hawkeyefan
Legend
You offered up two methods for the same exact thing, not two methods for doing one thing two different ways, which is what I am talking about.
I’ve read this sentence about a dozen times now, and I’m really struggling to understand it.
You’ve claimed that the GM making decisions for action resolution or for establishing elements in the fiction is inherently more realistic than other methods.
I provided an example (fork in the path) and then explained how a GM might decide the answer (method 1) and how another game may have a player make a roll and the GM narrates based on the results of the roll (method 2).
You seemed to agree that these two methods are equally realistic.
Therefore, GM deciding by consulting notes is not inherently more realistic.
You moved the goal posts from, "Example 1 is less realistic than example 2," to "Example one and example two are functionally identical." You don't get to move the goal posts like that.
I didn’t move goal posts. I compared two methods.
In D&D fighters do not care for arms and armor, because arms and armor never wear down in any way. If you are playing some other system where it states explicitly that arms and armor wear down, but care is assumed, then my example does not apply to THAT system. THAT system does not in any way refute my claim, though.
I’ve never liked how fighters in my game always seem to be free of intestinal concerns. They live on rations and ale and the occasional hank of mutton, but never miss a battle due to stomach issues.
So I came up with a mechanic whereby we can determine if a fighter has to skip adventuring to spend a day in the privy!
Would you agree that this mechanic makes my game more realistic than baseline D&D?