially...

I have been giving some thought to how Blades would have worked for me if we had only called for a roll if we felt there were plausible and interesting outcomes for all possible levels of success or failure. And it would absolutely have broken the game for me. I was OK with the results not...

No. I'm assuming I call for a roll when I think it's necessary. I grew up on Rolemaster, and the nature of open ended rolls resulted in a playstyle where rolling was generally kept to minimum, used when the outcome is genuinely in doubt or the consequences for failure are significant and and...

I have played in a fashion where rolls tend to be extremely rare since the 80s or 90s. If there is no combat, it would not be unusual for there to be no more than two or three player-facing rolls in an 8 hour session. When I'm running an OSR game, the only rolls the players are likely make...

It's plainly evident that, for many of you, it is not implausible. I have stated that I understand this again, and again, and again. As far as I can see, this is not in dispute by anyone. You don't find it implausible. I believe you. You have nothing to prove to me. Yet, for some reason, there...

People (including me) have told you that they aren't interested in deeply analysing certain aspects of play, or semantics, or whatever. @zakael19 appears to be telling people that their analysis of their own feelings, when they chose to make one, is invalid, and it is this stance that...

It still sounds like you're trying to help me overcome my problems with your preferred mechanics. But they're not problems in that sense. It's a non issue for me. There is no problem I have that I need your preferred mechanics or playstyle to fix. And for the third time, I already understand...

No, I very specifically said "What some of us find implausible" and not, "This is implausible". I then concluded with an acknowledgement that, "You may not find it so implausible." I don't know how I can be any clearer that I agree it's not objectively implausible and that I understand that...

I understand your example, but I am unclear what point you are trying to make with it. I keep saying that some people don't like the way certain mechanics make them feel about the way the game world works. I also keep saying that I understand that plenty of people don't have that problem with...

Potentially, yes. There are many things it might depend on. That fact that someone who is unhappy with the effect at a certain rate of dice rolling may, potentially, not find it as bad at a different rate of dice rolling, has nothing much to do with the point I was making, however, which is that...

What some of us find implausible (not impossible) is that something interesting happens every time you roll the dice. We can also find it jarring that the interesting thing doesn't necessarily seem connected to the event that triggered the die roll. Sometimes "nothing much happens or changes"...

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. @The Firebird was talking about how the mechanic makes them feel. They never claimed that their feeling was or should be universal or was grounded in some objective reality of the situation. These games rely on our imagination and our feelings. For...

Sure, you can look at it that way. As I've mentioned several times, the things I'm arguing are simply that a single point of failure isn't some dire problem that will inevitably rear it's ugly head in any and every game, that if it does occur and is a problem there are other ways of dealing with...

But if you run a game where it's OK to not find out what's behind the door or in the compartment (which I typically do), then you can just accept the failure and move on.

That sounds pretty reasonable. There are certainly points of commonality (most of us don't like fail forward), but there are plenty of differences. If you want a hard list detailing all the points of similarity, you'll struggle, because one of the things we do all seem to agree on is that we...

I will say, I have disagreed with you very strongly on another point in the past, but your position here is consistent with the line you were holding then. It's clear you hold the events and characters that occur within the game much more sacrosanct than I do.

@EzekielRaiden, I can't help thinking that one of the reason you find this conversation frustrating and confusing is you seem to conflate everyone who disagrees with you into one group as if we're a monolith all thinking the same way. I mentioned a GM speaking up to correct a mistake, but you...