Search results

Agreed, although I'm moved away over time from prioritizing "novel concept" to "novel system". There are a bunch of new systems I want to play, but I run them as they're presented out of the book, with very little modification. That's true. My groups are fairly fixed, so I try to match up...

But psychologically, it sounds like you're saying you would prefer a "one word, one meaning" mindset.

Because the GM should not be having fun saying "No, you can't do X." "Fun" really has nothing to do with this topic. It's about the validity of maintaining a certain aesthetic for your setting, weighed against the cost of denying another player an option they feel would be relevant and...

There's a few things going on here. First, you're talking about a complete setting modification, not simply a ban list. If you set up a restricted concept for a game (like "let's all play a family of gnome wizards") and the players and GM are in alignment, that's totally fine. I don't...

I'm not generally a fan of "modules", but I really enjoyed this book as a pure exploratory sandbox. It's a bunch of themed and linked locations with a lot of discoverable backstory, but without a hint of a "storyline" for the PCs (which I dislike intensely).

That's more of a late-night thing for me, but I admit I don't know what time zone you're in.

Thank goodness, that seems like a horrible architectural fail. :)

Well, this is just a semantic difference, then. I don't consider the players' actions that shape the setting to be worldbuilding. "Worldbuilding" is specifically the actions that set up the campaign setting/frame prior to session 1, whether that be GM notes or collaborative efforts with the...

Yea, that's pretty much it. GMs who make homebrewed settings and then stay them in for years or decades are essentially making personal fantasy heartbreakers. They have a mental image of what D&D should look like, and their setting is where they get to assert the truth of that mental image...

At a certain point, why not just be upfront and say "I'm trying to curate a specific aesthetic for this game?" Because the fact that you're opposed to the look of the tortle more than anything tells me that maintaining the mental image of the setting is what's most important to you.

But....that isn't worldbuilding. That's just, ya know, playing the game.

It's simply a question of playing those games as they were designed. Blades in the Dark has a specific theme. D&D does not. And that isn't holding D&D to a higher standard; I would also view a GM adding a lot of restrictions to PF1 or PF2, or 13th Age, or Draw Steel or Daggerheart as...

As one of the main advocates for the "D&D is intrinsically kitchen-sink" position, I will say I think games like Dolmenwood and Brancalonia, or any other 3pp games that's essentially a well-curated D&D-type fantasy, are great. But I believe there's a world of difference between presenting a...

I don't know....I mean, have you seen some of their posts? Seems scary. :)

Remember the bunch of "Cleric/warlock? That's unplayable!" threads that came out during the start of 5e? Good times. :)

Got me 3 reaction points and made me feel better about myself. :)

Good ones.

What the heck is the “long run”? We’re here to have the players generate conflict and narratives. That’s the point of playing.

I’m sure this was a while ago, so I’m not criticizing any GM actions here. But it seems like a solid example of a time to make sure good GM practices are being followed. If the player is acting in a manner you find confusing: Switch to metagame conversation. Clarify the player’s intent. Make...

This actually seems fine to me. It seems like the player’s specific intent was to push boundaries by taking risky actions, in an attempt to judge if the GM will actually follow through on consequences. It’s a way to establish stakes.