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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9697471" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No, there’s plenty of legacy elements of D&D I like just fine. But there are parts of the  game that have changed, and parts that have stayed the same. Some of those parts that stayed the same probably should have changed when other parts changed, but didn’t. And those unchanged parts can cause someIssues. I find the same to be true of some folks’ processes of play. They continue using some processes out of habit rather than because it’s the best process available. It’s more that the GM’s agenda is meant to interact with the players’. “Make the characters’ lives not boring” for instance is a principle in several narrativist games. It’s pretty broad in scope, but specific in application. The GM need not be purely reactionary. But when they take direct action… let’s say in framing a scene… they should be doing so in a way that is important for the characters, based on what the players have indicated they want to see. But this is in no way universal. That kind of ability to add something as my character makes me feel more immersed. This is a matter of preference, and is entirely subjective. No, it’s not about simulationism so much as the quantum label. Until the Knowledge check happens, the character both knows and doesn’t know the bit of lore. Then the dice tell us which it is. This kind of determination in the moment of play is very present in RPGs, and it seems strange to make the distinctions that are being made about them.</blockquote>

Verification