Recent content by TwoSix

100%. I do run some games with a more sim agenda, and they have strict diegetic class identities. But even in those games, I have systems in place to accomodate the host of NPCs who have some kind of strong ability or abilities but don't have the corresponding supernatural resilience of high HPs.

For sure; 99% of players are simply not going to care about the larger philosophical issues.

I can see this working for something like the WFRP career system, but not for the relatively intransigent D&D class system. The core issue is that real people don't progress linearly, learning exactly the same set of skills in the exact same order. You can make it work by making each "class"...

Considering how constantly inundated kids are with visual and aural distractions from the various screens available, any medium that can get them to ingest text for a period of time more than a few seconds is worthwhile.

Random thoughts. 1) I'd probably push the time frame out to somewhere between 2080-2100. I don't think you'd see such a large increase in mechanical capability outside of possibly a Singularity type event. Giving a little more time frame padding would allow for more governmental collapse...

I mean, I definitely don't think you should be using GNS terminology in your session zero. :) Unless everyone at the table already uses it, of course.

I mean, it's hard but I think it's doable. (Although everyone has different standards as to how much mechanical complexity they expect.) Daggerheart threads the needle pretty well in my recent experience. I'm a fan of games that have random creation with some customizable elements, like the...

If the system can't seem to generate a workable fiction for you, than drop it, for sure. But I'm a fan of taking what the system gives me and letting it play out.

I agree that there are absolutely people who hyperspecialize in one game or genre, but I don't think I'd define them as the "norm". Most people I know who play board games regularly own dozens upon dozens of board games (myself included). And I definitely know people who are still hardcore...

And that's fine if you want to do the heavy lifting. I'm a low-prep low-work DM; for me it's much more fun to just think through the setting consequences of a particular rule than to make up all new rules (and then have to transmit them to players!)

Personally, I still do this; whatever system I use I extrapolate to be true within the setting. When I run high-level D&D, everyone is aware that high-level characters are tougher and can endure multiple attacks with mundane weapons with a shrug. My entire setting cosmology for my 5e games is...

I think there's a difference between "the simulation is abstracted" and "this simulation is providing results contrary to what I would expect". If you expect a narrative that a crossbow is still dangerous to a mid-to-high level character, and your damage and health rules say the opposite...

Absolutely. I've been saying for a few years now than John Wick is the perfect encapsulation of what a high-level fighter is trying to be.

I agree with this. This is probably true for all agendas, but particularly for sim play, you want your system truths and your setting truths to align. If your setting truth is that a readied crossbow can one-shot kill even a high-level character, than you need resolution rules that make that...

It's difficult to ignore HPs in D&D because so many of the resolution systems are explicitly tied into using ablation of HP as their primary resource.