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: 9699834" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I curse the name of the person that taught you what a Red Herring is. No, because on a success, the thief was quiet enough to not draw her attention. I feel like someone dosed me. The principle as it appears in Monsterhears is "Make each main character's life not boring". That's literally the principle in the book that it is telling the players and GM to keep in mind. To make decisions with that as a primary factor. But this is guidance for that game (and others that share it), not necessarily every game. While I might try to GM by this principle when I play 5e, it's not something that's always easy to do, and it's not something I'd expect most others to do since it's not in the book at all. Not all principles work for all games. "Be a neutral arbiter" doesn't work for Monsterhearts or Apocalypse World. You literally posted that the principle was implying that other games were boring. Yes, this is why the principles have been suggested as being oppositional. That you cannot be a neutral arbiter and be working to make the characters' lives not boring. There may be times where they don't conflict, but there will be times when they do. If you're running prep-focused D&D, then it makes sense to consider the principle "be a neutral arbiter" as more important. If you're running Apocalypse World, then it makes sense to consider the principle "make the characters' lives not boring". It's just how different games approach play. Neither is better or worse. That the words "not boring" appear in one doesn't mean that it's saying others are boring.</blockquote>

Verification