Recent content by Faolyn

I do agree, and sim is fine--I always like having some more information, as long as I'm not restricted to that info. It's just that Hussar seems to be taking it to an extreme level. That unless the game very clearly spells out how something worked, it's useless from a sim point of view. It's why...

For the record, I have both played and run GURPS 3e and 4e. OK, problem number one here is that you are misunderstanding what I mean by illusionism. In reality, if the game tells you you failed to climb the cliff because of XYZ, then that's basically the same as if the GM tells you you failed...

Simulation is an illusion, because you're just using the ideas the original writer came up with instead of the ideas the GM or players came up with. My question to you is, why is simulation so important to you?

Well, the order of operations is d20 + stat + PB. So if you roll a 12 against a DC of 13, your stat mod was what did it.

A site for selling indie products--heavily video games, a lot of TTRPGs, some self-published books. From their site: "Collective Shout is a grassroots campaigns movement against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls." So technically a good cause, but they're going about it...

Then that's the die you're rolling. Like I said before, you can do the math if you really want to in order determine what actually caused you to succeed or fail. The 5e books all put it in this order: d20 + your stat mod + PB + any other mods you have. So let's say you have a stat with a +3...

There's plenty of information. Yes, you failed because of the darkness, since you wouldn't be rolling with disad if it weren't for that. It's not a reroll or even roll one die than a second die. It's rolling two different dice, yes, but only reading one of them. The other die is ignored. So you...

Lots of games have similar things--scene aspects in Fate, for instance, which is a game I've run. Monster of the Week, which I currently run (although it's on hiatus), gives areas their own motivations, and those seem to act in a similar way.

Really? You know that? How, exactly? Since I've never posted anything more than brief, extremely summed-up descriptions of any game I've run or been in, I find it hard to believe you know much about anything about my games go, let alone how I distinguish the scenes. No, I'm not asking you about...

Do you truly believe that all gamers think in exactly the same way? That there can only be one argument for or about it? That because some gamers say it's not simulationist that all gamers think that?

Look, I keep asking questions. Rather than say something like, "this question is wrong and it actually works like XYZ," he only says this question is wrong" and that's it. For example, in the past, I have written things like "can the players do X?" and anyone else would understand that I mean...

The GM doesn't set the difficulty in GURPS, but the GM can include penalties and bonuses to the difficulty based on external factors (page B345), which is effectively the same thing:

In one of the Daggerheart threads, I posted a link to a bunch of adversaries I made. Well, I've done a major update to that doc: new creatures, including dragons, oozes, animals, and a bunch of "NPC Statblocks", and a table of contents...

<shrug> That's not really a problem--nothing wrong with a game where the PCs are wielding guns in the dungeon instead of swords, other than that it's not traditional. Why? They don't care about swords and windmills, even though those replace spells. And there's a lot more non-casters than there...

OR! One can be really good at improvisation and make up lots of details on the spot.