Search results

Simulation of a world with processes and physics that results in matching a genre is not cleanly separable from genre simulation.

I don't know that consistency is a goal here. I am not sure I care if someone else's take on lizardfolk matches mine, for instance. Right. So, koa-toa society will have to differ from human, due to the qualities of the water they live deep within (unless we do away with some of those issues...

As is usually the case, that depends on what you are simulating. If you are simulating most published fictions, even those not tied to RPGs include increased scope/risk, and attendant character power increase, as properties continue.

So, then I might add... I have noted that mechanically we probably don't need them much. But, there may be a function of engagement - even if the result is humans with funny ears, there's something to be said for inspiring people a bit. It just pays to realize that's probably the point these...

Even if you don't go so much as "equally good in combat", and step back to "at least interestingly effective in combat" you get issues in D&D. A system that goes for less simulationist task resolution could manage it better, imho. Well, as i already noted, that is a excellent point, and we...

Hereby known as the "KONOOYFMYD clause." Con-ooyf-mid is even vaguely pronounceable.

With a note that this is a d20 design issue. There are other chassis that can handle this much more cleanly.

Perhaps. That isn't how thing work for, say, Earthly mammalian biology. But it works for dragons, so....

I am not taking the metaphore too seriously. You aren't taking it seriously enough. If your biologies work differently from each other, but that only amounts to small practical mechanical differences, then you are back in humans-with-pointy-ears territory again. But, the D&D chassis isn't...

The game you are looking for in this slot is Shadowrun Anarchy.

Okay, so let us say that is taken as truth. Then, we have a couple of points... 1) The game mechanics haven't really supported that approach to play, probably ever. 2) The overall game design doesn't really have room for radical differences while maintaining similar effectiveness in play...

Because they are played by real people at the table. Those real people don't deserve to be shuffled aside as second fiddles just because other media do so.

So, for many, we are not "telling stories", so that doesn't generalize. But, that doesn't really work when one of the PCs is the non-human, and reasonably expects to be as much the center as the humans. 1) Even if we are telling stories, maybe claiming to be akin to be comparable to some of...

The "humans in funny masks" complaint has been around since the 80s. YMMV.

Mod Note: Having caught up a bit more, no, folks are not approaching this is a constructive matter. Thread closed. @pemerton - please don't try another of these again for a good long time.

Mod Note: While the topics are slightly different, this is otherwise turning out to be much like the arguments of the "Conservatism" thread. I don't see as we need two of those. If this doesn't quickly turn out to be clearly different, it will be closed.

By deciding how many, and what kind of, and the difficulty of, obstacles exist between the PCs and their goal, you become a participant. This becomes most obvious when the PCs present a new goal, for which the GM has not previously prepped, but is true in general.

Not just "if you want to..." It is, "if the differences between humans and non-humans are too small, you don't really need the non-humans." You know how everyone complains that non-humans just seem like humans in costumes? Well, that means your non-humans are not distinctive enough. Right...

With all respect, when the opposition and the referee are the same person, "fairness" should not have been on the list of qualities you expect from the game.

If you get loose with the word "optimal", I guess. But more typically, there's only one absolute best, really optimal build per type.