Search results

Is this in the context of D&D play (or some similar sort of FRPG?) Can you say a bit more about how your system works: who is rolling? when? modified how (eg what stat)? And do you have a look-up table that you're using, or something else?

The use of random encounters as a type-of "clock" is one well-known use case. The other, though, is as a type of "world simulation". At least as I understand and approach them, this is the role of random encounters in Classic Traveller and of events in Torchbearer 2e. To borrow some language...

I see this as a type of gameplay mismatch: * The 3E rules - for better or worse - present themselves as a game for playing combat-oriented, dungeon-assaulting fantasy. The wealth-by-level rules are a component of this. (There are well-known flaws in the design, including the tension between NPC...

To me, it seems to come down to a desire not to want to waste one's leisure time. I mean, the GM you're talking about isn't accepting "no" either - presumably because they are determined to spend their leisure time doing whatever it is they want to do with their setting/campaign. I personally...

There's a widespread view, at least among D&D players, that the GM has the sole authority to make things true in the fiction. This leads to the idea that if the GM decides something is true (say, in their notes) then it is true, as part of the fiction, even if never shared with the other...

Huh? I'm not sure how writing down more stuff makes the character feel less like a piece of (or a bundle of) paper. The rules for Cthulhu Dark are pretty short. And all a character is is a name, a job and an Insanity ranking. But I've not found Cthulhu Dark characters to be less vibrant than...

I've co-authored a lot of papers. That doesn't require a "leader".

Using the vocabulary of GNS (from The Forge), he identifies two forms of simulationism - purist-for-system (eg C&S) and high concept (the "living novel" approach, where as I posted upthread he anticipates the issues with Dragonlance) - and also two forms of gamism - the gamble ("lottery D&D")...

I don't think alignment contributes any sophistication to moral thinking in play, for the reason that I already posted in this thread: it characterises all the major moral outlooks/approaches as good, and hence has nothing to say about disagreements between them. In my own play experience, I...

Agreed. It seems like a concession to the sorts of approach that Pulsipher criticises. I think it's interesting in that it shows that Gygax/TSR was aware of this variety of approaches to play as early as 1978. Interesting point. I think that there are differences between Gygax's PHB and DMG...

Which entails that it can't be anything but opinion, doesn't it? Anyway, I'm still not sure that measurement or metrics are how we identify golden ages. I'm probably out of touch. My sense of when things might have "peaked" is a little different - but still, I don't have any sense of a "golden...

I'm not telling you what you meant. I'm saying that there is a difference between player actions determine alignment and GM arbitrates alignment based on player actions. For instance, the player could determine their PC's alignment based on their actions. Or they could ask the opinion of the...

I agree with @EzekielRaiden: there is a big difference between alignment is a consequence of how the player plays their PC and alignment is decided by the GM on the basis of how the player plays their PC.

The original AD&D rulebooks (PHB and DMG) are clear that "good" encompasses the general range of moral view: LG is framed in Benthamite terms (the greatest benefit for the greatest number) while concepts of "right" and of "welfare", "satisfaction" and "life, happiness, and prosperity" are also...

I've never read or played MouseGuard, though I have heard of its phases/turns before. (I know TB2e fairly well, but it uses a different phase structure.) I'm curious about your (1) - as in, to what extent is the GM free to set the stakes in the GM turn? Is there some expectation that these will...

It's a long time since I've been to a convention. I went with friends, and we played together as a team. Mostly we didn't know the GMs, which was interesting but generally not bad.

Yes, I know. But in the context of the thread is seemed like it might be useful to spell it out.

John Harper had a good diagram to illustrate this "jigsaw pieces" approach: The Mighty Atom

In Burning Wheel, on a successful roll the task is successful and the intent achieved. On a failed roll, the intent is not achieved - and the GM narrates what happens, which may or may not include the task succeeding. So there are three possibilities: Task succeeds, and intent succeeds...

I think this illustrates how task resolution, in combination with no sense that the GM is obliged to honour the intent, is a recipe for railroading.