Gloomy

That's kind of my point though. It's still d&d, even with house rules. So it's perfectly fine (imho) to say d&d is great.

If it's less relatable to you because of that then... don't relate to it. I enjoy reading about other peoples fun sometimes and couldn't give two fucks about the ruleset they use. But hey, different strokes and all that.

Expectations for new players will most likely be "oh, this sounds like fun" more than "i want to do this super specific thing too and will be heartbroken if i find out it was all a big lie".

About representation i must say that most tables o played at had some house rules.

So adjusting the game slightly to suit what the group feels would enhance their experience makes it... not counting as the game somehow?

So my Rimworld isn't Rimworld anymore because i added some Mods?

I think this is gatekeeping, tbh.

Jesus...

It can be a bigger challenge than running a prepared peace. You have to be good at thinking on the spot and very firm in the setting of the game. That is the universe you play on as well as the specific location the players are positioned in.

This. It's a so much better approach than the "this is MY game" idea. Best games i had were sandboxes to have fun in. It's even more fun when the world reacts in a reasonable manor too it.

Back to me again. I'm sorry my radioactive physics game is weak and I had to speculatively look it up. That's a lot of downvotes, yet no one decided to share the math themselves.

I asked my toddler about the radiation and she said "nana" and then with emphasis "nana" once more.

The downvotes are because our two methods of finding an answer are roughly equally likely to returning a reliable answer.

Mine is slightly better for the climate, maybe. That will likely change as she grows up and uses up more resources. I'll ask her to do the math on that one later, she is busy eating a book right now.

A friend of mine has to two. Storming the feels like touching a cross between a peach and a scrotum. There surprisingly warm and soft. It's... Something.

Oh yes. Little Bobby Boblins, we call him.

German speaker here: I hear this as a female voice. Congrats :-)

I GM two groups, both in pathfinder 1e.

In one group every player has played three or four characters by now. Death can happen at any time and that is part of the challenge they have to overcome. It's how they prefer it, always having high stacked against them. They are all about min-maxing their builds and finding ways to make my live hard coming up with more or less creative ways to counter their stuff.

In the other grou0 the characters have very clear plot armour, which we agreed upon beforehand. The players have developed their characters and take their fun from seeing how the adventures they have changes, develops and fleshed put their characters. They can die, but we agreed beforehand that there always will be a way of coming back from the dead at some point.

They just prefer role-playing and their challenge is to solve situations in a way that they as players and their characters feel good about. If they fuck it up in how they approach things they still will kill the bad guy in the end and live trough it, but its the difference between leaving back a smouldering ruin full of corpses or a village that sends them back on their way as heroes.

I can appreciate both playstyles and keep them in mind when I give challenges to the two groups. Non feels lame to me. It's just very different ways of playing.

It's baseivly the difference between early season game of throes where everything could happen to anybody and the more tradional style of series, where main character almost never die but the story is about their inner growth and how they deal with what the world throws at them.

I was with you in the first half. But shouldn't there be some out of game communication between "This is not the direction we agreed upon beforehand" and "I will kill your character as punishment"?

Sounds like fun, yeah. How did you approach that mechanically? Asking for a group of friends ;-)