@GMNoob Can you point me to a rule or a guidance on how these conditions should be awarded?

Apparently my copy of starter kit came yesterday to my parents house so I have to go pick that up

I specifically had multiple GM Fiat moments in the session of dead in thay last night

which is frustrating mid play to have to weigh a potentially game breaking decision

@Magician page 58 of the basic rules

Have WotC said anything about releasing the Basic Rules in SRD/web format, rather than as a PDF?

@lisardggY They said they won't so the versions can be clear.

Bah.

@Magician Then you haven't read the equipment section and tool proficiencies

@GMNoob Note how it doesn't talk about inflicting conditions on the opponent, only about breaking down doors and grasping rings off the floor. But, granted, in some narrative circumstances this can be justified: you kick the table from under the enemy, they could fall. That's not a deep and involved combat mechanic, though. That's the most basic mechanic of d20+stat yet again, enabled by GM fiat and resulting in a fiat outcome.

Thing is, a game doesn't have to have complex combat, or even interesting combat. But it should have interesting something.

Yeah stealth and hiding right now are super fiat

Fine you are right. The entire game is DM fiat. You could declare that you walk across the room and the DM will tell you you can't.

The rules state explicitly that when you try to do something, and someone else wants to stop you from doing it, then you make a contest roll.

The rules also state, that you can take an improvised action where you are only limited by your imagination.

brb

If you want to ignore those rules because in the end the DM judges what is appropriate and what isn't (this is true with a basic attack roll as well) then you are free to do that. But be aware that you are deciding to ignore the rules.

@GMNoob Looking at tool proficiencies, they all add their bonus to a roll. Am I missing advantage?

@Magician No, I misspoke. I thought the thieves tools added advantage for certain locks but I was mistaken. However, the poision kit does allow you to poision someone which grants disadnvantage on all ability checks.

@GMNoob I can take an improvised action limited only by my imagination without a game system at all!

It's not that GM fiat is bad (though D&D has an unfortunate history of player abuse). It's that it's not a game.

If you say so.

@Magician Ofcourse adding your profiency bonus at higher levels is a greater benefit than advantage.

Basically what you are calling a lack of depth, I see as very deep.

@trogdor Yes.

When the rules say that if you spend money to stay at fancy places then you gain contacts in the city, I'm sure you read that as more DM Fiat. To me it's a very clear rule that the DM needs to implement.

I thought as much

@GMNoob That's still a modifier to a d20. In what way is resolution of a diplomatic encounter of 5e different from the resolution of the same encounter in 4e?

@trogdor We're gonna try Cthulhu Dark this Saturday. Raycia likes Mythos stuff, and Adib is game (I've linked him the Call of Cthulhu short story and summarised the Mythos ethos).

mk

The picture I'm getting is this: there are games that are engines that will tell you what to do and drive things. 4e is like that, and 3e can be like that. There are also games that offer you a toolbox of things to work with, and let you drive how to use them. Fate and roll for shoes are like that.

@GMNoob Spending extra money provides a narrative justification for contacts, great. No, really, that's a useful hint the rules text provides, an in for a story hook.

There are also games that offer a lot of bits to work with. 3e is hugely that. 4e has a lot of well-defined mechanics which do that. Roll for shoes has, like, one thing, i.e. not-that. Fate has a few things.

@magician What in 4e didn't resolve eventually do a d20 + modifier?

5e is like Fate or Roll for Shoes in that it is not necessarily an engine that pushes it along, so much as a framework offering tools for doing things with. Your finding is that those tools are pretty lightweight, contrast to the past two D&D editions offering a huge rainbow of things to do at any given time, and things come down to d20+something.

@JonathanHobbs I couldn't disagree more.

I am attempting to see if I'm getting Magician's point of view, not summarising 5e.

The fact that the rules don't specify what the word "distracted" means, in no way implies that the game doesn't have a rule that if a monster is distracted you be more easily be hidden from it.

In Fate, things can come down to 4dF+something, but they can also come down to compels, or declaring aspects to make things true, and these are mechanisms for resolving or complicating certain things. But beside those actions, there's a few other things chugging along helping guide you as you drive the game.

From your expressing this d20+mod thing, Magician, it would sound like it lacks those other things also present in the picture.

(like, there's totally story in all cases, but there's also mechanical bits present, which are the things I am referring to)

5e has lots of rules, about 110 pages worth of them infact, that tell you which modifiers to add to your d20 roll. 4e was the same way, and so was 3e.

