Search results

Exactly. I've been actively conciliatory on this board for decades now. I'm just taking a little break from couching all of my thoughts in digestible platitudes.

If we can make it a meme for all toddlers and people who write 200 page setting bibles, I'm all in.

Please don't run the same game for life. That's even worse. Run lots of games, in lots of systems. Make more friends and play with them too. Just always remember the center of the game is the table, not the setting notes. Kumbaya!

Man, you really have no idea how to run a game with minimal prep, do you? It's amazing how you simply assume that everything is random and unconnected.

Makes sense. I mean, why rewrite the Constitution when I can just say "L'etat, c'est moi!" Same principle can definitely apply to my DMing.

I mean, if the alternative is "Play a human fighter with nothing but the stuff in my pack", than I would play OSE or Cairn or Knave or any of the myriad OSR/NSR systems that make such an experience actually gamable and enjoyable.

Man, I wish I had the time to waste designing a setting that doesn't even have players yet.

Having better ideas doesn't make me better than you, not in some "how do we value other people" calculation. It just means I have better ideas.

That "rando" is one of your players. :)

Remember that it's New Years, and you shouldn't break your resolutions until at least the third week of January. Weird. That sounds like the general hook for tieflings, one of the most common races in modern D&D.

I have no particular idea what you and your players want outside of your posts here. I'll totally cop to "arrogant and presumptuous" though. :)

I don't believe it be so. If you don't like posts with uncaveated opinions that make specific judgments about playstyles, then TwoSix in '26 may not be the right poster for you. Let me know if you need assistance finding the block or ignore functionalities available to you.

If you want more clarity, it isn't so much "wrong" as much as "worse". But yea, I'm making a normative judgment call here; caveating it with "well, for me... just weakens the declaration.

Yes. You should be accomodating the player. Your world-building interests are of lesser priority. I've said that like three times already. :)

It has nothing to do with selfishness. It has everything to do with the GM making poor decisions on how to maximize their effectiveness at GMing an actual table.

The point you seem to be blind to is that you can do all of that stuff without a ton of prep, AND without making choices to invalidate player options. Player wants to play a tortle? Swap out those swamp goblins in the SE corner of the map for tortles and maybe some other reptilians.

Obviously I can't act as some universal arbiter of correctness. But if we define wrong using the criteria "A table that is right is one I would want to play in", yes, I think you're doing it wrong.

Most importantly to me, nobody is asking the important question, which is "WHY did the PCs burn down a village?" There seems to be an assumption that the players are just being chaos agent chuckleheads. Now, granted, many players ARE chaos agent chuckleheads, and in the absence of players who...

Or the DM could just not, you know, make that terrible decision and stamp it into their world-building.

"Wrong" is a spectrum. My argument is twofold. 1) If you're playing D&D and you aren't embracing cosmopolitan diversity, a central point of the game for the past 25 years, you're doing something wrong. If you think a setting should only have a few races, then the OSR is probably a better for...