Search results

Works for me. Thus my initial confusion.

Fair. That’s the perspective I am coming from. I understand you wouldn’t call that a mechanic yourself. I dont really understand why though.

I was thinking more like a 10+ year old video game ;)

Is it just me or does it look very video game CGI?

I think it depends not on what but on why and that also applies to the GM. If the GM included runes to teleport you away only after realizing you were in over your head, that would not be simulationist. If he included them only as an interesting feature of the world/dungeon and you happened...

Yea, I find that most all the mechanics in every RPG i've been a part of require a great deal of GM judgement to enact. If GM judgement being required excludes something from being a mechanic then there's very few things i'd classify as a mechanic. This is very prevalent in 5e with skill...

I think you've misunderstood the quote I was responding to.

If all it takes to be GM driven is (1) the players declare their PCs actions and everything else is worked out by the directly or mediated via the mechanics then that seems to designate even the RPG's you call player driven as actually GM driven.

What about, "I like FKR games because I like the mechanic of having an expert decide the outcome"?

As a potential counterexample, what would you make of a 'mechanic' where players vote on whether something happens. I assume each players individual vote isn't a mechanic in your view as it's their judgement, but the vote tally deciding whether that something happens would be a mechanic...

Earlier in the discussion we discovered some games you reference state skills meant one thing only to find out that in play they functioned differently. As such, I'm not sure how to proceed when we can have potentially 'lying' game texts. It seems not just the skill description but the full...

I’m not against them but this seems to be in practice what happens.

So what would to call the referee’s specific mental process to simulate if not a mechanic?

To me that reads that your activity requires simulation but your purpose is not simulation. It’s to explore. Which is what I’m saying.

It’s also the answer given for bad d&d play. ‘You did it wrong, or your DM did it wrong’. Etc.

I’m not sure simulation is a purpose. Simulation may underlay and underpin a purpose and set of preferences, but I’m not sure that most players or games have that as their primary purpose. Maybe none, but I’ll leave that door cracked because it’s the internet.

Because I assumed you wouldn’t contradict yourself. Maybe I was being too kind there. Either you leave open the case that some rooms may desire always adhering to prep, which directly contradicts your juxtaposition of ‘no, sometimes you have to read the room as implicitly against always...

What does reading the room entail? And I’d suggest to the extent the group wants the dm ‘reading the room’ is group dependent. Unless reading the room encompasses even those rooms that would prefer the GM to always stick with what was predetermined. But that would seem to undermine your point...

But not by the player! I’m not sure how that’s a counterexample? And here the player didn’t decide what if any argument would sway the Maruts. Which for what I’m talking about makes it completely dissimilar. The examples you choose for counters seem to reveal you don’t understand what is...

‘Runes cannot be read without first assigning them a meaning’. How did they get assigned a meaning? In this case the player selected a meaning, rolled some dice and got a successful result. That’s the part that’s non diegetic that doesn’t occur in d&d. In d&d the player isn’t selecting the...