NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5325309" data-attributes="member: 386">Quoted out of context because this is important - yes, exactly.  I have my preferences, and I like to argue for them.  (And it seems they change over time!)  The rest of your post is good and I can only reply to say what I'd like to see in a game.Yes, exactly!  That's the kind of thing I like to see.  It requires the people playing the game to make judgement calls; it makes it really important who you play with.In a game that's as social as D&D, I think that's really important.  For me, at least.I also think there are important implications for immersion, but I don't really understand what immersion means, so I haven't thought too much about that.  Maybe that's what I'm talking about.1. You'd probably have to allow players to pick and choose what kinds of encounters they get into.  "All my powers are good against people and humanoids; I don't really want to go fight dinosaurs."2. You'd also need to make sure there was a rule that said that the DM is the final arbiter of all of these judgement calls.  Disagreements would be against the rules.Dogs in the Vineyard has a rule like this; whoever doesn't like the invocation of a trait can overrule it.This could get messed up if there are dicks in play; don't play with dicks, you can't make rules that stop that.  What's more, though, is that you're not going to like everyone's judgement calls.  That's fine, find people you do want to play with. Yep, well said.  I do think that it's better the more influence the specific people you're playing with have over the game - the more choices, decisions, and judgement calls people can make - but I could be wrong, and there's no way to prove that.  It's an opinion and the opposite is just as valid.</blockquote>

Verification