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="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8272312" data-attributes="member: 18">This is an inherently hypocritical position, you see that right? You're saying people are literally allowed to only speak about their own direct experiences, but a couple of sentences before, you yourself made sweeping claims about what was and wasn't universal, which absolutely rely on you talking about a ton of stuff you didn't directly experience. You are generalizing when you say things like "AD&D was all about avoiding combat as much as possible, as an example, which, frankly, is a load of hooey". I mean I agree with it, but it's a generalization reliant on indirect knowledge. There's also a large element of projection/hearing what you want to hear, as with "AD&D was all about avoiding combat as much as possible, as an example, which, frankly, is a load of hooey" - that's not something anyone here has said. I think it's you wildly exaggerating me and others pointing out that early D&D tended to be about ambushes and avoiding combat which wasn't advantageous, but that's obviously not the same thing as saying AD&D was about that - AD&D was where things began to move towards a more heroic model, though 3E really kept "ambush == win" design-wise.If that's all you got from multiple paragraphs of explanation, then I can safely say I'm not the one with a problem here. Not everything in the world is about you, and if you read that much text, and all you extract is a sense of personal victimhood relating to a single line, then I really don't think you're here for the discussion. It's obviously not a legitimate or good-faith reading of what I was saying, and you even dumped the context of the rest of the paragraph, which is particularly white guy blinking gif. It's also funny because [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] actually brought the issue up countless posts ago that relatively few groups could do that sort of planning, so I guess he was victimizing you too with his cruel suggestion that not all groups were capable of or even interested in in-depth planning. How dare we suggest some people might not be into a thing, or not good at a thing.(This is of course particularly funny to me, because as a player, I'm not like them. I don't enjoy making elaborate plans, I like seat-of-the-pants stuff and had less of a problem with BitD's approach than they did - my brother was DMing. I'm fine with following them, but making them? Not so much. So I guess I was saying I'm not "particularly bright" by your logic?)This literally isn't true. It's not even arguable. If you think that's how D&D works, again, the problem is not with anyone else in this thread. You can run a game where every failure is catastrophic, but that's a choice, it's not inherent to the design. It's funny because you yourself said:That's incompatible with the flat claim that checks are inherently catastrophic.In fact, I'd go as far as to say, your interpretation that check failures = catastrophe is idiosyncratic and erratic in the classic sense, to a fairly extreme degree. You've clearly expressed this view that all failures should result in immediate total mission failure for heists, but it's not something that's actually the case.This whole "kill everything" notion is particularly bizarre. If the PCs are so dangerous that they can do that, why are people even engaging them? Is this bank run by and employing suicidal maniacs? In real heist scenarios where people are heavily armed and armoured (as has happened actually surprisingly quite a few times in history) people tend to get the hell out of their way. It can actually be part of the plan - c.f. the successful heist at the beginning of HEAT (which is clearly designed to minimize actual deaths and serious injuries - an evil character with no self-control undermines that of course).Basically what you're saying is like if a PtbA DM made extreme and ridiculous hard moves every time a check was failed. You can definitely ruin a PtbA game really hard and really fast if you do that, including BitD.Maybe we can agree this principle:"If you have a D&D* DM who views any check failures as immediately catastrophic to any plan** then you probably cannot use D&D* to run heists" Do you disagree with that?* = Equally true of any other RPG.** = which would extend way beyond heists</blockquote>

Verification