But I haven't been trying hard at all...
There's definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.
For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn't need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.
A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn't work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn't be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.
If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it'll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.
So no, you aren't necessarily "not fun" if you don't allow this as a DM. You're just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.
I'm pretty sure the trials of death in super mario maker wins.
Over 4000 hours over 7 years just to beat one level.
No, you need to conform to the majority, differences only cause unpredictability and thus unsafetyness.
This is sarcasm, but it's what many people actually think.
Are you sure men are not subjected to something similar? Granted, no random women came to me on the street, but I received all kinds of weird "advice" by distantly acquainted women as a young man, which in all honesty also felt like "pressuring me to conform to female desire"
It has been my experience. Google Play has no way to communicate back that a rating has been made, so all apps I know just assume you rated and never bother you again.
Maybe you're just using really sketchy apps, but for me it worked every time.
Most "far right" people are exactly the kind that made the comment you reply to. I have a "friend" that became exactly like this.
Defense lawyers are supposed to try everything they can to defend their client, no matter how little sense it makes. It is theoretically possible for an admission of guilt to be false.
It's up to the judge to understand their arguments are worthless and rule accordingly.
That's how this is supposed to work.
It depends entirely on the maturity of the parties involved, it's not really an "older/younger" thing.
But generally, the less mature you are, the more a relationship is selfish, i.e. you want to be in a relationship for your personal advantage, i.e. "i get sex when I have a girlfriend". The more mature you get, the more relationships go into the direction of "I want to make the other person happy". You still get your sex or whatever other advantage of course, but it's much more fulfilling if you can actually give the other person what they need, and temporarily losing your personal benefit of the relationship doesn't cause immediate breakups.
They don't really. They are often learned the hard way, because no one attempts to explain them or just acts like they know but doesn't really.
view more: next ›
One thing that people didn't mention yet: this is the behavior that made him (stay) a billionaire. You don't get to be one by being nice and non-exploitative.