I usually ask the players something like “if it was this easy, why doesn’t everyone else do it?”. Sometimes they’ll dismantle their own ideas given the prompt.
Or, sometimes I’ll say “are you sure you want NPCs to use this tactic?”
I usually ask the players something like “if it was this easy, why doesn’t everyone else do it?”. Sometimes they’ll dismantle their own ideas given the prompt.
Or, sometimes I’ll say “are you sure you want NPCs to use this tactic?”
Should be careful not to just shut down player ideas. If everything they do slams into an annoying problem, it can quickly stop being fun.
I sometimes try to sync with the players and be like “hm do you think the 300 year old vampire has had to engage with the city before? What sort of plans and influence do you think he has?”. Then it doesn’t feel like I’m just screwing them, if they’re thinking about it too.
There are of course some weak points, and I’ll gladly expand upon them and any other points it if you’re interested. But I’ve really enjoyed my time in PF2e on both sides of the screen and consider it my TTRPG of choice currently, even as a 3.5 Grognard.
It’s still mostly a spells-per-day game, right? You probably don’t lose the first fight of the day because you can go nova
It’s been really interesting playing Vampire with a person who’s only ever played DND. We keep telling him “you can use your cool powers”. He keeps thinking it’s like a special move to save for a big encounter. No, you don’t have to come up with an elaborate scheme to get past the bouncer. You can just Dominate him. It’s a big shift in mind set!
Personally I hate the “save your cool powers for later” mode of play. I think Pathfinder 2e is less of that, but not free of it?
I think the best game I’ve done started as “it’s a DND world and you’re a band on tour”.
It started with a simple “the bridge is out on the way to your next show”, then there was a battle of the bands, a sketchy record label, and then the players organized a recall of the mayor that was in bed with the capitalists. That game went great places.
Yeah I don’t think I would happily play another “and then you all meet for the first time and work together” game unless it was like intentionally subverting the trope. It adds so many problems and suspension of disbelief problems.

Anyone who’s still a Republican is some combination of fool and monster.
It goes into your subconscious.


Fuck cars. I’d be pissed if I lived there


know your rights! All three of them!
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime!
Unless it was done by a police man…
The clash from 1982 still timely


I almost got an in-office job recently that would have doubled my pay. I’d make that trade. But they went with someone with “more cross functional experience”, what ever that means.
That’s my kind of game. The “let’s not be political (even though it is political)” flavor is less appealing.
Just remember it’s basically garbage in, garbage out. I know a lot of folks half-ass it (bad photos, lazy profile, half-assed messages) and then are surprised that they don’t rise above the sea of other half-assed people and the algorithms.


Why are you even on the platform with that slop?


Yep. No regrets here moving to Linux full time.


To many “smart” people have stood up and taken the credit for hundreds of others and generations of work.
Like CEOs taking credit for all the work their engineers did.


I dunno man, you’re the one that said the players can’t talk focus on gay rights now. there’s a demon invasion. Which, again, maps pretty cleanly to that kind of attitude. But I think you might be the kind of person who doesn’t understand subtext, or maybe text.


you choose to lead a gay rights movement while the world is being overrun by the demon king’s hordes.
This maps kind of easily onto “We can’t fight for gay rights right now. They just blew up the twin towers!” or similar “wait your turn for justice” arguments.
I get the impression that you don’t see that kind of thing, and furthermore don’t care. You run whatever kind of game you want, but I would be surprised if your settings weren’t full of unexamined biases and defaults.


Have you taken any literature or maybe other media classes at the 200 level?
Sometimes people say really weird things and I wonder if they just don’t know any better. Maybe they’re a teenager.
But like “fact from fiction” is irrelevant here. No one’s saying Dracula is non-fiction, but you can still read it and take meaning from the text. Furthermore, it’s not just a story about a guy who bites people. The read on how women are expected to behave is pretty obvious, for example.
You don’t have to care about the subtext of “kill all the goblins and take their stuff”, but saying there is no subtext or “no one cares” is absurd and self-centered.


People do not all have the same working definition of “politics”. Many people seem to use it to mean “overt content about contemporary issues”, but that’s not really a good definition.
If your game has sentient creatures with agency and desires, it has politics.
For example, if your game has a king, there’s politics. Having the people accept monarchy is a political statement. It’s not as hot-button as, say, having slavery, but it’s still political.
You might not be surprised if your players react to a world with chattel slavery by trying to free the slaves and end that institution. The same mechanism may lead them to want to end absolute monarchy. They see something in the setting they perceive as unjust, and want to change it.
A lot of people are kind of… uncritical, about many things. They don’t see absolute monarchy as “political” because it’s a familiar story trope. They are happy to accept this uncritically so they can get to the fun part where you get a quest to slay the dragon. (Note that the target of killing the dragon rather than, say, negotiating or rehoming it is also political)
People then get frustrated because they feel stupid, and they’re being blocked from pursuing the content they want. They just want to, for example, do a tactical mini game about fighting a big monster that spits fire. They don’t want to talk about the merits of absolute monarchy or slaying sentient creatures.
It’s okay to not always want to engage in the political dimension. That doesn’t mean it’s not there. If someone responds to the king giving you a quest with “wait, this is an absolute monarchy where the first born son becomes king? That’s fucked up” they’re not “making it political”. It already was political.
If you present a man and a woman as monogamously married in your game, that’s political. That’s a statement. If you show a big queer polycule, that’s also a statement. The latter will ping the aforementioned uncritical players as “political”, because it’s more atypical, but both are “political”.
Some of this can be handled in session 0. But sometimes you learn that some people in the group have different tastes and probably shouldn’t play together.
Fate is maybe the biggest game that uses this. You can spend a Fate Point to declare a story detail.
It’s a big change in mind set from the default of DND, where you’re super zoomed in on your character. Instead you’re more like a writer on a project.
For example, a group of players were trying to escape from an office building. They’d set off alarms and were fleeing upwards. One of the players said, “I bet the executives here have a helicopter on the roof, with a chopper always ready to go.”. Spend a fate point and it’s true. They stole the helicopter and escaped into new problems.
I like being able to steer the game. I don’t like just being along for the GM’s ride. I like when my players provide ideas.
But some players hate it. I guess some players really want to focus on becoming one with their character. I’m more focused on trying to tell a cool story.
https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/fate-points#declaring-a-story-detail
I find vanilla DND really weird after spending time in other games. Like I’m missing limbs and senses.