Recent content by TwoSix

One thing I like about thresholds is that they make cranking up a PCs damage output strong but not obviously optimal. As long as a PC does enough damage to regularly be doing 2-3 HP of damage, there's not a major gain in bumping your damage from 4 dice to 5 or 6.

Just from conversing with them over the years, I know @pemerton and @Manbearcat are often in agreement but also have different styles of play (not to mention they will change up their styles depending on the game being played, as good GMs should).

I simply don't see that as a problem. I see that as good design. I find the game more interesting when my role is to depict the character as they develop, rather than have 100% agency over exactly what the definition of the character is at all times. Edit: If "good design" is too...

For sure. If you're looking for play that's more like 5 minutes per turn chess over blitz chess, then we're definitely going to be looking for different tools. Outside of a few, very deliberate, experiments with OSR-style play, slow and cautious play is exactly what I'm looking to excise from...

Doing things that make sense isn't the goal. The goal is to craft an interesting story. It's hard to create an interesting story around a character who always makes the most rational, pragmatic decision possible. I mean, you tell anecdotes about your characters, or others in your group...

And I disagree with this. To me, this seems like a pretty obvious poor use of the word. If you create a definable metric of behavior that you could at least describe to someone else (even if you haven't yet), that's OK. But you can't be "faithful" to whatever decisions you might make in the...

You can do that; you just can't call it faithful. Being faithful to your headcanon doesn't count. If you've made external declarations as to how you're attempting to portray the character, than that's fine. It doesn't have to be a mechanic. But it can't just be in your head.

Not wild at all. You can obviously roleplay however you want. But you can't call it a faithful portrayal without being able to measure it against something to be faithful to. I'm not arguing about the play, I'm arguing about the terminology.

No. You can’t faithfully portray a character without some sort of metric to measure that portrayal against. “I’m faithfully portraying the headcanon I have” doesn’t meet that standard. It’s a semantic distortion.

I don’t want to get into a game of dueling anecdotes, but that hasn’t been my experience. Even the people using the new rules I’ve talked to are more in the camp “Oh, there’s some good changes” rather than “this is exciting.”

The boundary between "I'm an expert" and "I know more than you" in presentation is blurry and often dependent on the relative confidence and security of the receiver just as much as the intent of the presenter. I know I haven't read everything Baker has written, but nothing I've read has come...

It's easier than you think!

The generally frigid reception to 2024's overall banality allows me to keep hoping.

Agree to disagree. :)

It might be because my tables are made up primarily of other DMs, but if we see someone make a rules mistake, we call it right out. The idea that it would be considered snitching or as something done as expressly antagonistic to another player isn't even something we would consider.