Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="darkbard" data-source="post: 7409076" data-attributes="member: 1282">No matter how many times you write &quot;irregardless&quot; (and I've seen you use it a dozen times, at least), it is still not a word. Use &quot;regardless&quot; or &quot;irrespective of&quot; in its place. Grammar has no bearing on your argument, and I'm not trying to &quot;take you down&quot;; I am simply an English professor with just enough ingrained pedantry not to pass up an opportunity for education.In my game the default is the Moderate DC; I'm not choosing DC difficulty willy-nilly. If circumstances are particularly favorable or unfavorable for a check, resulting in an Easy or Hard DC, that is explicitly discussed. There are some circumstances that would call for an Easy or Hard DC as the default (one example is more complex SCs include one or more Hard checks), but, again, those are made clear to the players; they are not set to GM whim.I am certainly not suggesting [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does not choose his adversaries, nor that I do mine. I am explaining that adversaries are introduced with regard to their salience in play, not as &quot;gotcha&quot; impossible foes or obstacles, which would be in direct opposition to the &quot;fail forward&quot; maxim. (And this, of course, is not to say that PCs do not fail in declared actions, do not face serious risks of death, etc. Failing forward and failure are not mutually exclusive!)All this talk of Burning Wheel lately (Luke Crane) must have my left middle finger confused with my right ring finger! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I can only address how I would handle this: In my game, if there were to be genre-defying elements, we, as a group, would have to have agreed upon them in advance of play, something like &quot;Okay, we've decided to play a game focused on Bronze Age hunters faced with a new ice age who seek to discover a refuge for their people against the encroaching glaciers. But the human inhabitants of the world are actually descendents of aliens who crashed on the planet millenia ago, so some few relics of this ancient history may occasionally become part of play.&quot;I wouldn't just add elements like this if they weren't agreed upon and didn't speak to group expectations in some way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="darkbard, post: 7409076, member: 1282"] No matter how many times you write "irregardless" (and I've seen you use it a dozen times, at least), it is still not a word. Use "regardless" or "irrespective of" in its place. Grammar has no bearing on your argument, and I'm not trying to "take you down"; I am simply an English professor with just enough ingrained pedantry not to pass up an opportunity for education. In my game the default is the Moderate DC; I'm not choosing DC difficulty willy-nilly. If circumstances are particularly favorable or unfavorable for a check, resulting in an Easy or Hard DC, that [I]is[/I] explicitly discussed. There are some circumstances that would call for an Easy or Hard DC as the default (one example is more complex SCs include one or more Hard checks), but, again, those are made clear to the players; they are not set to GM whim. I am certainly not suggesting [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does not choose his adversaries, nor that I do mine. I am explaining that adversaries are introduced with regard to their salience in play, not as "gotcha" impossible foes or obstacles, which would be in direct opposition to the "fail forward" maxim. (And this, of course, is not to say that PCs do not fail in declared actions, do not face serious risks of death, etc. Failing forward and failure are not mutually exclusive!) All this talk of Burning Wheel lately (Luke Crane) must have my left middle finger confused with my right ring finger! :D I can only address how I would handle this: In my game, if there were to be genre-defying elements, we, as a group, would have to have agreed upon them in advance of play, something like "Okay, we've decided to play a game focused on Bronze Age hunters faced with a new ice age who seek to discover a refuge for their people against the encroaching glaciers. But the human inhabitants of the world are actually descendents of aliens who crashed on the planet millenia ago, so some few relics of this ancient history may occasionally become part of play." I wouldn't just add elements like this if they weren't agreed upon and didn't speak to group expectations in some way. [/QUOTE]

Verification