Search results

If characters don't know their abilities mechanically, wouldn't there be moments where the wizard tries to cast Fireball but fails to do so because he doesn't know he only has 2nd and 1st level slots left? So...the player loses her turn or something?

Sorry, I thought the sarcasm was obvious. My apologies.

D&D makes a ton of money. There is no problem to be fixed.

I was addressing the specific example of "Thespianism vs. Roll Ability check." That's a false dichotomy; it's thespianism resulting in bonus to ability check.

Why? Thespianism just gives context and perhaps a circumstance bonus to the Charisma roll.

Can't groups just do "Roleplay it out, if the table loves the performance get a bonus to the CHA roll?

It does. Using a VTT allows for a bunch of modifiers without trying to remember every single one. For example, my dhampir investigator had a racial feat that allowed her to do +x damage to undead, and +2x to vampires...Foundry took care of all of that without me worrying about remembering to...

Can I say "flavour?" I know it seems vague, but...not sure how else to describe the uniqueness of Al-Qadim, my favourite setting of all.

Sure, there are people who prefer boring games, who prefer TPKs, who prefer Orcs SAing PCs... Whatever, sure.

You're seeing a lot of crap that's not there, when I'm offering a simple way to measure. There are different measures of "bad"...there's no conflating. But no...everything's subjective, less than 3% of DMs are bad, bad players are worse than bad DMs somehow...whatever. I am going to ask...

So just using the examples provided before, I guess being boring isn't bad; rejoicing in unfair TPKs isn't bad; having orcs r**e the PCs isn't bad... Whatever, man.

It's a thought construct designed to help see if one's behaviour needs to change or not. If you can't see that, there's nothing for us to talk about.

" I don't like running games for evil characters and I have players that don't want it either." So that's a table decision, not a behaviour in-game or something else.

It's not that subjective. If the DM engages in behaviour that would drive a player to another game that is exactly the same except it doesn't have said behaviour, then it's bad. Not "evil person"-bad, but bad in that the behaviour needs to change.

Maybe "bad" means something other than "abusive or controlling."

What the hell are you talking about? Agree with me re: what? Did I set that binary you mention?

Perhaps not the same type of bad...but they're all bad in their own way.

I guess because some people here think fewer than 3 out of every 100 DMs are bad...if one can't see they might be bad, they are less likely to try to improve.

One needs a certain amount of self-reflective ability and modesty to look back and see one's faults...whether looking back 20 years or just last week. Like you, I was a bad DM back in high school, no doubts. Was fun still had? Most times, but that was in spite of my bad DMing. Of course many...

Maybe you can have one chart. The examples given are all examples of being bad at DMing; they might each have a different value (the last would have a greater negative value than the first...maybe), but they would all contribute to a negative experience.