@JonathanHobbs Almost. 5e is a light-frame sanboxy thing which doesn't enable the sandboxiness. It wishes for there to be wacky hijinks but offers no reason for that. It doesn't have nearly enough narrative hooks to be a narrative game. It sucks at being gamist due to simplistic mechanics. It's relationship with simulationism is weird, as always has been.

@GMNoob i don't think that's the kind of complexity that's being wished for here

I've been playing AW-engine tremulus, which barely has any mechanics, and had a blast because the few mechanics that were there drove the game forward. I will be playing Fate next week (we've had chargen this week), and I'm very much looking forward to that. It's not just about mechanical complexity. It's about doing something well. Something other than being simple.

e.g. 3e had 300+ pages of magical hijinks that often had nothing to do with rolling (much to your opponent's dismay, who may at the very least wish they had a saving throw)

so putting a number on a thing doesn't quite add up to... being able to do all this stuff

and, y'know, in Fate there aren't 300+ pages of magical hijinks. There's like... 30 pages of a rulebook summarising and explaining everything you can do with a small number of things, which add up to being able to do a lot of those magical hijinks and have the mechanics help out.

I think magician is lamenting that there is no reason to play 5e beyond IP specific to D&D like beholders

but you could just play an earlier edition

@JoshuaAslanSmith Or 13th Age! Or Dungeon World! Or other things, I'm sure.

exactly its the same question I keep coming to

Why wouldnt I just play DW instead

Hrngh, I would like to try that DW thing

Well, the thing is I see no reason to play anything other than 5e

right now the only reason is DW doesnt support/isnt about grid based combat

There is no good reason to play fate or dugneon world or 13th age.

@GMNoob there totally is

Nope

I don't, by any means, think that those who have fun playing 5e are Doing It Wrong. It's just that almost all of the fun they get out of it, they brought themselves.

Dungeon World is basically what I and the majority of people imagined D&D would be like before we actually had our imaginations sullied by the actual game

Nothing is gained from those systems. All the fun is brought by the table and people playing it.

different systems are supportive of different experiences, which is the draw and reason

exactly

The system actually does nothing.

@JonathanHobbs Supportive and encouraging.

DW does a lot of very specific GM centric moves/systems that are unique

to the AW series of games

Obligatory: System Does Matter.

e.g. if you want a game whose every mechanic is geared toward systemic murder of your allies, paranoia and secret plots and so on: Paranoia. If you want a system that deeply explores the horrifying sides of your own mind, be a Dogs in the Vineyard player. If you want a game that's all about tactical combat, 4e. If you want a dramatic narrative, Fate has the tools for that.

All the games you mentioned are defined by a single gimmic. That gimmic doesn't actually add anything to the game.

@GMNoob That is fairly inaccurate

It's just as accurate as anything else that has been said so far.

These games aren't defined by a gimmick, they're defined by a bunch of mechanics. Some of them have a core mechanic or two, naturally.

Like each edition of D&D does! Bunch of mechanics, and they generally have that core d20+mod mechanic.

But those mechanics add everything to the game: they support and - as Magician points out - encourage a particular style of game. So, if you want that kind of game, and you pick the system that has mechanics directly supporting it and encouraging that kind of game by repeatedly pushing you to keep gaming in that way, that's great.

essentially what you are saying GMNoob is that I could 4e and 3.5 and 2nd/ADND and 5e together and they could all be used to tell the same sort of story in exactly the same way, at least thats how I am interpreting what you are saying

I'm saying, that whatever you are saying about other games is exactly true about 5e. Whatever you say about 5e is exactly true about the other games.

That's why BESW went from D&D 3.5e to 4e then to Fate, and now is moving on to explore Storium: he's finding stuff that encourages the kinds of games he wants to run. Me, I wanted stuff out of my games that 4e wasn't giving me but Fate does seem to give me (mainly, out of combat situations have totally equal mechanical support in Fate - possibly moreso).

@GMNoob On what basis? What things?

I think we are saying that while 5e has some of the elements of these other games, these other games all to it harder better faster stronger

@JoshuaAslanSmith I know thats what your saying, but it's complete BS

It depends a lot on the players and what kind of game they want. </sherlock>

or as BESW said yesterday about inspiration "Nice" In a wow they finally caught up to current game design vs. "nice" in that they actually did something original or unique

@GMNoob well, ok, if you want to respond that way, but there's not much we can say to that

@GMNoob I don't think anyone is saying you're wrong to like 5e; it's not particularly conducive to discussion to return the favour by telling people they're wrong to like other games. That's kind of a show-stopper.

