Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8448432" data-attributes="member: 6795602">My take from this is that your framework and methodology is deeply personal to you.&nbsp; That you find it extremely useful and think others can too - even to the point that the same relationships between specific successful moments of play and various techniques that you discovered will be broadly applicable to others.I've had alot of success modifying death rules in 5e to make falling to 0 hp more consequential.&nbsp; But every time I bring up the relationship of the success I have had with such techniques I find to my dismay that hardly anyone is interested in modifying their game that way.&nbsp; What I find is that relationships I initially think are universal and that others would benefit from usually aren't really that universal but particular to my tastes and possibly a small segment of other players tastes.&nbsp; There's never the broad appeal there that I expect.I think there's alot of unstated assumptions in this example.&nbsp; For example, one can treat some areas of backstory as fluid, non-binding while adjucating actions on the non-fluid backstory elements without causing fiat.&nbsp; And then there's the question, even if you do make an adjucation on a fluid, non-binding piece of backstory - was fiat in that situation actually 'bad' or 'negative' in anyway - especially if such fiat based adjucations come up rarely?Which to me reveals that what your analysis is teaching you is more about personal insight than universal principles that we call can use.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8448432, member: 6795602"] My take from this is that your framework and methodology is deeply personal to you. That you find it extremely useful and think others can too - even to the point that the same relationships between specific successful moments of play and various techniques that you discovered will be broadly applicable to others. I've had alot of success modifying death rules in 5e to make falling to 0 hp more consequential. But every time I bring up the relationship of the success I have had with such techniques I find to my dismay that hardly anyone is interested in modifying their game that way. What I find is that relationships I initially think are universal and that others would benefit from usually aren't really that universal but particular to my tastes and possibly a small segment of other players tastes. There's never the broad appeal there that I expect. I think there's alot of unstated assumptions in this example. For example, one can treat some areas of backstory as fluid, non-binding while adjucating actions on the non-fluid backstory elements without causing fiat. And then there's the question, even if you do make an adjucation on a fluid, non-binding piece of backstory - was fiat in that situation actually 'bad' or 'negative' in anyway - especially if such fiat based adjucations come up rarely? Which to me reveals that what your analysis is teaching you is more about personal insight than universal principles that we call can use. [/QUOTE]

Verification