Search results

But this is just about the level of detail. D&D AC does actually provide some information how it prevents attacks from hitting, it is due some combination of armour deflection, parrying and dodging. Is this less detail than knowing that the attack was specifically dodged? Yes. Is it still "any...

Player decided it, though the mechanics decided who got to decide. On the other hand if there was some "mysterious runes chart" one would roll on based on rules dictates, then it would be fully decided by the mechanics.

Also, at least to me, most of that world building world is not about the system. It is about the fiction, coming up with places, people cultures, organisations, drawing maps and concept art etc etc. Furthermore, one thing where I feel playing 5e helps in this (and one of the main reasons I...

I don't think the player wanting to ignore the setting and/or campaign concept is "a mild request." People who want to play wookiee jedi is a Star Trek game are a problem, as it tells me they are not interested in playing a Star Trek game in the first place, so this will be just first of the...

I don't see a significant difference here, nor with these and 5e. In all cases we have numerical measure of diegetic character capability and numerical measure of diegetic challenge of the task, and from these we draw the odds of success. Granted, I agree with you that in 4e the half level bonus...

What is incoherent how you deem this criteria to be satisfied. You made statements about what is simulation and what is not. You think RQ is one and D&D isn't. Yet the skill systems in both games work in very similar manner. (Granted, I have not played RQ in decades, but I remember the basics.)

This is the exact reason my world now has sand skiff riding desert pirates!

We have not accepted that, nor are D&D mechanics like that. It is merely something you keep repeating, as is your whole incoherent definition of simulation. Mechanics of D&D (and many other games) use values which represent the character's competence in given area (a diegetic quality) and a DC...

Well, if consistently followed, they both lead us into the same place: the rules and setting being in sync. Though of course the resulting settings will look rather different. For my 5e game I did a bit of both. I altered some rules to better suit the fiction and I wanted. but I also shaped the...

I'm perfectly fine with this for actual high level characters, which I see as mythical heroes, though I think we reach "cannot be killed by a single arrow" territory way too fast.

I really do not like lumping genre emulation etc with simulation, as that point the term becomes so broad it is basically meaningless. Every RPG to some way or another emulates something.

It is not simulation as the causality is messed up. We have PC with some rune reading skill value or such (and possibly some DC or similar for the task?) and then from this we derive odds of something completely unrelated, namely the runes being beneficial or bad news. Furthermore we have the...

Oh, and as Sorensen's manifesto has been mentioned several times, I quite like it. I think it outlines the important aspect rather well.

So I might have skipped a few hundred pages somewhere in the middle, but believe or not, I've actually read most of this ludicrous thread. Some random comments on a few of the things being discussed: Is D&D simulationistic? I think it is somewhat, though there are a lot of gamism in it. Things...

Yes, but the problem is solved by just giving them all masteries. It is not OP, they will not be able to wield all weapons at one anyway.

I think the new style NPC spellcasters are far worse offenders in this regard. I'm fine with some streamlining and shortcuts with NPC mechanics, but I feel that things that are similar sort of creatures than the PCs should roughly feel like they are sameish. It is just bizarre if for example...

Yeah, I don't believe that this is how it works. Most people are just commoners with strength 10.

Yes, but they probably shouldn't have to. I don't believe in rules as protection against bad GMs, but nevertheless some guidelines for what skills can actually do would be beneficial. It simply makes being consistent easier, and makes sure everyone is on the same page about what is possible.

I really don't not think that the strongest man in town has strength 20! 16, maybe, 14 more likely. 20 is something that only super rare heroic individuals might have.

It is super weird and also unnecessary. Just let them use them all.