I see inspiration and I say , "Wow nice, they didn't overcomplicate the idea like all those earlier games did. They actually made a narrative mechanic that isn't over handed."

@JonathanHobbs Theres not much to say to someone telling me that you do it stronger harder faster either!

Right, which we LIKE, but other games do that sort of thing better

No they do it worse

or at least in our objective opinion

it's over handed, gives too much power to disruptive players, and completely changes the flow of the story.

have you played dungeon world?

yes

Takes way too much thinking for each action.

thats the point of dungeon world and fate, that the players are empowered beyond the regular/stereotypical D&D game

thats what sand timers are for

It's not fun, it doesn't bring anything other than a false sense of entitelment that friends who play together don't need.

I am pretty sure this discussion is at the point of not being constructive

yeah Agree to disagree?

@GMNoob This is not about convincing you to like other games, nor about you needing to prove 5e is better than the other things

If you prefer 5e, that's fine

@JonathanHobbs Seriously? Ok whatever

However, we may also go criticise it

@JonathanHobbs I know, it's about completely missrepresenting 5e

Makeing wide overarching statements that just simply are not true.

were it as part of a question or answer on the site I think your umbrage would be justified, but as part of chat, the place for discussion and opinions its not going over well. Magician was stating his opinion on 5e as he saw it, again its in chat not on an answer.

I mean this is the very same place were we discussed (briefly) the ethics of running a kink dungeon in a game shop after hours

@JoshuaAslanSmith haha what? that has happened?

And when I stated things how I saw them you got upset.

well, it's because this stopped being rational constructive participation

Please don't fight over something this silly.

@JonathanHobbs @dampes8n mentioned that some customers of his had approached him seeing if he was open to it. and then he was asking the general chat population if we had experience or saw that there was a correlation between D&D/RPGs and Kink

Well, I would rather not and trying not to, I'm at a loss for what to say at the moment

@JonathanHobbs Your biases are showing

@GMNoob I think he's saying you accidentally slipped into some ad hominem

@GMNoob Man, I am biased toward statements of "that doesn't stand up because <solid debateable reasoning>", and against statements of "that's complete BS" (with nothing to support it, other than an emotionally charged statement)

@JoshuaAslanSmith not a personal attack, just: "I think this is wrong."

gotcha

my bad

Ok, but the buck stops there in terms of what we can do about that.

@GMNoob I think you got emotionally involved or felt you have some stake in 5e to defend from our criticisms

>5e is a light-frame sanboxy thing which doesn't enable the sandboxiness. It >wishes for there to be wacky hijinks but offer no reason for that. It doesn't have >nearly enough narrative hooks to be a narrative game. It sucks at being gamist >due to simplistic mechanics. It's relationship with simulationism is weird, as >always has been.

@GMNoob Sorry, but there's a big difference between trying to clarify misunderstandings and accusing people of being disingenuous for disagreeing with you. This site is full of people who disagree about things because we have extremely different experiences and desires in the RPG arena.

It works as well as it does because we try to be okay with other people seeing things differently and remember that the most awesome thing about RPGs is that two groups with the same system can have totally different experiences.

I don't see anything in that statement which is proveable or contributes to a rational argument

and apparently I don't know how to quote things

@GMNoob One >, and if you go multiline, still have only one.

@GMNoob Shift-enter makes a sticky return so you can do multiline entries.

we can start at the "simplistic mechanics" bit, deconstruct how and whether it does or does not enable sandboxiness, we can examine how it does and does not prompt wacky hijinks via mechanics, etc, we can examine how it prompts narrative to happen.

Since I'm being quoted. Those few phrases are not my argument. They are the summation of my argument and my impression of 5e.

the non constructive thing would be "5e is a light-frame sandboxy thing which sucks and it and it is bad and awful at everything"

@JonathanHobbs I guess we can also examine how a mechanic does somethign harder and faster?

there's assertions in there but we don't understand why and can't poke at any of it with a stick

@GMNoob no, but that statement was summarising stuff we'd already been saying right at the time

in context, if you recall, we were talking about how these other games encouraged certain styles of play

and those other games do those styles of play h/b/f/s than 5e might, if i understand correctly

basically yes

Whatever

I really don't want to waste my time mining the quotes

I don't even know what it means to do a style harder/faster

D&D does it's style best.

