Search results

Yeah, which is why I try to imagine the ones that don't have their own rules, and try to figure out how those things might impact my PC's choices.

Not often in my games (although not never, because I'm a human), because I don't invent the interesting things during play to goose the narrative, and every Interesting thing put into the setting in prep has an in-setting reason to be there. No conflict.

I definitely believe rulings ought to be applied consistently, written down as needed and applied the same way every time the same circumstances apply.

Now come on. A dragon is clearly one of those supernatural exceptions, so claiming that realism only matters if all supernatural elements are stripped away is IMO disingenuous.

Who's wrong in this sentence: Steve or the person talking to him? I can't tell.

I would argue that you are assuming "chasing story" is the primary goal of play. This is not true for everyone, no matter how much folks who chase story believe it must be. I run games to create verisimilitudinous worlds with interesting stuff happening in them, and let the players choose how...

I rarely have them, because good ones take many ingredients and are something of a pain to make for what is essentially an appetizer, but potato skins are amazing! That being said, I love potatoes in all their forms and there are many options on the poll tied for second in my book.

The current Star Wars RPG has information about hyperspace routes and navigation, and the Voidrunner's Codex for Level Up has some good info about space travel as well.

I feel you sir (I say on a thread I started).

I was always fond of the TV show The 100. More or less hard Apocalypse for the mains at first, but soft Apocalypse for the Grounders, the folk on the Ark, and the other factions.

The post-apocalypse is my favorite genre in which to game, whether it just occurred or is still occurring, or as a backdrop to a present setting now quite different than generations past. My current game involves a civilization-ending event that occurred in session zero, with the PCs now...

This is very cool! The recently released Explorer's Guide for Star Trek Adventures covers very similar territory also in a "grounded in science" way.

Maybe you don't like it because it breaks immersion for you?

But if it doesn't happen, and it's important to you that it does, then you're not going to enjoy that game much. If you're the GM, you're probably going to have a hard time running it.

Well...many of those things do annoy me. Maybe there's something to what you're saying here.

Yeah, in my experience many Actual Plays are so twisted up in providing an "entertaining" experience (so they can get all the clicks and that advertising $$, perhaps?) that they often barely even look like a real game.

I prefer when players make choices that make sense for their characters to make in the given situation within the setting, rather than chasing "story".

Probably not, unless it becomes clear that the most narratively appropriate things keep happening. But whether or not the players consciously notice stuff like that isn't necessarily the point.

Seems like more of Gygax putting on his salesman hat again, yeah.

As you say, a simulation doesn't have to simulate reality. However, in this case it seems to me that was the intent, and the GM, perhaps subjectively, saw the survival as a bad simulation of reality. Or, they were peeved at the player's stated knowledge that by the rules the fall couldn't kill...