Search results

Oh, certainly. I find the difference frequently--not always, but very often--comes down to whether one likes "gamist" things or not, or equivalently whether one prefers some other thing (almost always "simulation") more. Folks who are gigantic fans of sim treat "gamist" as the latter almost all...

Firstly, before answering the question here, I am quite surprised to say I have very few notes. Not quite "no notes", but shockingly close. This may be the first time you and I genuinely just...agree on stuff right off the bat. It's a nice change of pace. For me, the answer to this question...

Fascinating. I know little about IAWA other than the name. Makes me wonder if the author(s?) of Ironsworn weren't inspired by this as well as by PbtA, because the three tracks which control your survival (Health, Spirit, and Supply) have a loose similarity, and there are various Conditions you...

But realism, verisimilitude, etc. are the literal, explicit words used to describe this. Over and over and over and over. That it is not an artificial, abstract construct used to model things. That it is modeled, as closely as possible, on how things actually behave--and that if an abstraction...

..... Max, you're still doing it. You are still asserting that someone is saying "OH SO YOU WANT THINGS TO BE BORING???" when they simply, flatly, are not saying that.

I mean, it's not just him. The thread at large has consistently treated it as such; the GM does not touch the character in any way, it is sacrosanct and belongs to the player alone, while the world is absolutely sacrosanct and belongs to the GM, never to be touched by the player except through...

Quite agreed. "You simply cannot achieve what you want to achieve" requires much more in serious sim than just "you tried and couldn't do it earlier". Social rolls, for example, are a common case where I would expect a "no retries without explanation" situation. When you've made an argument to...

Pemerton already called this out, but you're committing a formal fallacy here, called "denying the antecedent." "P→Q" does not mean "¬P→¬Q". In non-symbolic terms, "if P is true, then Q is true" flatly does not say a single thing about whether "if P is false, then Q is false." The two...

This I can certainly grant. A lot of GMs--I'd say at least a third--genuinely either don't realize or don't care that their actions train their players. They do things that, intentionally or accidentally, teach their players a number of bad habits. A significant chunk of "murderhoboism" happens...

In any building that would be styled as a "château", you would have more than one servant. This isn't a Mrs. Hudson situation.

Which just results in disagreements over who fired the first shot, in my experience. Person A thinks action X was totally cool, person B thinks it's unforgivable. Person B then does something to get revenge, so now both people think the other person fired the first shot. It's the Hatfields and...

It's worth noting, this is why I always say that I support specifically genuine player enthusiasm, which I have always defined (or at least have done so consistently for years) as non-exploitative, non-abusive, and non-coercive. Exploitative means something that runs counter to the spirit of the...

A lovely sentiment that never, ever results in terrible things. And folks wonder why I have a skeptical view of the so-called "CvC" playstyle.

But I was told, repeatedly, by several people in this thread that it cannot be illusionism. That that would be a violation of the trust between player and GM. That that would be a failure to depict the world honestly and to actually give the players their due. So now is all that stuff people...

Why do we need to go through all of that rigmarole? We already have a roll. It already tells us something went wrong. And, again, it's not like a single roll can't do two things. Failing a stealth check (VERY closely allied to a lock picking check!) absolutely does result in both the failure...

Food would not be delivered by the cook(s) regardless. It would either be carried up to the person in their private rooms by their personal servant(s), or placed in the dining area before the employers and their guests arrived, covered by cloches to keep it warm until they sat down. If...

What makes this different from the DM rolling on a random encounter table? This seems even more related than the previous examples, because now it's (quite literally) a direct connection. Failing to pick a lock nearly guarantees that you've spent a lot of time trying. You don't spend two seconds...

Moreover, in households from medieval times all the way up through the Victorian era, servants were never supposed to be seen by residents in most cases, unless they were direct personal servants. Messes were, in effect, supposed to seem like they magically cleaned themselves, with entire...

Then why does the dragon only exist there because the roll """failed"""? (I know it's not a "failure" because that's not how we classify the results from random-monster rolls, but for most parties, running into a red dragon on a random-monster roll would be at least as bad, if not MUCH worse...

I mean, I still don't get it, I just decided not to bother responding because it wasn't going anywhere. I don't understand why it's acceptable for the GM to engage in "quantum" anything. That, if anything, is worse "quantum" to me, because it's "quantum" pretending to not be. It is, inherently...