Search results

By this token, BitD and AW would be GM-driven/centred in your view, no?

This was basically what I was getting at with my question about BitD and such, but you put it more succinctly.

If we're being accurate (read: pedantic), Watsonian vs Doylist originated as a framework for literary analysis in terms of in-world reasoning vs meta-reasoning, as Watson was effectively Doyle's self-insert, but in the context of RPGs, yes. I think I've said this before in response to @pemerton...

Yes, which is why I noted people might not agree with the specific examples. Where "the line" is clearly differs between individuals as demonstrated by this thread, but I think the sentiment is sound.

Agreed. I noted earlier in the thread that if one is going to use a threefold model, then it's better as a ternary diagram rather than separate boxes.

To be fair, there's a difference between monster hunters in the vein of Dracula vs those in Buffy (including Xander post Halloween).

Yes, I prefer when metacurrencies are diegetic like Willpower. Destiny in FFGSW kinda falls into this for me due the framing of it representing the Force, even though it's really no different from say, SW's Bennies.

Except they're frequently used for manipulation of the rules/mechanics. Inspiration in 5e can be spent to gain advantage or impose disadvantage; Destiny in FFGSW can be flipped to improve your dice pool by converting an ability die to a proficiency die (or adding an ability die if your pool is...

I think there's value in a worldbuilding guide, but I think a dungeon masters guide should probably, you know, guide people in how to DM. The 2014 DMG does nothing to help new DMs.

I was just being flippant. But I've read it now. Yesterday got away from me and I didn't have time to engage this thread actively. I'm torn between treating it like a real time conversation and responding as I read to give honest reactions complete with potential changes in thought/views, vs...

I apologise if it came off demeaning, that certainly was far from the intent. I assign no value judgement to the term as I think is evidenced by acknowledging my own idiosyncrasies. You've talked about preferences yourself, and I was using the word with a similar intent.

The immediate thing that comes to mind is leading questions and how some GMs/players/games cross the line with them. (The link is John Harper's thoughts on it in the context of Apocalypse World. I'd encourage the trad/sim crowd to read it if they haven't already because I think they'd agree...

Right. In my V:TM sandbox, I insist that players come up with goals and ambitions for their characters and expect them to pursue them. Sure, I've got 100 or so NPCs pre-created with their own desires that may or may not conflict or align with those of the PCs, and so the players may or may not...

Yeah, this is something I've done for knowledge checks and the like, myself.

Agreed. I would say the higher = better sentiment tends to be intuitive, with notable exceptions like ranking or balancing. I've played a small amount AD&D2e, and some OSR/NuSR, but not OD&D. I hated THAC0. Some things being good when high and others when being low would probably annoy me. I...

Well, quite. That should probably tell you something. Even @Hussar, who doesn't align with those self-identified simulationists, defines it in a way that's contrary to Edwards and Tuovinen.

I do agree with this sentiment. I have no strong opinions on its value, but fail forward is just a technique and it can be misused or misapplied like any other.

I know @hawkeyefan touched on this, but I don't see why it couldn't just be noted as part of the character and the GM factors it into their adjudication. That's the entire point of the GM.

Hawkeye > Green Arrow, but Batman > Hawkeye. Sorry.

I think FFG's Star Wars/Genesys demonstrates that the full suite of tiered success can work in a trad(leaning) system if it's built with it in mind. Though I don't think it would take much effort to retrofit it to D&D - tiered DCs are a common enough houserule.