SFT's page

@ShadeRaven - Thinking on it more, I think I would agree to straight up remove GM bribery.

The thing that stuck out for me, is that it messes with the power dynamic of the *group*, not just the game. Sure, a lot of groups will have no issue with this, but we've all seen or heard about that GM that is going on a power trip. Even in a group of good friends, it can mess with the social stress of the group. Bleed is a real issue, even if it's more prevalent in LARP than TTRP, and shouldn't be recommended blindly. Even veteran LARPers who 'know better' can struggle with bleed, and they know what they're looking for. A player that doesn't know what to watch out for, in a group that doesn't, and you're risking some really bad times.

Zorae: It's best not to assume everyone is on the same page without saying anything. Not everyone uses the same point buy, uses a point buy at all and/or plays PFS. If you don't SAY what you're talking about how do you expect people to guess it?

If someone is discussing what the default for an option should be, there are four possible courses of action:

1) Assume they are talking about a default from a prior version/other system, and respond accordingly.

2) Assume they are talking about a house rule that you use, and respond accordingly.

3) Assume they are talking about a house rule that you don't use, take a wild guess at what they mean, and respond accordingly.

4) Ask for clarification on the subject you're unsure of.

Option 1 is a reasonable assumption. Option 2 is silly, as they can't possibly know your personal house rule. Option 3 is equally silly.

This leaves us with option 4. If you aren't going to assume the more logical 'default' approach, as it doesn't make sense to you, then it would be best to approach a basis of understanding first. You made an assumption, then found out that your assumption was incorrect. In this situation, I would suggest you accept that your assumption was incorrect, and move on from there. *Don't* blame others for your assumptions.

Catering to one style at the expense of the others will displace customers.

That is not how game design works at all. Trying to appease everyone means you appease no one. It is far better to have feelings on both extremes than to have everyone ambivalent.

You can have something for everyone, everything for someone. You can't have everything for everyone.

Will this game turn out to be one that you like? Who knows. Will it turn out to be one I like? Same answer. That is quite alright, no game can be for everyone.