Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5795433" data-attributes="member: 957"><p>I'm not sure how to respond at this point. It seems the point I'm making is simply not clicking for you because you are not responding in a way that addresses the point.</p><p></p><p>You declared not getting there on time an off-screen failure.</p><p>When I offer an example about a princess you declare it is different because everything happened "on screen". You completely ignore my point that there were earlier "on screen" actions that caused them to fail to get there on time. And throughout your reply you consistently apply a double standard to considering the two examples. And so nothing you said in that last post changes anything because you have ignored the point being made.</p><p></p><p>You said "the character will ALWAYS get there on time." </p><p>If you turn around and say that some things are significant and others are not then you are NOT defending the point you made but instead are conceding my point as correct. "Always" means you don't care about the significance. And the point you made did not include any wiggle room for that reversal.</p><p></p><p>In both examples there were prior actions, current conditions, and consequences.</p><p></p><p>But you refuse to assess them by the same standards because you declare one significant and the other not. You spent a lot of time probing to me that saving the prisoner was significant. But if you understood my point it should be clear that I already agree it is significant. So there is not point in proving that. </p><p></p><p>Your statement "they will always get there on time" demands that anything which would cause them to get there late is de facto understood as "not significant". And your initial comment that I replied to was very clear in stating that getting there on time is something that should always happen.</p><p></p><p>Lets say that a player, as a joke, declares their character will go do some absurd thing that for sake of argument we all concede is pure definition of insignificant to the actual plot of the game. But their going to do that causes them to not get to the next real plot location on time. In that case the significance of the action itself is irrelevant. </p><p></p><p>Scene A: insignificant action X</p><p>Scene B: try to save prisoner</p><p>Scene C: try to save princess</p><p></p><p>You said the inability to get to B on time is a "off screen failure". But when Scene A happened it was "on screen" at the time. When you decree that the players will get to Scene B on time, you are requiring that Scene A is ignored. And once your have opened the box of ignoring scenes it is down to DM whim whether or not to ignore scene B when you get to scene C. If you ignore Scene A as "off screen" because you are now at Scene B, then the exact same logic says that Scene B is now off-screen once you are at Scene C.</p><p></p><p>Now please don't spend time describing to em why it is a bad idea to ignore Scene B because it is so important. That is part of my point. I 100% agree with you. What you have not yet touched on is a justification for why it is ok to ignore Scene A. And, as you stated in the post I first replied to, the hero was too far away. If we know that then the only reasonable presumption is that there was a Scene A establishing that. And other than the first scene of the campaign there is always a Scene A. </p><p></p><p>So when you say the characters will always get there on time then it is no different than saying the characters will always be able to save the princess.</p><p>The fact that you choose to not say that in the second case does not change the fact that saying it would have still been the same and having said it the first time still demands that prior actions have no consequence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5795433, member: 957"] I'm not sure how to respond at this point. It seems the point I'm making is simply not clicking for you because you are not responding in a way that addresses the point. You declared not getting there on time an off-screen failure. When I offer an example about a princess you declare it is different because everything happened "on screen". You completely ignore my point that there were earlier "on screen" actions that caused them to fail to get there on time. And throughout your reply you consistently apply a double standard to considering the two examples. And so nothing you said in that last post changes anything because you have ignored the point being made. You said "the character will ALWAYS get there on time." If you turn around and say that some things are significant and others are not then you are NOT defending the point you made but instead are conceding my point as correct. "Always" means you don't care about the significance. And the point you made did not include any wiggle room for that reversal. In both examples there were prior actions, current conditions, and consequences. But you refuse to assess them by the same standards because you declare one significant and the other not. You spent a lot of time probing to me that saving the prisoner was significant. But if you understood my point it should be clear that I already agree it is significant. So there is not point in proving that. Your statement "they will always get there on time" demands that anything which would cause them to get there late is de facto understood as "not significant". And your initial comment that I replied to was very clear in stating that getting there on time is something that should always happen. Lets say that a player, as a joke, declares their character will go do some absurd thing that for sake of argument we all concede is pure definition of insignificant to the actual plot of the game. But their going to do that causes them to not get to the next real plot location on time. In that case the significance of the action itself is irrelevant. Scene A: insignificant action X Scene B: try to save prisoner Scene C: try to save princess You said the inability to get to B on time is a "off screen failure". But when Scene A happened it was "on screen" at the time. When you decree that the players will get to Scene B on time, you are requiring that Scene A is ignored. And once your have opened the box of ignoring scenes it is down to DM whim whether or not to ignore scene B when you get to scene C. If you ignore Scene A as "off screen" because you are now at Scene B, then the exact same logic says that Scene B is now off-screen once you are at Scene C. Now please don't spend time describing to em why it is a bad idea to ignore Scene B because it is so important. That is part of my point. I 100% agree with you. What you have not yet touched on is a justification for why it is ok to ignore Scene A. And, as you stated in the post I first replied to, the hero was too far away. If we know that then the only reasonable presumption is that there was a Scene A establishing that. And other than the first scene of the campaign there is always a Scene A. So when you say the characters will always get there on time then it is no different than saying the characters will always be able to save the princess. The fact that you choose to not say that in the second case does not change the fact that saying it would have still been the same and having said it the first time still demands that prior actions have no consequence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
Top