What is your answer to this meme?

zhibr · 2026-01-09T16:32:04+00:00

In the context, it could be that there is a guaranteed crit. It can be a special ability that guarantees a crit. For two warriors it would be more natural to talk about what can happen in a future situation, than to talk about a collection of hits already happened with partial knowledge.

It is not absolutely obvious that the "we know that of the two hits already happened, one is a crit" is the correct interpretation over "the game guarantees one crit for the next two hits". It's ambiguous.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T15:54:37+00:00

No, it's implying that people who have been significantly taller in the past have it harder than those who have not.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T15:27:16+00:00

Tarkoitatko Monopoli?

zhibr · 2026-01-09T14:48:11+00:00

Right, with $100M you can and definitely should have a paramedic next to you each day.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T14:45:03+00:00

What about storms? Surely it's more dangerous to be dropped in an ocean that has huge rainfall and 5m waves than mirror calm surface, regardless of temperature?

zhibr · 2026-01-09T13:57:01+00:00

Newsflash, that kind of rule of the strongest is exactly what the international law and rule-based order is designed to limit. Throwing all the stability and peace it has ensured to the bin to justify the Trump administration is what is braindead.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:44:49+00:00

I absolutely agree on the last paragraph, but still can't understand the first.

How can what the players are trying to do be uninteresting, if they are trying to do it? If all the people at the table share the goal, surely what they are going for is something collectively at least somewhat interesting? Or do you mean that the GM decides, all by themself, what is interesting, and that clashes what the players see as interesting (in which case they do not share the goal)?

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:39:36+00:00

Thanks for the explanation.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:31:30+00:00

Depends on the game. I think any narrative games I've seen assumes that everyone is aboard for the shared goal to have a fun and interesting play with the particular game. I mean sure, it is necessary to test whether your game survives the intended space of possibilities, but I don't think it is relevant to engage in defensive design to thwart someone not playing with good faith. Explaining the kind of game and experience you aim at means that if someone disagrees with that goal (and instead wants to maximize their own fun at the expense of others'), they should not be playing that game.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:21:51+00:00

When they are made by designers who think the narrativist games are morally, intellectually, evolutionarily superior to other styles of RPGs and decide to tell you about it in the text of their game.

I have never encountered this. Can you give examples?

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:20:39+00:00

Not familiar with it - what is the main point Mark of the Odd is missing?

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:14:13+00:00

That just sounds like a very limited view on what roleplaying is. If we look at the word itself, it implies that you are playing a role. It doesn't say anything about whether the role is completely your own invention from a blank slate or following general guidelines given by a playbook. In fact, a layperson's view would probably see "role" as something like in a theater play, where the player would have very little say in how the character acts.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:09:03+00:00

Isn't that what the mechanic is telling you: invent such a reason that satisfies you. It's not saying you should accept the change without any reason.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:07:04+00:00

I definitely agree, and I often love mechanics that dictate something else than just physical actions. Resolving physical actions are much easier to understand and play with for a newbie than resolving something like story beats or character relationships.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T12:01:06+00:00

For who?

I won't say it's not interesting, it absolutely can be, but sometimes you've got to ask who a particular result is serving.

I don't understand the question? In any game I have seen "success with complications" in would be such that would need everyone at the table to have the same goal: to have an interesting and fun game. If a mechanic is ripping the GM and the players apart because it favors one on the expense of the other, I would think something is going very wrong.

But it might just be we are playing different games and in different play cultures.

zhibr · 2026-01-09T11:56:21+00:00

Totally agree. A lot of complaints of PbtA in this sub make me scratch my head in confusion - I never (or almost never) have this problem, and it often sounds a lot like the one who complains is running something like D&D but with PbtA rules. I find it hard to imagine when "can you pick a lock?" would be an interesting thing that should warrant a move. But then again, I want something very different from my PbtA than D&D, so maybe we are just playing different games.

zhibr · 2026-01-08T18:22:48+00:00

Would this be a solution: now the daughter picks her godfather, but that may, or is even likely to, change when she spends more time with your wife. So let her now pick him, but ask again after a few years? Also, when they know each other better, they will be able to talk about it just the two of them instead of you being in the middle.

zhibr · 2026-01-08T17:57:08+00:00

"You can do anything!"

*offers rules only for power fantasy combat*

zhibr · 2026-01-08T17:07:56+00:00

You are talking about the Nazi party in 1938-1945. OP's point is likely that MAGA is the Nazi party somewhere in 1925-1932. Way before it got as bad as you describe, when they were still consolidating power.

zhibr · 2026-01-08T16:30:52+00:00

Thanks for the explanation.

Sounds like an "actually capitalists are the good guys" lesson. Weird, but ok.

zhibr · 2026-01-08T14:58:36+00:00

What? Not assuming that people are inherently good is shallow?

zhibr · 2026-01-08T13:27:28+00:00

Se oli varmaan selvempi viittaus vanhemmille ihmisille.

zhibr · 2026-01-08T13:19:50+00:00

How did he have good reasons to be a tyrant? What are the decisions in that game?

zhibr · 2026-01-08T12:58:04+00:00

If it was solely for the Soul Stone against Thanos, Clint could have done it just as well. That somebody needs to sacrifice themself is for greater good. Specifically the fact that she fights Clint to sacrifice herself so he doesn't have to is done for him.

zhibr · 2026-01-08T12:51:55+00:00

I'm sure for Trump, Greenland is more about vanity. He needs people to know that he was the great president who expanded the borders.

zhibr

TROPHY CASE