Search results

You do not understand what simulation means. Simulation aims to mechanically represent the significant contributing elements that exist in the fiction. By omitting important elements such as difficulty of the task the simulation becomes much weaker. And all of this is true even if you take...

Yes they do. They work by drawing the odds of success by comparing the skill of the climber to the difficulty of the climb, thus we know those are the factors that result "the how.". Then they tell us whether the climbs was successful or not, and to what degree it failed or succeeded. That...

It is not, but the systems you think are like that, are not like that, like it has been shown to you several times in this thread.

How I approach this, which seems to be common, is that I setup the local situation pertinent for the characters, and then do not significantly alter it once the play begins. But things further away can be more quantum, and I define them more solidly if and when they would be to soon become...

It is, but one which makes the simulation substantially weaker.* All locks are not of same complexity. And including that makes the simulation stronger. * Which of course is a trade-off all mechanics must make to certain degree.

That means it is set by the task! In GURPS you modify the skill by the difficulty of the task. Same than in RQ. This is calculating the odds by comparing the skill value and the difficulty value. The exact same thing than happens in 5e, it is just formulated differently. Discussing with you is...

Yes, as the causal process needs to be diegetic as well.

I mean, the mechanics you use do not simulate that, or if they do, they're constructed in such an illogical manner that it is utterly crap as a simulation. This is because "happy discovery" odds are affected by things that should not affect it.

Given that it seems pretty safe assumption that no one thinks that mechanics are concretely part of the fiction so that the characters are aware of numerical values and die rolls, one could generously interpret that when people say "diegetic mechanics" etc, they do not mean that. Rather, they...

I mean, I don't think I can disagree here with particularly vigorously. With HP we can basically argue about whether they are non-simulationistic or just weakly simulationistic. I think that with my approach where they are always associated with some sort of actual injury they qualify for the...

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...