Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4048559" data-attributes="member: 1054">Well, this is interesting for me. I'm about 50% Simulationist, and 25% each gamist and narrativist. The thing for me is -- what am I simulating? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sometimes, I want a &quot;realistic&quot; game (even with magic elves), where artificial conventions like &quot;Per encounter&quot; powers grate me no end. Other times, still simulationist, I wish to simulate the way adventure books/movies/comics work, and in those, &quot;per encounter&quot; powers make sense -- not because the world magically recognizes the structure of &quot;encounters&quot;, but because, dramatically, characters do not use the same abilities over and over and over again. To accurately simulate the action genre, the game mechanics must make it inefficient or impossible to just keep using one optimal attack multiple times, or place limits on when an optimal attack can be used. Call it the Voltron Problem -- Voltron can't form the Blazing Sword until he's used a half-dozen other attacks which, we know, never work. The problem with this structure is that it conflicts with the other half of DMing -- worldbuilding. Per-encounter powers make dramatic sense, but blow worldbuilding to hell, because they mean nearly unlimited use of powers (depending on how an 'encounter' is designed). Arguing that &quot;Well, no NPCs choose to do that!&quot; smashes any kind of verisimiltude in the face (as well as allowing PCs to ignore adventuring and set themselves up as millionaires by using their low level powers to greatly profitable effect. Avoiding this requires the players ignore the full extent of what they can do and its impact on the world, and that's hard to force down their throats.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4048559, member: 1054"] Well, this is interesting for me. I'm about 50% Simulationist, and 25% each gamist and narrativist. The thing for me is -- what am I simulating? :) Sometimes, I want a "realistic" game (even with magic elves), where artificial conventions like "Per encounter" powers grate me no end. Other times, still simulationist, I wish to simulate the way adventure books/movies/comics work, and in those, "per encounter" powers make sense -- not because the world magically recognizes the structure of "encounters", but because, dramatically, characters do not use the same abilities over and over and over again. To accurately simulate the action genre, the game mechanics must make it inefficient or impossible to just keep using one optimal attack multiple times, or place limits on when an optimal attack can be used. Call it the Voltron Problem -- Voltron can't form the Blazing Sword until he's used a half-dozen other attacks which, we know, never work. The problem with this structure is that it conflicts with the other half of DMing -- worldbuilding. Per-encounter powers make dramatic sense, but blow worldbuilding to hell, because they mean nearly unlimited use of powers (depending on how an 'encounter' is designed). Arguing that "Well, no NPCs choose to do that!" smashes any kind of verisimiltude in the face (as well as allowing PCs to ignore adventuring and set themselves up as millionaires by using their low level powers to greatly profitable effect. Avoiding this requires the players ignore the full extent of what they can do and its impact on the world, and that's hard to force down their throats.) [/QUOTE]

Verification