All games that are popular do their style best

Yeah, we generally agree with that.

But what's being said here is that D&D does all styles worst

And you seem to not get that you are saying that.

Yeah D&D is a really bad gardening game.

But D&D is not a gardening game anymore than any other random rpg is.

what I meant was that D&D 5e as an amalgamation of Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist styles is forced to make compromises vs. being mostly 1 of them. Compared with 4e its not as great/focused on tactical combat, compared with Fate and DW its not as strong at narrativist mechanics and player empowerment.

Oh, no. Well, D&D historically has an awful lot of problems, and 3.x is a bunch of nonsense at times, and people who happily play it anyway (myself included) will often admit as much. But no, D&D does do its thing best.

I install a AoE watering device

And D&D 5e is not a roll d20+mod game anymore than any other version of D&D was.

It seems Magician was expressing gripes that 5e isn't as supportive of a thing (whatever the thing may be) as other games are supportive of their things.

@JoshuaAslanSmith It's not an amalgamation of anything. All games have elements of gamist, narativis and simulationsist in them.

I think the thing DnD does particularly badly (disclaimer: I mostly know 4e) is ostensibly encouraging roleplay while most of the game is pretty mechanic combat.

It's a false classification.

@kviiri thats 4e, 3.5 goes crazy into simulationism so that you have things like the jumplomancer because of all the various simulation subsystems interacting strangely

@kviiri The prior editions sustained some out of combat mechanics, but 4e basically just focused all its efforts on the combat thing whilst offering not much outside it. That was good, though, if you want to do mainly combat.

@JoshuaAslanSmith That doesn't encourage roleplay...

For the Jumplomancer:

community.wizards.com/forum/…

That's like the opposite of roleplay...

One DnD 4e handbook recommends not just saying "I use my lance of faith" but stuff like "I lift my hand and conjure forth a lance of divine light to pierce the target. Does 19 hit?" Seriously, if I did that for reals my party would be all like "uh, couldn't we just get on with it" or "you what mate?"

not sure he was saying it was roleplay, just crazy out of combat stuff

basically through magic and various feats you jump over a city, everyone in that city sees you do it and is instantly converted to becoming a fantaical follower of you

@kviiri That's always been my reaction as well.

@JonathanHobbs Yeah, I'm fine it with being combat-heavy because sometimes you... well, just want to smash in some skulls. Absolutely nothing wrong with that - but they encourage descriptive roleplaying in combat, and that's not a good idea in my opinion.

@kviiri no, often you'll want to drop that

@kviiri My party's much much different.

@JonathanHobbs It also was a small revelation, to understand you don't need mechanics to allow you to roleplay things. Just like, you know, you don't need mechanics to trip people up. Except no one is claiming 4e supported their interesting roleplay, and there are claims that 5e supports interesting combat (or interesting roleplay!)

Although we would often simply announce their moves, we would at least as often describe them with great enthusiasm, sometimes even getting up to mime particularly awesome actions.

@kviiri Sometimes we'd come up with situationally appropriate and/or cool descriptions of what was actually going on, but most often it was just the ability names.

@Magician interesting is not useful word

@Magician We do that but only save it for the best shots.

Daily powers in epic battles.

But most of the time a character uses a power, it's honestly something of a bore. It's the big hits that are cool!

@kviiri yup!

That's one reason I dropped monster HP by 1/4 to 1/2 and used L1E damage: faster fights means less grindy power usage.

@kviiri It takes enough of mental capacity to figure out which power to use and how to resolve it. The puzzle itself is fun. And sometimes the awesomeness of the goings-on spurs the participants to describe it. That's the way it went for us.

But in my group, until we had nothing but at-wills left (and sometimes even then) our tactics and puzzle of the thing was always engaging.

@Magician Indeed.

I found my fights got a lot more engaging as I became more skilled at setpiece design.

