Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8679066" data-attributes="member: 70468">Let’s not get hung up on jargon. I referenced that article because it got a positive response here and provides a set of definitions that I could use to clarify my point. I’ve run into those players, and I’m sure others here have as well. In my case, the player had very different expectations for what the game was about and how the GM should operate. I thought he would have fun anyway, but I was proven wrong when he rage quit after his character died. He claimed he’d done nothing wrong (and presumably his character should not have died), but it happens in my game, and it did.How I play is going to vary highly depending on the game. I’m not going to approach Pathfinder 2e the same way I would Call of Cthluhu or Scum and Villainy or Torchbearer or even Konosuba TRPG (just running down various games I’ve played in the last few years). They all do different things, and their rules all specify who gets to say what and what they can say in different ways. Konosuba has the GM get XP! If you want to do a game with rotating GMs, it sets you up better than other ones I listed which have no rules for that. Anyway, while I did have Edwards’s article in mind, I also meant the plain meaning of the phrase “system matters”.I think a newer player would have an easier time running a system that says, “follow these rules and do X, Y, and Z,” then one where it gives them a ton of flexibility without a lot of guidelines on using it. It may not be great, but I expect there will be fewer pathologies than if they were left on their own. If they happen to pick a game where the GM doesn’t even get to roll dice, then they can’t even fudge! <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😂" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f602.png" title="Face with tears of joy    :joy:" data-shortname=":joy:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />With that said, I agree regarding examples. The only thing worse than no examples are bad ones. I was really disappointed when I first tried to run Worlds Without Number to find that not only did its surprise rules make no sense but that there were no examples of how to make sense of them. (You make a group check, but group checks are only implied by other parts of the system.)Ah, well then. What you say makes sense, but I don’t think we agree when it comes to intentionality. Would it be fair to say that you don’t see a place for intentionally fudging at the table?I don’t think that really stops people from creating house rules anyway, but I only mentioned it as an option because I figured it would be too contentious only to suggest playing a different game instead.It’s not a style of game I like to do, but I mention it because I’ve seen it suggested by those who dod. Another one is requiring player permission to kill a PC. I’ve seen that one too. Again, not my thing either.The kind of game I run is an exploration-focused sandbox game using a homebrew system based on Moldvay Basic. There are a number of changes. One thing in particular is I never get to roll the dice (outside of combat and event rolls). We only roll when the players establish stakes that matter. Like I said above, if you don’t roll dice, you can’t fudge (not that I’m particularly inclined anyway). <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😂" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f602.png" title="Face with tears of joy    :joy:" data-shortname=":joy:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification