Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Laurefindel" data-source="post: 9667241" data-attributes="member: 67296">My issue with those systems is that it kinda locks you into a « and » or « but » etc. Typically, these systems discourage you from just ignoring the « and » or « but » if you just don’t feel it. Also, it can create situations where the GM feels they need to justify themselves when they introduce something that goes against the result of the roll, or else the players feel cheated. For some gamemasters, narrative systems are liberating and enabling; for me they are (so far) mostly constraining, and not in a creativity-sparking way. Yet I really want to make it work…I like the principle of ‘and’ and ‘but’ but I prefer when the frequency is relatively low (like 1-10 à la D&D, and maybe up to 1-in-6). But having them on 100% of rolls (considering that criticals are their own kind of special results) sounds exhausting.This can be mitigated when a game gives clear instructions on positive/negative riders, like « if you roll Hope choose one of the following 5 options », especially if one of those options is easily passe-partout like « you look cool while doing it ».I’m curious to see the end result though. I just hope that in trying to make a system that works for everyone, DH doesn’t end up making a system that doesn’t work for anyone.</blockquote>