Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5277186" data-attributes="member: 18280">Sorry, but correct me if I am wrong.  I said that SSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD includes, perforce SoD.   You say that's not true?  Would you also contend that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXY doesn't inlcude XY?But, again, if there is ever a single roll disconnected from everything else you've already got bigger problems than SoD.  I've never seen it happen.  I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault.  Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing!  And...if you disagree, and believe it is good GMing, I have to say that I find your complaints counterintuitive at best. Yet you are willing to tell me that I am wrong!Is "My rogue looked into a window, saw a bodak, and died...without any warning at all!" an acceptable narrative?  If not, you are limiting the acceptable narratives.  If so, your objection vanishes.AFAICT, we all limit the acceptable narratives.  Indeed, I am very much of the opinion that it is impossible not to.  We just differ as to which narratives are acceptable.  Sometimes these limitations are universal -- there are Grandmother Unfriendly narratives that I have no desire to role-play in any game, regardless of genre.  Sometimes they are game or genre conventions -- I want limitations on PC deaths in Doctor Who, for example, that I do not want in D&D, and I applaud the rules in Cubicle 7's Doctor Who that make talking or running a better choice than fighting.A general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals. Agreed!  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />I am not trying to logically prove that your preference is wrong.  AFAICT, a preference can neither be wrong nor right.  That doesn't mean that why a preference exists cannot be explored, or is not worthy of exploration!  Quite the contrary -- it is the root of self-knowledge.IOW, classical music is fairly complex, and if I stated a preference for or against classical music, it would be a pretty good bet that it is not the complex entity "classical music" which is at the root of my like or dislike, but more basic factors that exist within classical music, or within my relationship to classical music.It I wanted to discover music that I truly loved, or avoid music that I truly loathed, it is not enough to just point to "classical music" -- the underlaying reasons would indicate which qualities of music (within or without of the rubric of "classical music") I should avoid or seek out.Likewise, say (for example) that some people have had the experience that Save or Die effects feel random and arbitrary, minimizing the character's ability to determine their own fate.  Okay, well a character's ability to determine their own fate doesn't exist -- it is the player's ability which is in question.  The character's fate is the narrative.  So it is the player's ability to control the narrative that is in question.Say instead that some people find that Save or Die effects result in less satisfying deaths than deaths that come from a greater amount of action.  Why are they less satisfying?  Because the resultant narrative is less satisfying. In a role-playing game, there is a constant tension between narrative control and risk of losing that narrative control.  Where you prefer that tension to be resolved is personal preference.  This isn't a treatise on why SoD is great, or good, or eternally flawed.  It is an explanation both of why some people don't like it and why some people do.  I have been both, and I have given it a lot of thought.Again, a general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals. In all of your statements, above, are you explaining why others feel the way they do?  After all, you use "Some people".......But, no.  You are making a general statement that you do not mean to imply to be true for all indiiduals.  Right?Please allow me the courtesy of assuming the same.Especially as I have said so several times! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification