Search results

Neither of which explains why the Doctor wanted their help in the first place. He wastes a considerable amount of time forcing them to help, but once he achieves that it turns out that all he wants them to do is follow along behind him. Discussing the marginal assistance they provided doesn't...

I was initially confused and thought that, in addition to writing the message on it, he was also using the sonic screwdriver to somehow alter the device so that it would create the time loop. (Which didn't make a lot of sense, but my expectations have been lowered.) About 30 seconds after the...

Re: "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS". Nice to see a conclusion that actually makes sense and isn't just pulled out of a hat as a deus ex machina. And there are a lot of really nice details (like hearing Susan explain the TARDIS acronym). On the other hand, some of the individual elements...

Yup. That would be another explanation that might have worked in an episode that was better written: The TARDIS can get in-and-out fast enough because all it's doing is picking up the Doctor (whereas if it had to drop him off, wait for him to locate the alien/Hila, and then leave it would take...

And it would help if you could actually hold yourself responsible for the things you say. You haven't been able to do that so far, but let's see if you can give it a try: You've already established that you veto scenes on the basis that they include elements of the setting you haven't seen...

It's really, really simple. When you have a conversation like this: "Why can't we do X to solve the problem?" "We can't do X because Y will happen." You can't just turn around five minutes later, do X, and have the only justification be "Clara insulted the TARDIS". It's a textbook example of...

That's not the same thing. If we want to talk about an applicable example from Star Wars, let's consider the end of the first movie: It establishes a specific rule ("the only way to destroy this thing is to fire a photon torpedo into the exhaust port") and then structures the end of the film...

I've seen several people talking about this portion of the thread by trying to talk about the actual Star Wars films. You should note that Hussar is explicitly not talking about what actually happens in the films. This is needlessly confusing and I'm not really sure why he thought it would make...

This is unsurprising given that you veto any scene that would establish new elements of the setting/story that you're unaware of. It's not so much a chicken-and-egg problem, it's just that you're violently opposed to the DM having an equal voice at the table.

I'm afraid the explanation is really bad writing. Well, the Great Intelligence has a history of using ice-based stuff. There might be something actually wrong with the Doctor.

Re: "Hide". Probably the best episode of Series 7 so far. Unfortunately, that's a low bar to clear at this point and the episode suffers from the same problem we've seen in virtually every other script this season: Strong concept, intriguing opening, fantastic production values... and an ending...

... unless that player is the GM. Which neatly highlights the fundamental philosophical divide in these discussions.

I suppose we could go through all the the definitions of the word "cheat" and you'd say something like, "Ah ha! If we're talking about cheating in the sense of sexual fidelity, then clearly fudging dice rolls in an RPG isn't objectively cheating!" or "Ah ha! An RPG has no value, therefore it's...

So what's your confusion here? The players don't like the way you run games so they don't play in your games. Well, sure. But you can say the same thing about cheating at any game: If everyone silently agrees that the 5 year old can occasionally fudge their die rolls because that makes it more...

And even if the trip is fraught with difficulty, if that difficulty wouldn't be interesting or meaningful to play through then you might still skip over it. It's a simulationist vs. narrativist thing. A common simulationist technique is to look at the game world and say, "What's logically...

Whereas I would consider the inability to distinguish between, say, Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon and The Avengers because you don't spend any time thinking critically about your entertainment to be rather missing the point. I enjoy adventure stories and exciting romps and all that sort...

As a result of this thread, I've been randomly sampling older episodes. "Blink" is so very, very good. The comparison to what's currently being produced is painful. Particularly notable for the "Rings of Akhaten", given that the ending of the sun god is literally identical to the original of...

That's about the first third of the episode. And you're a right: It's OK up to that point. A trifle repetitive and overwritten (the Doctor has three arguments with Churchill which are just the two of them shouting "nuh-uh" and "uh-huh" at each other). But nothing too terrible. Once the cookie...

I've actually never understood the overwhelming loathing peopel have for "Love & Monsters". I don't think it's top tier, but I thought it was an interesting story that was well told. Possibly I'm biased because I like Marc Warren and Shirley Henderson. In the Moffat seasons, I would easily rank...

I haven't watched it since it was broadcast, but "Victory of the Daleks" may be the worst episode of nuWho. (I'm only hedging my bets because I refuse to rewatch it and confirm just how bad it was.) Its only saving grace was that Moffat used it as a chance to reboot the Daleks and then not...