A key was learning how to include interactive terrain that could be turned to either side's advantage.

yep I love that in 4e

dangerous terrain

maybe even a 3rd faction of murderous beasts that get woken up and attack both the party and the enemies

Oh, often not dangerous terrain.

nothing spices up a combat like some owlbears or whatnot coming out of the woodwork

sorry

Fighting over beneficial terrain was often even better.

dangerous terrain has specific rules connotation

I do not mean lava or acid

rather that there are hazards (i think is the rule word for it)

that affect both parties

@GMNoob "Interesting" or "fun" are not useful words for game design discussions, true. However, I doubt many of us present here are qualified for a proper rpg design discussion. As informal terms expressing overall enjoyment of a situation they do well, though.

nothing like pit traps to make bull rush a viable mechanic in 4e

@Magician No, they don't. You say interesting, I say boring. And there is just a huge miss communication. It's taken me quite some time to realize that.

Because you don't mean interesting in a "Hmm, well that was interesting, I didn't expect that!" kind of way.

@gmnoob nothing will compare to the time me and brian ballsun stanton spent 3 hours talking to a dude about 4e optimization and we though he was asking more philosophical/roleplay questions and he really simply wanted rules optimization that could be done in 15 minutes

to which brian literally was like, I cant believe this just happened and left

and then I gave the 15 minute rules optimization tips for his character

I am laughing please flag as spam

lol

@GMNoob Which is why they're not useful for quantifying things. But I wasn't talking about quantifying things. I was talking about the system helping create an enjoyable experience, not defining what that enjoyable experience should be. Any enjoyable experience. That was the question: what enjoyable experiences, what fun, does 5e help create.

helmets are good

Good at what they do

@kviiri maybe jon hobbs was saying helmets as objects posses an intrinsic morality of goodness

Complex combat can be fun (4e). Character-driven drama can be fun (Fate). Tough choices can be fun (AW).

@JoshuaAslanSmith That could be it - the brain is vulnerable (so weak) and the helmet ... protects the weak.

hmm youre still looking at it from a ultility value

Im saying irregardless of how its use the object is good

This is also why skulls are associated with evil - they have no brains inside them so they aren't protecting the weak.

which is total BS which I dont believe and I have extremely debated against such notions of object morality in philosophy classes in the past

I don't believe in any universally valid moral code.

the obvious poster child for this being weapons particularly firearms and knives as being inherently immoral vs ammoral (which really all objects are just objects)

helmets do

hahaha

and who is to say they are right or wrong?

@JonathanHobbs Kneepads.

@Magician whos' quantifying things? 5e combats are interesting. They are epic. Lots of cool stuff happens in them. The rules have a strong impact on what things happen in them. But yes, it all comes down to the DM making judgements and dice rolls if you want to ignore the game itself.

Well if I try to wear a helmet and it doesn't fit, then it's obviously the wrong helmet.

Or am I wrong to try to wear it?!

@kviiri thats the spirit

It was lots of fun when the mage accidently melted the hidden treasure after being frustasted from missing the rats with his ray of frost due to bad dice rolls.

@kviiri The helmet chooses the head, much as the wand chooses the wizard.

now to achieve enlightenment you must prove the realness of reality

@JoshuaAslanSmith Kiri-kin-tha's first law of metaphysics?

hah I don't know who that is but I was more thinking of an impossible problem for a Descartes based epistemological viewpoint

some say the blacksmith chooses for the helmet in his craftsmanship, but then those people are laughed at and dismissed as morons due to the successful machinations of the propaganda department of a helmet-based ruling class determined to keep the blacksmiths from realising their true power.

@JoshuaAslanSmith A Vulcan scholar. In The Voyage Home we learn that his first law of metaphysics is "Nothing unreal exists."

I don't find discussions about difficult vs dangerous terrain interesting or fun. Though analyzing the rules and coming up with fun theories about what could happen and whats better is its' own fun, it's not fun while playing the game.

@JonathanHobbs someday we will liberate the blacksmiths from their psychological bondage an then we will all truly be free....

@BESW what if Kiri-kin-tha doesn't actually have any other laws of metaphysics, and he just named his law his first law to give the impression there were others? Like how we have History of the World, Part 1.

The idea of a vulcan philosopher con man is......

illogical

Though I did read a funny story from a new player to 5e. They wanted the wizard to cast walk through walls, and was dissapointed when they found out that they needed a special spell for that and couldn't just roll a DC check for thier arcana

@JonathanHobbs Then the followers of Surak might debate whether the Second and Third Laws of Kiri-kin-tha were unreal.

(For while nothing unreal exists, it does not follow that what does not exist is unreal.)

