Search results

Is it not possible to be both ambivalent and mildly curious about something at the same time?

I think a lot of the tension begins with your #1 and what I'd humbly suggest could be #1.5. 1. People like what they like. 1.5. People don't like what they don't like. Because not liking something (say, DH or D&D) sometimes fuels the intensity of our "like" for something else and the size of...

I wish I could upvote or ⭐️ this 100 times. Let people have a difference of opinion without back-and-forth 2,000-word monologues with a clear subtext of "no, wrong, you're a simpleton."

Agreed. Where it is one, two and three years from now will be telling. Definitely has some marketing advantages.

The distinction is all very ephemeral to me. Point taken though. Some people show up to a game with very specific expectations in mind, but even then, what are they? These books are hundreds of pages long, plus YouTube real play videos, plus word of mouth, plus other sources of information. No...

I feel like everyone knows this.

Noticing that.

Ha! I feel like I'd get sorted into Gryffindor but then after exposing a dark conspiracy involving some of the faculty would seek to destroy the school from within. Many would despise me for it. Luckily, I'd be fine with that.

Great prompt. Did you say what you think yours would be? Can't claim to fully understand alignment myself, but I think I'd be neutral good. Definitely good. Similar to what some others have said, I respect some authority and legality, but not as a matter of course. It depends on the authority...

I completely agree, Professor Murder.

Ha! Me too. 🙃

Great highlighting and shading!

YES! Sound familiar? The US Constitution is a pamphlet for a reason -- because it was never intended to be the definitive rulebook or source of record for everything. Was always meant to be interpreted by different people and ammended.* * Not passing good/bad judgment; just pointing out that...

I think the real travesty happened when D&D introduced the concept of different action types (3rd edition, I think?). Horrible idea, IMO. Back when it was just rounds, even ignoring segments, which I never used, gameplay was MUCH quicker and easier for everyone at the table to digest. Not...

You won me over with your last paragraph. There will always be disagreements in a game, but there has to be someone who makes the final determination. Or, people angrily take their toys and go home.

That assumes the designers were infallible and there are no contradictions or poorly-worded rules. They knew they weren't infallible...which is why they created the role of DM to interpret the rules and adjudicate decisions at each table.

This is why they created the role of DM -- so that players couldn't either intentionally or accidentally exploit the written rules. The answer is "it's up to the DM."

If we let the players treat the rules as a game, looking for little loopholes to exploit, then the game suffers. It's the DM's responsibility to prevent the rules from becoming a game within the game.

Agreed. Or suggesting that d20 checks in D&D, which have been around decades longer than any of the other games being talked about, somehow rely on the GM more than some other, more complex mechanic does. Games can't and don't simulate real life. A person still has to fill in the creative and...

Compromised ad server.