Recent content by Faolyn

You're kidding, right? The fact that many of us have said that it was a bad example, and yet you keep bringing it up as if it's the way to do fail forward, is a ginormous strawman. Even though we have shown you many other examples. I pointed this bit out earlier, although I will admit I forget...

If you're talking about the weapon mastery thing in 5.24, that doesn't say how the other creature is supposed to react at all. It just says you get advantage on your next attack against them. (If you're talking about something else, I have no idea what it is.) So two things here: If a player...

Because you can't. Because why should they? Nearly every other roll involves the players choosing to do something, or else succumbing to magical compulsion. This sort of roll has neither choice nor a good reason beyond GM fiat for the players to accept.

I do have to wonder if this mentality is due to crazy ideas being hindered, vetoed, or outright punished by the GM. Edit: I don't (necessarily) mean you, unless you are the only GM they've ever had.

My point is that with games like GURPS and other games with traits you buy or make for yourself, you're choosing to buy that trait. With GURPS, there's a roll, and when you buy the disadvantage, you choose who severe it is, which affects the difficulty with the roll. In SWADE, a trait like...

I disagree here. Killing a character is permanent, yes, but taking them over and making them act in ways contrary to what the player wants is kind of worse. It's akin to mind control in a way, made worse because it's not caused by a magical effect.

Wait, wait, wait. If you let dice determine what your character is doing, that's playing in character. If you decide what your character is doing, that's not playing in character. Uh-huh. I also think I'm going to need a citation on that "Players will always do the cost/benefit analysis and...

Have you even bothered to google "fail forward D&D" to find out ways to use that method with the game?

The GM has more power than the players do, even in the most player-friendly of games. These rules are here to prevent an imbalance of power.

How is it good design to have your ability to make decisions about your characters actions taken away from you because of die rolls? Now, in GURPS, there are disadvantages that would make it so you're gullible or trusting or cowardly. But you choose to take those disadvantages, and at what...

It is, however, when you consistently use strawmen and bad examples to prove your point. I don't even care if you don't actually understand it; it's when you deliberately misconstrue it that I have a problem.

We're not talking about attack rolls here. We're talking about failing morale rolls and persuasion checks and thus being forced to flee or believe an NPC.

That's also not how it works. OK, do you know the term whump as used in fanfic? If not, it's basically how some (many) fanfic writers will put their characters through hell. So it's kind of like that--you're a fan of the PCs, so you keep putting them in hard situations that they have to...

The problem then is that you want consistent rules for something that, as you say, isn't consistent. Trauma--long term type trauma, like what you're talking about--should be an opt-in experience for several reasons. If its enforced via a die roll, then as I said before, it prevents you from...

Because you continue to misrepresent it as being nonsensical "quantum screaming cook." Maybe if you actually acknowledged what it really was instead of continually using strawmen, we would accept it was a preference rather than, well, the conservatism of a D&D fan.