@GMNoob I have completely ignored the ritual/spell componenets

@GMNoob Fate: GM says "You have an aspect, Hot Temper. Tell me, does this recent string of misfortunes cause you some frustration? Something you could take out on that pile of stuff, say?" and hands over a fate point. DW: "You rolled 8, so I'll offer you a Hard Bargain. You can fry those goblins, but you'll also fry that pile of treasure. Or you can realize this and stop just in time, but you will have wasted some time." That's how those games encourage such outcomes. How does Next do so?

@Magician Flying Temple: "I can choose two stones get in trouble by setting things on fire, or I can choose one stone and help someone by setting people on fire."

I love how the DW/AW system puts an emphasis on the narration, the story.

Princes' Kingdom: GM says, "So you successfully set the goblins on fire to win the struggle, but you took 3d8 fallout in the process; roll to see what happens because of that."

deadEarth: You successfully set the goblins on fire. Also, you're on fire. The fire heals you because you have the radiation "Flaming". However, you're allergic to goblins (radiation 512) so you take 3d10 asphyxiation damage. Also, you don't really see the pile of treasure since you're bilnd, but you don't know you're blind because you have the Vivid Hallucinations radiation, and then you die.

Stargate SG-1: GM says, "Are you sure you want to throw the grenade in there? Yes? Okay, roll damage. I'm applying it to the goa'uld and the Ancient device."

@JoshuaAslanSmith Huh? The new player didn't realize there were spells that he had to cast instead of just rolling a d20 as an ability check.

@Magician encourage such outcomes? It was fun precisely because the outcome was not encouraged, it emerged.

@kviiri But you only die because you rolled Spontaneous Combustion during character creation and your time delay on the trigger just ran out.

@GMNoob So, you value systems which use the randomisation of dice to create unexpected scenarios, as well as to resolve them?

@Magician I'm reading those examples and just thinking to myself.. "why would I want to be part of a game that does that to me?"

@BESW The way you word that sounds like it's going to lead to something which I don't like :P

@GMNoob Hey, hard bargains and ugly choices are fun!

Though random encounter tables do have their place, we prefer well established stories and world that we interact in.

In our last Shadowrun game with Apocalypse World rules, my character was cleaning his armor when he was attacked by a drone. I rolled poorly - got to choose between "no harm" and "drone destroyed".

Had I rolled better, I could've taken out the drone with less or no damage - and had I rolled worse, I probably would've lost both health AND the chance to take out the drone.

@kviiri Theres a difference between "$h*t happens, deal with it", and "please choose the poop you would like flung at you." I enjoy the first, not the second.

What's wrong with the second?

@kviiri Nothing has to be wrong with it for him not to like it.

I find it rather unpleasant

Isn't that the choice you make in practically every game, RPG or otherwise? You can't have everything at once.

Different RPGs cater to different playstyles.

@GMNoob So, player empowerment is a turn-off?

Or does that break immersion?

If I'm going to have poop flung at me, then just do it, don't make me decide which girlfriend I have to save

*arrow refference there

@Magician player empowerment is great, for things that a player feels good being empowered for.

So the GM should decide for you which girlfriend should be saved, or?

@kviiri Yes, the badguy should shoot the girl he wants to shoot, and I'll try to save her after.

don't ask me which girl he's going to shoot.

It sounds like GMN prefers systems where the world creates events and responds to actions as a kind of implacable force; that's a playstyle with a very long established pedigree. The closest I can come to describing it is "my guy" syndrome applied to the setting and everything in it--but if the whole group buys into it, it lacks the problems "my guy" syndrome usually suffers.

@GMNoob That's not a good parallel - in the case I stated above, my character had the choice. Dive to safety, or dive to weapons.

I ran games that way for... probably at least five years. We had fun, but I've moved on.

I now prefer to involve my players in story decisions more actively. Partly because they have awesome ideas and like being involved, and partly because it keeps me from burning out as GM again.

I want to experiment with distributed worldgen.

@kviiri Yes, but I was responding to magicians situation of do you want to burn stuff or waste time

@BESW I hate being involved :)

@GMNoob That's one your character could control too ;)

@kviiri Fate Core does pretty well with guided worldgen; DFRPG has an even more structured version. If you want a whole game around world creation, go for Microscope.

@kviiri It doesn't matter if its the character or the player.

(Or Dawn of Worlds, but it's a bit clunky.)