Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8377185" data-attributes="member: 16814">Dude, you said it wasn't even roleplaying or storytelling.  Let's not pretend you aren't very much applying a judgement here.  I find your argument to support your preference to be lacking.  If it's just a preference, I have zero issues with it.  Again, it's how it's argued that I'm engaging.You missed the bit after those two, labeled, conveniently, "The Middle Path," which doesn't list drawbacks.  The assumption you've made, incorrectly, is that I follow the path of "Roll With It."  I do not.Again, you assume I am not doing these things.  Actually, I prefer to not do "the story matters" that much, instead trying to let the players determine their own story rather than play to learn mine.It's a common enough phrasing that means it wasn't more restrictive than 3e.  It was just more honest about how it restricted things than 3e was.Don't know about Critical Role, except that it's an entertainment product by professional actors with a profit motive.  That it didn't change it's winning formula says that they've intentionally shaped their presentation to do this, and not anything at all about the games.  If you have a game in PF, and you move it to 5e, and it doesn't change, I am, uncharacteristically, willing to say that you might be doing it wrong.  Or, rather, that it appears that you have a game and haven't changed it, despite claiming to be playing 5e or Pathfinder.In a fight.  Pinned down.  Uh-huh, tell me more about how there's no demands on this creature's attention such that they have plenty free to focus on the pillar?Sure, go ahead and call my player unimaginative, when they come up, every round, with new and fun stories about how they attacked this time.This is serious?  I mean, really?  You explain to me that swordplay is complex, and so you can't just give disadvantage because the fighter is doing different things, while at the same time saying that the rogue, who is even more skilled at stealth than the fighter (assuming expertise) is a very simple affair where the same thing is being done over and over without variation on ability to be varied.  And this is a serious argument.  I mean, I've said you have a clear and preconceived idea about the fiction for the rogue.  And I said that I anticipated a 'that's different' argument for the swordplay.  You've more than delivered on your end.I am not.  I'm saying that your reasoning for your preference is shaky and not logical -- that a simple change to allow the rogue as much leeway in explaining her hiding as you give to the fighter without hesitation will result in a different outcome.  Your argument is pinned up in a preconceived notion of how the fiction works, and you will not consider other options, so you have a faulty premise for your rules argument.  A non-faulty premise is "we like it like this."  You do you, there are no gamer police.  But, if you show up with bad arguments, expect the air to be let out from time to time.I don't play "Roll With It," so nothing to deal with.I'm terribly sorry, but your experience isn't the breadth of everything, and your characterization of my game is woefully incorrect.  See, I'm not making assumptions about anything other than the topic at hand, but you seem to feel the need to decide how I play in general, and then tell me it's boring, not fun, no roleplaying, terriblebad.  I'm not an exception, there's plenty of us that have rich games that don't feel the need to make the call you did.  I find your approach to be the result of the GM deciding the reality and then forcing the rules to match, rather than using the rules as a tool to encourage fun stories.  I'll put my games up against yours any day of the week for a comparison of how much roleplaying is happening.Okay.  I mean, you're terribly wrong, and leveling the judgements that you disclaimed in your first sentence, all without a shred of evidence to support it, but you do you, man.  You do you.</blockquote>

Verification