Search results

It is my actual planned next character for one of my games, just for clarity.

My sorcerer 1/cleric 1/paladin 1/bard 1/rogue 1/druid 1/ranger 1/wizard 1 strenously objects to the idea he's obnoxious. :)

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Harandar was the first zone I got Sojourner on. And I thought some of the NPCs (like the root tender mourning Teldrassil) were really affecting. And I think the Haranir model is absolutely fantastic; I’m planning on doing Haranir Druid for Season 2.

I did a few delves with her as tank while leveling for my holy priest; she seemed inordinately squishy, even though the delves were just Tier 1s. She's up to rank 8 or so now, and she has some curios, so she's doing better now. But I definitely think that she's a superior healer compared to tank.

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of example I spoke about a few days ago, when I talked about maintaining agency when your character is presented with two distinct paths. In this case, the choice to attack or not should remain with the player. It would be different if this case was presented...

I didn't mention the play explicitly, but making checks around your character's Virtues and Vices in Pendragon. As an example, you might have a character with relatively High Virtue in Valorous, but you need to test that in order to engage in single combat with a knight you know is more skilled...

I mean, these terms are difficult to encapsulate; we're talking about a perceived experience that's probably different for everyone, in a medium that's intended to be creative. Small wonder it's challenging to achieve something like a consensus. It reminds me in a way of aphantasia (the...

There are games where the stakes involved in a roll require the player to act in accordance, and rationalize, a decision that the player might not feel is in the normal interests of the character. I mentioned Pendragon as an example a few days back.

Honestly, for me, assuming a D&D-like game, if I don't have at least one character die on me (as a player), I feel like I wasn't really playing my hardest.

Because there are some (many) games that you don't want to play in an immersive fashion. To me, those kinds of complaints feel somewhat like "I don't understand why you would to play Civilization on your computer instead of Call of Duty; it doesn't test your reflexes or hand-eye coordination at...

Yes, but you wouldn't be able to fail on a check that explicitly questions your character's thoughts and feelings.

Personally, I just don't see a game not reaching an "end" as something to really worry about. I DNF stuff all the time; books, TV shows, video games. Of course, I'm also on record as being much more interested in beginnings and middles of stories than the end, so that might just be my...

All my campaigns are short, so no worries there. :)

I haven't switched, I've simply started allowing 2024 options in my already existing 5e games, on top of all the other options allowed via 3pp. Why should I care if your character with a 2024 class uses a 2014 feat with a 3pp spell? It's your character.

Sure. I mean, this isn't dissimilar in style to Fate, where a player can accept a compel on an Aspect to get a Fate point, but isn't required to do so.

It's pretty hard to tell the difference 99% of the time. Narrating your choices as being grounded in character concept and backstory is fairly trivial, even if your personal motivation for the choices is to drive for conflict and drama. Believe me, I've been doing it for decades with all sorts...

I'm sure I could play at your table, I'm ultimately pretty flexible. I just probably wouldn't play a character focused on social checks (or geniuses with 5 Int!), since I understand your outlook. And since it's all internal, it's pretty hard to distinguish between "playing the character" and...

Yes, it's a fundamental incompatibility in our perspectives.

I mean, I think the core distinction is that I don't feel the weight of that discovery if the discovery is a choice I make as a player. I much prefer it to come from a source external to me, with a real risk that what I think should happen might not happen. I've set up the conflict, the system...

I haven't had too many games not end, but I also run games that are intended to be pretty short (between 12-18 sessions). I don't find really long campaigns that compelling. The majority of my tables also have rotating GMs, so we're looking to run things that have an obvious end point and move...