Search results

“This incredibly ugly troll is named Speve Mones, and definitely not based on some jerk in English class.”

The problem is that splitting up is often the most strategic choice ("Let's split up so we can cover more ground" does actually make sense in a lot of situations), but it leads to "at-table" consequences (loss of player attention, more GM overhead, boredom); thus, we turn to rules mechanics or...

So a similar game space to a co-op game like Pandemic, just with more options and variability.

Ideally, it's disincentivized by both strategic reasons AND by scenario/encounter design.

That does make sense. It's ultimately why although I like aspects of OSR play, it isn't really my go-to play experience. I don't do "caution" or "strategy" well. :)

I don't find it difficult, but I'm a high-improv low-prep GM; I do know other GMs who function better with more time to be more creative. And coming up with evocative fantasy names, especially dozens of them, isn't the easiest of tasks; random name lists have been a feature of lots of RPG...

"One of us! One of us!" :)

Maybe? I mean, huddling up as a group to discuss strategies for spell use isn't really a spelled-out procedure that I'm aware of. I feel like it might be more a factor of the relative consequentialness of spell use. And Shadowdark might require more planning because of the unpredictability of...

You can do a whole bunch of things without assists from technology; the calculation always comes down is the time and effort required worth the personal growth you'd gain in return.

Could be. I find it hard to tell when switching systems; is it because the system rewards it, or because the GMing style has shifted because of the new engine?

I do think the "group huddle to problem solve" happened more (just a gut feeling), but that feels more just like a generational/cultural shift than anything caused by a game's specified procedures. Maybe not, though. 3e did have a lot more spells that were essentially "auto-win" or "trump...

Yea, we definitely play with different people, on top of the fact that it seems we're looking for very different experiences out of our games, even when playing the same system.

That would work for Path A in @Pedantic's scenario, sure. But Paths B and C both look like everyone involved would need to make personal skill checks. I really never want to provide encouragement to split the party; people gravitate towards that too often (because "it's what my character would...

Sure, that can work. My worry as a GM there would be that scenario would encourage the party to split up, based on each character's individual odds of succeeding at one of the three paths.

Yea, that's a big NO for me, lol. I remember games where the group would spend hours pouring over their spell lists and features, looking for ways to solve a specific encounter or problem. I had a lot of the spells and features, and I was still bored out of my mind. :) "You cast wall of...

If you have a specific solution in mind, I'd love to hear it. What's a specific scenario in which OSR-style "grapple with the environment" is wedded to a longer, detailed skill list? Doesn't have to be a specific game, just an outline of a play procedure.

One thing I've noticed about several of the 3pp creators I respect is that they put out their material for free for years, sometimes going through a dozen revisions, before it arrives at an actual finalized version that gets published (if it even ever does). I wonder if the constant revenue...

I think it's in tension when the skills that are meant to be tested by recourse to player ingenuity are ALSO options that can be resolved by a simple skill check. You can have a gameplay loop that requires both to successfully navigate the challenge, but it's problematic when it becomes an...