Search results

Anyone remember who the OP was? It's not like I can see their posts anymore.

Ok... I don't recall seeing a statistic about RPGs being primarily a simulationist endeavor, so your initial statement (and your meme supporting it), doesn't really connect with my experience. Still not a fan of being told no one should care about my preferences because in your opinion not...

Literally deleted, not just closed? Can you do that?

Well first of all, if I'm reading this strangely worded post correctly, it sounds like an insult. I'm sure you didn't mean it to be. Secondly, how are you justifying your claims here about the average TTRPG and the average TTRPG player? In what way is this objectively stated opinion in any way...

If the OP of a thread blocks you, do you lose access to the entire thread? The "player skill vs character skill" thread just completely disappeared from my view and I'm trying to figure out why. Thought maybe I was blocked by whoever the OP is.

I'd like to think so, but simulationists are a rare breed these days.

For me, what it adds to the game is verisimilitude. If an action has a chance of failure, and particularly if success and failure lead to potentially different results, then IMO by world logic they shouldn't auto-succeed (or auto-fail). Within the setting (which is my priority) there's no good...

The more people like that, the more likely the hobby will turn that way in general. And I don't want that.

None of that makes it not depressing.

"This is only a problem for some people" hardly flips the criticism on its head.

Well, that's just depressing.

"Collaborative storytelling" is not the core goal of roleplaying for everyone. Stories will emerge after the fact, even if you don't push for it, because people make decisions. Some of us would rather focus our attentions on exploring the setting through our characters than on making a "story"...

Fair enough, but I've never let popularity change my preferences.

I wasn't arguing. I was explaining how I prefer to play.

No, of course not all tables run that way. It's just my personal preference. Abstracting away the possibility of failure hurts my brain.

An unexpected encounter (the old "wandering monster" idea) is always a possibility. If I have reason to think the players might not know that I would tell them.

There's always a game time consequence; actions don't occur instantly in the setting after all, and whatever time it did take is a consequence. Things might happen during that time.

Those all sound like meaningful consequences to me, and one of them is likely to apply to some degree nearly all the time, so to me to rolling still makes sense (beyond my general belief that any action for which the outcome is in doubt should be rolled).

See, I love history (real or imagined), so I want the history of the setting front and center. That's the most fun part for me. That history is what makes the setting make logical sense, and it needs to in order for me to appreciate it properly. Verisimilitude is a very high priority for me in...

They do it too, but the corps invented it.