Search results

I would think that it's pretty much widely accepted, full stop because that's what simulationist systems are. Again, as I just posted to @Lanefan, every single sim-leaning system in the history of the hobby says that the mechanics inform the narrative. The mechanics provide some (doesn't mean...

That is very much untrue. The reason you show your work on a math exam is because the answer is largely irrelevant. The point of the exam is to prove that you know the process for achieving that answer. The fact that your answer happened to be right could easily be a lucky guess. This is a...

No. A simulation must provide some information about how a result was achieved. A system that provides only results is not a simulation. That’s not an arbitrary definition I’ve made up out of nothing. That’s what simulation means. Otherwise any and all systems are simulations. Rolling dice...

Huh. Funny how this runs rather counter to your insistence of logical simulated worlds. Your world functions as a relation to the level of the pcs. Some events are off the table, not because they don’t make sense but because they would not be fun for the players. :erm: :hrm: You spent a lot...

You might want to address this to @Maxperson who disagrees with you.

What does the die roll represent if not everything other than the PC’s skill. It’s virtually guaranteed in DnD you only succeed by rolling high enough. That’s why you are rolling. You have a chance to fail. So if ability plus skill is the pc, what is the die roll? If the die roll can change...

Because you are the one insisting on things that I am not saying. “Accurately”? Show me a time I said anything about that. But systems can inform narrative. That’s how you make them a simulation. Fail by x and it’s the character’s mistake. Fail by Y and its environmental. Poof. Instant...

That's not true at all. History is backed by all sorts of primary sources. History that is only backed by oral retellings are notoriously bad.

What's the difference? The game world is being changed as a result of a failed skill check. Had the check succeeded, the rope would have never broken and might never break. So, it's not a weak rope. The cliff face suddenly crumbling because of my climb check? How is that not my skill check...

And, here we have it again. This is one of the most frustrating things about this thread. Poster A: I have heard this thing about this game. Poster B: No. I've played that game. I have lots of experience with that game. That's not true. That's not how it works. Poster A: I will now...

I 100% agree with this. Which means that for simulationist play, we need written rules that actually SIMULATE something. IOW, they have to provide any information about how a result was achieved. Otherwise, it's just magic pixies all over the place. See, in actual sim systems, my magic...

So, when magical pixies cause the character to fall or succeed that climb check, that's 100% in keeping with sim play because the DM says it? Since the DM cannot be wrong, then any narration I choose must be right. Does make running sim games really, really easy I suppose.

Not true. You could easily have succeeded because of helpful pixies. Again, the system in no way gives any indication of how a result was achieved. You succeeded because a friendly air spirit gave you a boost up and you climbed the wall. Again, nothing in the mechanics invalidates that...

There are two problems I see with this. The first is a slight mis-statement on your part. I did not say that FKR GM's must be above average. I said they must be experts in their field. And and FKR GM can only run games in their field of expertise. That's the weakness of the system. Sure...

See, that's the point. There's nothing in the mechanics that necessitates that. I mean, how does a skill check make my rope break? What sharp edge? How did my skill check add a sharp edge to a rock that cut my rope? You have repeatedly stated that skill checks cannot add or change the game...

Absolutely. The character is interesting. Who plays the character? Who cares? So long as they do a good job. I most certainly don't think that any character MUST ONLY be played by a single actor. Let's get a new Luke and Han Solo. Why not? Does not bother me at all.

Meh. Maybe I just happened to be reading the wrong part of the Internet. That's entirely possible. It just seemed like I hit a bunch of stuff about people kvetching about recasting roles and it stuck with me. I have zero problems with a new actor playing Tony Stark. It really wouldn't...

Company called Living Imagination. It's still available in print and pdf. FANTASTIC books if you love age of sail. But seriously, seriously crunchy.

So, because the DM is free to narrate anything he or she pleases to justify any result that the mechanics give you, that makes it simulationist? Seriously? You keep harping on about FKR. FKR REQUIRES an expert judge. Unless you are claiming that D&D also requires an expert judge, then your...

True. But, when they recast Harrison Ford in the last Falcon movie, people bitched about it. That's the part I don't understand. It's not like Harrison Ford doesn't look the part of Thunderbolt Ross.