Search results

If I had to use an existing class exactly as-is without modifications, I'd go with Ranger. Witchers have a certain limited amount of supernatural power available to them, so it counts, even if it's a rough fit. If I could design a custom subclass specifically to represent it, I might go Fighter...

My point was not, necessarily, that you specifically are or were bad at pitches. The point was that it is a leap of logic to go from "the players did not follow the pitch" to "the players must be jerks who renege on their promises". There are other options, and a pretty straightforward one is...

I am a player in his games (have been for a bit less than two years now!) I have tried to keep my choices relatively constrained. We brought in a new player who did want something from outside FR for an FR adventure, but given it's already got an interplanar bent (Out of the Abyss), it didn't...

Perhaps let me rephrase then: In any other medium, at least as far as I'm given to understand, such a response really is understood as bad form. That's an artist being overly precious about their work--perhaps even being juvenile. "No I deserve praise for all the hard work I did" type thing...

Beyond that, the point of a "pitch" is to sell folks on a concept. If they do not stick to the concept, one possibility is that they're being disingenuous jerks who faked agreement and then immediately reneged on that agreement. Another possibility is that the pitch failed, that is, it did not...

Or, alternatively, a problem with the pitch. Just sayin'. That's also an option.

A complete non-sequitur. Whether or not it is pulling people in is not particularly a function of how casual-focused the game is. I am very much of the opinion that a game which is too casual-friendly is inherently going to do worse, not better. Casual-friendliness has its place as a useful...

.... Then what on Earth are you talking about in terms of the problem here? Nobody--and I mean nobody--I've ever played with has had some "fanfic", as you so derisively put it, which they want to subject everyone else to....with the sole exception of a couple of GMs...who were very clearly...

I mean, you don't need to convince me that that's a flaw, that's for sure. But this flaw, as you put it, is quite widespread.

Session zero is by definition before play actually begins. You specifically said: That means my character is not anything--no name, no upbringing, no relatives, no experiences, no thoughts, no feelings, nothing--until session 1, when play actually begins.

Which is like saying that being on active duty in WWII is more casual than being a proto-SEAL in WWII, so therefore it is casual. It's not. Heck, it isn't even that it's closer to casual than to hardcore. It's far closer to hardcore than it is to anything actually casual. That's the point I'm...

The person I replied to rejected session zero as a possibility from the beginning. Because I can quite easily write a dragonborn character backstory that links into the beginning of a campaign with a session zero. I prefer to, when possible, as that tends to lead to more interesting story down...

If I may--what on earth does that mean? I know what 3e gestalt rules are, not sure about "fixie" in this context (and I fear google-fu failed me).

So the GM gets absolute control, and the players meekly play along, no objections whatsoever? I'm using harsh language here, but I'm making a point with it. You get frustrated by the players "negging" you as GM--but aren't you as GM "negging" the players by laying down only and exclusively what...

Why should my backstory include the other party members I haven't even met yet? Seriously, I'm terribly confused here. In fact, forget why--how am I supposed to write a backstory that includes people I haven't met? And if my character is literally a Nameless Faceless Gender-Neutral...

Conversely, the way I see this, you're saying "never ever bring me anything but a dead-empty blank slate with slightly less flavor than plain oatmeal." I find it not particularly engaging or interesting to play Unflavored Oatmeal characters for 10+ sessions before I'm permitted to be something...

Whereas I think it makes no impact one way or the other. Why does that make it feel like an MMO? Almost all MMOs actively work to make you feel part of the world nearly instantly. That's like a core storytelling step for them. Intro quests which get your feet firmly planted. People throw...

They don't though. Nobody ever needs to know that much. At most, you need to learn like, one or two useful things. Players do this all the time in video games, board games, and sports, all of which get far, far more players than D&D has ever had. Why is it an impossible onerous burden for D&D...

Perhaps. But this brings up another aspect. You mention the players having a stable of characters, or at least character concepts. Something I have noticed is...a lot, and I mean a LOT, of GMs don't really want their players being very creative or offbeat with their characters. They want...

It emphatically did not. Like...in numerous ways, it is not a casual game. I have been teaching someone to play it recently. It is not a casual game. Not by a long shot. He's struggling, and only helped by the fact that I already taught him how to play Dungeon World, so he has context for the...