Search results

It doesn't. It however should aim to reflect the reality of the fiction it is depicting, and presumably in the fiction some things are more difficult than others. Granted, as taking account everything is impossible, simulation can be simplified. However, not taking into account a major factor...

Yeah. The issue with campaign 3 is that most of the characters simply do not connect with or resonate with the main story, and it feels they get railroaded onto a quest they do not really care about. I've on episode 80, trying to get though it, and it always just seems that the game works way...

I think it is actually a very good definition. And yes, it is demanding, but also one does not be 100% sim all the time like one doesn't need to be 100% narrativist all the time. It merely clearly outlines what the thing is, which is helpful. Tuovinen's ramblings on the other hand are mostly...

The rune example was not even that though, as the skill was irrelevant, the character was going to read the runes anyway, the only thing being tested was whether the runes were good or bad, which is completely unrelated to the skill of the reader or difficulty of the runes. I do not agree with...

I rather think it is pretty big part of it, yes. Of course it is not the only defining feature. There is no difference. It is a setting authored by someone other than the players. The only difference is that Ed Greenwood is not at the table with us, so we don't have to care how he feels if we...

Mate, no, just no. This is less simulationistic as it is not affected by the difficulty of the task, thus failing to simulate that part of the game reality. Frankly, you seem to have no idea what simulating something even is.

Whereas to me it is perfectly clear that intelligent species of the setting are on of its most defining features, and the idea that you should shove tortle into a gritty gameofthronesque human-only world or a Tolkien dwarf into a Kung Fu Panda inspired animal people world is ludicrous. How on...

To see it that way would require the players somehow being unable to affect the direction of the game via the actions of their characters. Like my sessions usually end with the players deciding what they want to do next, and then I prep stuff appropriate for that for the next session. It seems...

@Enrahim relating to the two modes you outline, when running a game I effectively have two different modes as a GM. Between the games I plan stuff, and at that point I consider how to create interesting situations that speak to the characters. But when we actually play, I try to refrain adding...

I think variation brought by subclasses helps a bit here. I also like classes and subclasses that let you choose stuff, like the Totem Barbarian, whereas there is an unifying theme of animal totems (so they come from cultures where animal spirits are revered) but still allows variation between...

To me it is far more verisimilitudious that way. D&D classes are weirdly specific packages of capabilities. To me that makes more sense if there is some metaphysical or cultural reason for this. Like why do all wizards cast spells in the same way? Because they're part of the same arcane...

Exact opposite for me. Now there of course can be many enclaves of elves and couple of different wizard orders etc, but I ultimately want everything to have place in the setting. I don't want species and classes to be just mechanical splats that do not diegetically mean anything. I want the...

No, they’re perfectly normal Tolkien dwarves in appearance, they are just called Dragonborn clan. They wear drake and dragon pelts though!

Yes, you can absolutely do it, but then it is pointless to insist that playing "an elf" or "a dragonborn" without the context of what those words mean. Like the GM can say that sure you can play a dragonborn, there is the Dragonborn Clan of mountain dwarves, and then hand you the dwarf rules...

I started designing my current setting Artra probably about a year before the game actually began. At that point I had no idea whether it would even end up as a campaign or who the players might be. And in case of @Lanefan they have a world they've originally designed decades ago, so it was...

Yes, but those things are unrelated to the simulation! Furthermore, you are not merely combining odds of several things you are completely supplanting outcomes causally connected to the things the numbers being used to draw the odds measure, with those causally unconnected to them, as it seems...

You have a rune reading skill, then perhaps difficulty of the runes. Then from these you draw the odds of runes being good or bad. These things are not related. Furthermore, what the character is doing (trying to read the runes) is different than what the rules are determining (whether the runes...

Ultimately I feel the fundamental building blocks of the setting are my responsibility as a GM, and I don't need or want input on those. Intelligent species certainly are pretty fundamental part of the setting for me. You said that you'd personally feel human only as the non-human species do not...

Yeah, I wouldn't call that simulation. By that metric almost anything can be simulation. Nor would I link immersion and simulation in such a direct way. Simulations might feel immersive to some people, but whether they do or don't has no bearing on their status as a simulation.

That seems unlikely. Not a wyvern perhaps. But other things. IIRC the rune thing was not Burning Wheel, but do you think it could work roughly similarly in BW?