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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8297651" data-attributes="member: 87792">A DM following rules not rulings has full control of the rules and the rules serve him. If he doesn't like a rule the Primer gives him full license to ignore it. And every single one of the rules Finch uses in his illustrations of playstyles he doesn't like serves a purpose - or it wouldn't be there. Finch therefore absolutely and completely does suggest that rules that serve a purpose should not be used.Remember we're talking failure state not ideal mode here. No one is suggesting that the DM in question was a good one. Merely that they were an old school one resistant to feedback who did things badly.This I'll grantA hero who didn't see it coming. Preternatural awareness rather than a significant chance of failing to see a stealthy predator coming would make for a superhero. A hero who couldn't be one shotted by an apex predator far larger and stronger than they are would be at the very least covered in plot armour and probably a superhero (like most D&D PCs, but I digress). Combine the two and it's down to the dice and killed by a bear ambush is a direct consequence.According to Finch "The party has no “right” only to encounter monsters they can defeat,... and no “right” to a die roll in every particular circumstance. This sort of situation isn’t a mistake in the rules." Even with that caveat the bear attack I think at least gave some sort of check to either see the bear or win initiative - and the bear could have been beaten.Now it's bad DMing - but it's also the failure state of following the advice in the Old School Primer that the Primer does absolutely nothing to mitigate.So why does the designer consider things to be balanced given that balance being 50:50 odds belongs to a wargame and there is no RPG I am aware of that has a TPK in half the fights? Finch entirely discards the notion that game balance and the designers indicating expected threat levels (which is what game balance actually means) is a good thing. Which, yes, is ignoring what the designer is suggesting is the most fun way of playing and telling you to discard it.Except that it doesn't say much to contradict it - and when you have a DM that won't listen to player feedback the Short Primer is only going to encourage them. Yes it's an uncharitable reading of the Old School Primer - but we're dealing with a bad DM here.There's a reason that Storygames come with things like the X card and lines and veils. Their failure states tend to be unholy emotional nightmares and the designers recognise this and both guide you into good practice and put things in to mitigate the failure states that can arise. And good DMs don't spring fully formed - but few people want to do a bad job. And in addition to modelling good practice the way Crawford is another thing the OSR can and should do if it wants to bring in new gamers is mitigate the problems with the style.</blockquote>

Verification