Search results

No, Lanefan hasn't said he's infallible. He says the table will play through a mistake because they have a more extreme need for immersion than I do. I find it a bit unusual, but so be it. It does seem to be the case that I placed too much weigh on my own preferences than I should have when...

If @Lanefan is clear and up front about this, the players are on board and Lanefan is competent enough that this is an extremely rare occurrence, seems fine. Not the way I roll, but if it works at Lanefan's table it's fine by me.

You can't see why anyone would value honesty and owning up to mistakes, then fixing them as a group, over trying to hide them for the sake of pretending the world is real? You've tried to cast traditional GM powers as a path to abuse and claiming infallibility, but we've been telling you for...

I don't know. I suggest you find the comments you're confused about and ask the people who made them. Cool.You and I are clearly in agreement on this, then. If no one else disagrees with me, that's great too. Maybe I misunderstood a comment at some point. No, it's not required for the entire...

If you would prefer to imagine me yelling at you for choosing to define something your own way, that's also OK. Go wild. You have a really bad habit of getting upset with people who don't want to argue with you, and trying to cast them as bad people for it. It's really quite off-putting. I've...

It's setting ground rules and a set of shared expectations for the campaign. I've repeatedly stated that I consider a set of clear, shared expectations to be essential to a successful game. If you would like to define that as "interfering with the world in order to create a better story" I...

This is where we diverged. Either I'm running a game where inexperienced adventurers are expected to be able to handle long distance journeys into the wilderness, or I'm not. If I am, then I can't forsee a sequence of events that will create such a dire situation. If a lost map and some bad...

Your scenario appears, to me, to be: A group of seasoned, skilled outdoor survivalists are travelling in the wilderness. They lose their map and, because the map is lost, are now out of options and their survival is going to come down to dumb luck or desperate hail marys. Can they not judge...

Yes, we discussed this to death a few thousand posts ago. No one's imaginary gameworld is an accurate and comprehensive simulation with anything resembling the fidelity of our day-to-day lives in the real world. Anything we discuss is about how we elicit a particular set of feelings, what things...

I'd be perfectly happy to see people providing perspectives on why they run and play their games the way they do, or even commenting that they don't understand the appeal of certain playstyles, without also feeling to need to try and prove their preferences are objectively better and should be...

On a slightly different point, this comment helped me identify more clearly the problem I have with fail forward in a more grounded game. Using a typical fail forward type of resolution system, if the PCs are picking a lock, the expected outcomes are likely to be: We get through the door and...

If I'm playing a game where wilderness exploration is taken that seriously and the characters don't have the necessary skills to survive but go wandering around anyway, then this is perfectly reasonable outcome. The players, knowing this, won't go wandering off into the wilderness without the...

If the group has been thrown in a pit from which there is no feasible means of escape and they have been left to die, "points of failure" are no longer a concern. It sounds to me like this is describing a campaign end state, not a problem to be overcome. Edit to add: I will agree that it is one...

I was pretty sure that's what you meant, I just wanted to head off reigniting a settled argument over a momentary lapse in wording.

Traditional, living world sandbox, as advocated for by the trad gaming crew in this thread, worries about and takes care to establish the former independent of the latter. With that clarification, everything else in your post seems to be clear and reasonable to me. One of the early points of...

If I had made a boo-boo and included a trap that can result in a TPK, in a game where a trap causing a TPK was not an acceptable outcome, I still wouldn't implement fail forward to fix it. I would instead say, "Hey, guys, I didn't think this trap through and it shouldn't have worked this way...

Personally, I generally just don't run games where single point of failure is a concept that makes sense on a campaign level. No one ever has to keep going "forward", so fail forward will never be necessary.

No, your reply was fine and clarified the situation perfectly. Entirely reasonable, as far as I'm concerned.

OK, fair enough. I have probably fixated on the thread title over the more nuance comment in the body of the OP. Apologies if I have misrepresented your position or engaged with my own reframing of the question over your own.

Because I'm not really sure what else you're trying to achieve with these comparisons. Your thesis appears to be that you, personally, don't feel that there is a good reason to play 1e over 2e (beyond "feels"). [Note that this is a perfectly reasonable position for you to hold, even if it's not...