Some folks very kindly put up a French version of the blorb principles.

Matt Leacock just posted his difficulty ideal on BGG.

Design the game such that:
if a group of people appropriately self-selects a well-defined difficulty setting,
that their odds of success will be about 50/50,

Once more stumbling into so much discourse about me that I had never heard of.

First of all, they’re codifying one variant of antiblorb.

And to Technoskald but that one I had seen and dug before!

Dwiz (is that someone from S-G or WRNU? They seemed to have a rock solid grasp on my mighty works) also linked to.

Great! Similar vibes to my own “riss” except I wrote RISS before I became a good writer and it shows.

This is great.

“Designer (?)”, I love that.

Via A Reyes on dice.camp.

God this is so spot on.

So, designers, please find the players everyone else hates. Find them and coerce them into play games with you. Don’t guide them or help them or anything else, let them make the most ridiculous and broken interpretations and then fix them afterwards.

It will make your game and your rules so much stronger.

Here is another thread slagging PWL.

To me, the only alternative to PWL is to have the DM serve up a string of encounters that’s one-by-one “balanced” against the party at that level. Meaning that it’s in some way the DM’s fault if the party loses (overly easily wins). It’s a playstyle with some pros and cons.

The fun with PWL is that you can have a more exploratory type of game world where the world is what it is and the monsters in that world are what they are and you run into them or you run from them. It can be set up such that more distant = more dangerous, but monsters are only balanced relative each other, not the party“. That kind of game is my jam. It also has some pros and cons.

Main point is that PWL, or the gist behind PWL, isn’t just all bad, always bad, misguided, 5e-wannabee stuff. There is an actual point to it.

A frustrating thread about PF’s “Proficiency Without Level” variant because the upvoted commenters (who are slagging the variant) don’t address the reason for the variant, which is to enable more exploratory, less linear/​“curated”/​pathy play.

I’m grateful Paizo made the variant and put it in their book. I hear people say the math is a li’l off(…?) but this variant is almost necessary for play that stretches across larger locations. The traditional towns/overworlds/dungeons setups.