Search results

Thank you. That is how I characterize myself as a GM.

Given the differences between 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e D&D, those seem more like new games in many ways rather than new editions to me.

I was clearly responding to @GobHag. Dancing monkey is their term.

Do you GM much? If so, how do you feel about being a dancing monkey GM? Is that a "bad you can accept", or only when it's not you?

No need Thomas. I know your style is speaking, "for the people". And you know how little importance I place on popularity, and how much on not presenting opinions as objective truths.

We can, but my experience with the poster to whom I am responding suggests that they are at least as extreme in their preferences as I am in mine.

Exactly right, which is why if I have a dispute with a player over whether or not a given circumstance in the game makes sense in the setting, we discuss it and make changes as needed for both of us to feel good about it.

I was arguing against the idea that "skill" was a meter that could be reduced by being attacked. Hit points are an abstract thing that can represent a lot of aspects of potentially being damaged. One aspect is fatigue from working hard to avoid greater injury. One is luck. One is determination...

Fair enough, but it still doesn't really make sense to me. The kind of attack you're talking about sounds more like a hit to fatigue to me. I prefer an actual parry move to increase one's AC, such that if it works the attack misses.

Just because a small amount of damage is real most of the time doesn't mean that it wouldn't be much worse if you weren't skilled at avoiding and mitigating it. As you become more experienced, your skill at such task improves, allowing you to survive life and death situations without serious...

Well, drudgery is relative, and simulation and verisimilitude is an important part of play and engagement in the hobby in general for some of us. Your own game has many simulative elements that are much appreciated, certainly by me. They're a huge reason why I abandoned WotC 5e for it.

How can you possibly state something like that as an objective fact? Progression suggests moving a positive direction. I get this is likely positive for you, but that's all you can speak for. And in any case how do you expect this "slow erosion of GM power" to work? Are GMs supposed to stop...

What is "skill damage"?

As written they are not. My solution to this is that damage is slight but real most of the time, more so once half your hp is gone, in order to allow damage types to matter, and the big money comes in when you hit zero and drop. At that point, you exist in a sort of quantum state of wellness...

Except they have to be to some extent, to account for stuff like poison. Not to mentioned that if nothing hits you the entire concept of damage types becomes problematic.

Well given your avowed hatred of simulationism, I find it unlikely we could ever be happy at the same table. I see your point though.

That or anything like would be a terrible thing for rules to say, and I would not only happily ignore said rules, I likely would never play such a game.

Not that "official D&D settings" have anything to do with this specifically.

My tree is one with the Force, and the Force is with my tree.