Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2742427" data-attributes="member: 18280">Kamikaze,Sometimes I think our differences are more etymological than philosophical.&nbsp; I think that, from a philosophical standpoint, we often agree, and it is the connotations of our wordings that fuel the fires.&nbsp; Of course, I'm probably wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; Either way, glad to have you in our camp.Reading through this thread is actually very interesting, because I find myself agreeing with both point and counterpoint in a lot of cases.&nbsp; Yes, it is important to describe action.&nbsp; But equally, yes, the action is the result of DM setup, player choices, and die rolls.&nbsp; Yes, I will allow PCs to die.&nbsp; Yes, I will make sure that there is at least fair warning and a chance to change that outcome.&nbsp; I am, in fact, giving the PCs swashbuckling cards and will soon be using action points as well to allow them to sway outcomes in their favor.&nbsp; Anyway, very interesting stuff.And, swrushing, your writing on this thread makes your DMing style seem quite fine.&nbsp; Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with Reynard's.When I run a game, I use a consistent and persistant game world.&nbsp; If all the characters die, the game world survives.&nbsp; However, I do devise plots, events, and even locations to integrate the game world with the characters.&nbsp; My PCs recently ran into the ghost of the lover or one a PC's grandmother....unfortunately, the PC who the thread was designed for is dead.&nbsp; This doesn't mean that the thread goes away.&nbsp; PCs have persistance even after their deaths.&nbsp; IMC, PC background helps define the world, as well as the stories that the PCs become involved in.&nbsp; I like to provide options, and let the players choose which threads they follow.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2742427, member: 18280"] Kamikaze, Sometimes I think our differences are more etymological than philosophical. I think that, from a philosophical standpoint, we often agree, and it is the connotations of our wordings that fuel the fires. Of course, I'm probably wrong. ;) Either way, glad to have you in our camp. Reading through this thread is actually very interesting, because I find myself agreeing with both point and counterpoint in a lot of cases. Yes, it is important to describe action. But equally, yes, the action is the result of DM setup, player choices, and die rolls. Yes, I will allow PCs to die. Yes, I will make sure that there is at least fair warning and a chance to change that outcome. I am, in fact, giving the PCs swashbuckling cards and will soon be using action points as well to allow them to sway outcomes in their favor. Anyway, very interesting stuff. And, swrushing, your writing on this thread makes your DMing style seem quite fine. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with Reynard's. When I run a game, I use a consistent and persistant game world. If all the characters die, the game world survives. However, I do devise plots, events, and even locations to integrate the game world with the characters. My PCs recently ran into the ghost of the lover or one a PC's grandmother....unfortunately, the PC who the thread was designed for is dead. This doesn't mean that the thread goes away. PCs have persistance even after their deaths. IMC, PC background helps define the world, as well as the stories that the PCs become involved in. I like to provide options, and let the players choose which threads they follow. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification