Search results

She's similar in both ways, though she only works from home two days a week.

My wife is notorious for me having to poke her to get her to use some of her vacation days. We take a couple weeks off a year (once around our anniversery and once near Halloween) and she still manages to accrue more than she uses.

I'm not sure I did it to recapture the joy so much as just needing to break from fatigue in it. I did that for about a year at one point. Discovered even accounting for the stress I was getting I missed GMing too much to stay away any longer.

Though in practice, with a point build system its hard to really talk about this distinction since point assignment at start is fundamenttally arbitrary and can vary from campaign to campaign. Only way the non-parallel applies is if the NPC has abilities a PC is not permitted to acquire at all.

Depends what you mean and where you start counting. PC-playable non-humans did have parallel processes as of RQ3. Random encountered ones weren't at least clearly done that way, but then, neither were random encountered humans. It wasn't like the game had classes anyay, so its hard to tell...

The problem with this as I've mentioned before is that players usually know the mechanics to at least some extent, and knowledge of the kinds of outcomes and results mechanics produce is not a neutral arbiter; it effects people's decision making. Its the usual stupid blunt object example but...

The one that comes immediately to mind is Outbreak: Undead, but I think I'd argue Red Markets leans fairly heavily into that, too, though its focus is different.

I'm asserting an observable fact. Note "some"used in that second sentence. I can't speak for how common it is, but I can absolutely say its true with at least some of the player populace, and if you feel the need to challenge that just ask within this thread. So unless you'd like to claim...

Some places, however, have laws that make it hard to pull that sort of thing. I just don't feel qualified to talk about it outside of the U.S. And sometimes its not even bad bosses, per se. Sometimes it just general corporate culture (and I don't mean just within one corporation).

Yeah, it requires a particular sort of tunnel vision at best.

Yup. But at least in the U.S., both are stupidly common.

Eh. I could name several of relatively recent vintage that are overtly simulationist that don't think they're "retro" and in some respects absolutely aren't. It may not be as popular an experience as it once was, but its still the most obviously appropriate way to approach some kinds of...

You're missing the point. People aren't going to stop thinking that way just because a game tells them to. Some approaches to engaging with a game world are largely independent of a game. You don't have to like that, but its absolutely true.

Neither does mentioning to them that's what you think they're doing. So I still stand by my opinion ignoring or reporting are your meaningful choices.

If, instead, its about who I suspect, its just one of their quirks and one might as well just ignore them and move on if it bothers you.

There's always two problems with this, one more severe than the other. The less severe: When you're exhausted or injured, even when you can continue work, its unlikely to be of the same quality. Whether that's still better than not getting it done immediately is heavily situational. The more...

The the scare quotes show a bit of the problem with this statement. As phrased this could be essentially a tautology. This assumes the game design doing this is automatically going to answer that question. Bold assumption on your part.

Which is why I mentioned I'm unlikely to make how you'd like the discussion occur. When you bother to mention that, if its not an attempt to discourage that field of discussion, I'm afraid I don't see the point in bringing it up. When the majority of the thread considers it does. Otherwise...

As I note above, I don't think the arrow points only in one direction there. In some cases it was design choices to reduce load that had been there previously. At the least I don't think in some cases you can meaningfully talking the predecessors in design "adding" to GM load since that load...

Definitely. Its visible in both D&D 4e and 13th Age. Its most visible there because there are clear predecessors to compare them to. In addition, as noted, you can have early examples of things that still have early examples that never "took" for various reasons, and as such as still largely...