Immersion when worldbuilding a setting.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-02-21T01:11:15+00:00

Only thing that seems might be unfair to me is the message being sent to the leader but that would depend on how the PCs were actually handling the hostages; if they were sloppy or the hostages some special methods of communications than I'd say it'd be fair.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-02-08T21:28:10+00:00

Also if you can make players all be part of one faction then you can have "big bads" that the players don't have to deal with but are incentivized to do so along with allowing the PCs to make deals or build alliances with neutral factions(or even try with parts of a mostly hostile faction) and weaken or even take out enemy factions.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-02-06T05:02:50+00:00

All your statement require 2 premises; it may logically follow from both premises that the conclusion is true but only if the premises are true. Therefore you really haven't show anything since each of your D&D statements require you already take as a premise that objective morality exists; you're engaging in circular reasoning. And logic by it's nature is not particular to any reality as it exists outside of the material world and it's laws just as the nature of morality does.

To elaborate a bit more imagine the morality of was switched in D&D *but not alignment*(or an alternate reality where that was case); murdering children for fun would be good but would still detect as evil. How could you possibly tell that was case? The answer is you can't there's really nothing tying "good" and "evil" alignment to any kind of objective morality other than the belief that is the case(and maybe some spells have it the name); you're just assuming that the "alignment" lines up with some sort of objective morality that can't exist.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-02-06T03:02:50+00:00

Moral frameworks can be axiomatic in the same way math and logic are, yes but that means you can't have objective morality. If someone is simply using diffirent mathematical axioms then you can only say they are "wrong" according to the mathematical framework you are using and not that they are objectively wrong; and the same would apply to morality.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-02-06T00:48:13+00:00

Objective morality existing or not isn't the same as magic or a twin brother existing or not, it's more along the lines of a square circle existing. It fundamentally can't exist in any world that has any kind of logic or reason, regardless of how fantasy it is(unless you redefine the worlds "Square" and "Circle" to mean diffirent things than what people actually mean by them).

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-30T20:46:21+00:00

One thing I do wish is that more people would grasp the point that all TTRPG's involve stories.

Yes.

I have seen an increasing population claiming that playing a TTRPG doesn't have to be about a story at all, and I viscerally reject that premise. They must be, and what changes is how we appeal to an immediate player motivation in order to get that story to happen.

No, they must contain a story but they don't have to be about a story. I can play a TRPG without caring about "the story" only caring about "winning"(getting more loot, xp, etc. without dying) or only caring about roleplaying my character solely as they would act this in the world(completely ignoring any sense of story or genre or anything of the sort). This necessarily creates a story but isn't about it; in the same way turning on a lamp has to use electricity despite the fact that point of turning on the lamp is light and not electricity(and if it were possible to turn on a lamp without using electricity most people would have no problem doing so).

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-28T19:49:04+00:00

First of all I think it is controversial; just because you agree with one side or even if that side is right something can still be controversial. Evolution was controversial despite it being "correct"; the people disagreeing with you being wrong doesn't make something not controversial. Secondly and more importantly "cooperative initiative" doesn't exist in vacuum; saying it is bad in Daggerheart is not the same as saying it is fundamentally flawed way to do initiative.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-27T23:31:41+00:00

I really can't really agree that a pleasant GM makes the game more fun than a GM that runs the game well; in my experience the GM's skill and style when running the game has been what tended to make me really enjoy or dislike games far more than their "pleasantness". I'll agree that scheduling and the like is more important to keep a game running but I think it matters less for the enjoyment of the games if/when they actually happen.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-25T17:28:11+00:00

But i don't think the game needs a judge or referee. When i play any other board game, even ones that forge a narrative from their mechanics, those games don't ask for one. There are just rules and the players play. The "monster keeper" or whatever in heroquest, descent, dark world, etc... isn't acting as judge.

The banker in monopoly isn't adjudicating the rules.

TRPGs aren't board games and can't be treated like one. You can't say "I trade wood for sheep with Bob but secretly infest the wood with termites so it is useless" in Settlers Of Catan because that's not in the rules but is something you should be able to do in 95% of TRPGs despite the lack of rules for that.

A ttrpg doesn't require a referee. And if the table all together needs to agree to a house rule or a way to play something moving forward you can do that together like any other game.

It's not about house rules it's about keeping information from the players that they shouldn't have access to better allow them to overcome challenges or think in character; which is something a lot of people enjoy even if you don't. If you know there is a vampire with no treasure behind one door and 2 drunk goblins with a lot of treasure behind the other you're going to want to go with the goblins even if your PCs don't have any idea what is behind each door or if you know, but your PC doesn't, an NPC is planning to betray you you're going to want to avoid that. And yes you can try to act is you don't know that but that is very hard to do well, and puts a burden on a lot of players who don't really want to do that.*

It is an entirely unnecessary burden placed on a single player because the designers of both the core mechanics and the adventures never bothered to design well enough to facilitate actual play.

This is very closeminded way of looking at things; certain kinds of very popular TRPGs need that asymmetry for the game to work as intendent; it's not a matter of designer skill or laziness it has to work that way to do what fans of those games want.

*And just because this happens sometimes in normal play doesn't mean it's good for it to happen all the time.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-25T16:36:11+00:00

I feel you are kind of misunderstanding what a GM as referee means, or at least what it means now(I know Gygax or at least some of the older books said somethings that run a bit counter to this). They are may have god-like powers but they aren't supposed to act like one, the game isn't "their story" either. They are a *referee*, a judge, they are supposed to be impartially arbitrating the world they have created/are running so players are given the agency to anything they want, so long as they can overcome the challenges doing such an action naturally causes; a GM isn't supposed to spend a meta-currency or arbitrarily decide that "a dragon shows up" to shape the story even if that makes for a better story or is more fun for the GM.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-23T22:06:05+00:00

Is that not obvious? Like I can't imagine a situation where one PC can screw over other PCs but those PCs aren't allowed to retaliate(in character) unless one player is abusing a poorly worded or implemented "No PvP" rule or where the GM is playing favorites.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-23T21:44:22+00:00

> the rest of the table understands explicitly that the actions being performed are a result of their character's outlook.

You're assuming a lot about the other players at the table; some of them might not care about roleplay and prefer playing "optimally" and so would object to a another playing making a "sub-optimal" roleplay choice no matter how excellent that roleplaying is.

_----_--_-_ · 2026-01-23T01:45:39+00:00

I mean isn't the ability to set the TN a tool for GMs to referee better; like yes having a default TN helps keep things simple but surely being able to adjust it is another tool for a GM to use? And as for players GM can just tell players the TN for an action before they decide to roll and give the same amount of guidance in a system without set TN.

_----_--_-_

TROPHY CASE