Search results

I was assigned Gatsby as part of a creative writing class, so the focus was probably different than in a purer literature class, and I read The Catcher in the Rye after I dropped out of college. I should reread the latter, but I enjoyed it a good deal more than I think most of the people who are...

My own recent experiences with rereading things from my distant past were distinctly mixed. I read Something Wicked This Way Comes in high school or college or thereabouts, and I probably was too close to the age of the mains to put aside the "looking down on the kids" thing, and I was nowhere...

I might call those opinions "underinformed" instead of "idiosyncratic," but I'm not inclined to argue hard about it.

I suspect A) at least some people are making descriptivist/prescriptivist noises and B) that's not exactly (or maybe even at all) what's really going on. (What's really going on is more like something out of Carroll, probably.)

I generally take a lot of photographs when we go to parkland places. At least landscapes don't move, so you get as many chances as you want (more or less). Something so focused around moments as a wedding would seem way less approachable, coming from a different skillset.

Even if you're mostly taking pictures of static stuff, like landscapes, you need to take an amazing number of pictures to get any decent shots. I have to imagine that's even more true if your subjects are in motion.

Among other things, the amateurs generally don't take enough photos.

The things I like are not popular because my tastes are much more refined than the majority's. The things you like are not popular because they're garbage.

Again, the difference between pro wrestling and any sort of actual game is that in a game the outcome is in doubt--Steve Austin was always going to lose that match to the Hurricane, to use your example--so Combat as Pro Wrestling means the outcome of the fight is already decided. Not "the odds...

Actually, I'm not, because there's nothing in what I said that doesn't mean the outcome is still in doubt. If we're playing a game, it must be possible to lose.

I'm not really arguing with your point that if there's a game, losing has to be a possibility, but you can have a big set-piece thing specifically set up to give the PCs some specific opportunities, things to let them show off some, while still leaving losing--due to bad choices and/or bad...

I can agree that Combat as Sport has different priorities than Combat as War, but there's nothing inherent to the idea of "fair challenge" that means the GM is going to "make sure the players win." Combat as Theater--especially if kayfabe is a real comparison--might have the outcomes...

I think the idea that the story doesn't end--or pause--when there's a fight getting started is solid, certainly PCs can (and often do) make tactically suboptimal decisions because of narrative/roleplay reasons, up to and including picking bad fights (from a combat-as-war POV, so including both...

And I'm at least gesturing at the idea that someone who decides a group is good enough might be deceiving themself.

Eh. I think there's a distinction, there--some people luck into good groups, others decide they've lucked into good groups, regardless of the groups' actual goodness.

Or decide the group they've lucked into is good enough.

At least I was quoting a song ... :LOL:

This is not an attitude, it's my personality.

I don't doubt that at all. Different people will have different experiences. For instance, I've had players use the Discord chat for one campaign to plan their characters for the next, and much of how those characters connected to each other. They had their character concepts in place by the...

Same with insecticides.