Exactly. I don't base any reaction, any result of character actions on narrative reasons for moving the story forward. I base them on what logically follows the fiction of the world. Now, I sure hope that the fiction of the world is exciting and interesting overall but saying "You failed therefore something must happen" feels artificial to me. Which is one of the reasons I don't find an attraction to narrative games.
I think this provides some clarity to me.
In an earlier post, I mentioned being perplexed by some of the pushback I received. I had assumed my position was nearly universal. But this post helped me realize a flaw in that thinking.
I view TTRPGs as games first, and I interact with them accordingly.
What I now see more clearly is that a subset of players—how large doesn’t really matter—prioritize something else. For them, verisimilitude matters more than the “game” part of the game. It’s not about constructing a streamlined or engaging gameplay experience; it’s about preserving a strict internal logic for the world, even if that means accepting, what I would think of as, slow, inconsequential, or repetitive outcomes.
That reframes my earlier assumption that “failure should always have consequences” as a universal principle. That principle only holds if one shares my view of the hobby as a game first. If someone is instead focused on realism or believability, then of course they’re comfortable with failure that changes nothing. For them, that is the key to making the game fun.
What’s fascinating is that this isn’t a narrative vs. traditional divide, like much of this thread. It’s about whether you prioritize the game experience in a vacuum or the fictional logic of the world. In the latter case there is, obviously, a different priority.
This gives me a view of the hobby that maybe I was blind to prior to this. Having seen the term "simulationist" in posts by the wonderful
@Micah Sweet but never really grasping it's full meaning.
Back to my cave so I can reflect on this.
