Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8133910" data-attributes="member: 6785785">[USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] I don’t want to reply point for point because I feel like each response would boil down to essentially the same thing. The things that you’re concerned about....consistency of minutiae and distances and movement speeds and mapping and all that stuff...those are all valid concerns in the play approach that you and your players have. And that’s an absolutely fine way to play, but it isn’t the only way. So some of the things I’m suggesting wouldn’t make sense to be incorporated into a game where mapping and positioning are important elements. But if someone is not mapping and not concerned with the kind of simulationist exactitude, then the lack of these things is not important.I’d argue further that details can still be made up on the fly and work with this approach if some of the simulationism was toned down.....but if you got players looking at maps weeks later and questioning things, I get why maybe your case is unique. But regardless, other approaches to play eschew all that stuff. Some systems don’t even factor it in at all. Blades, for instance, doesn’t have speed rates or initiative, there’s no mapping and the NPCs don’t even have turns. The players are encouraged to add details to the environment through play. In that system, having the GM determine all kinds of details beforehand would be a very poor fit. All this is to say that it’s a matter of both the system used, and the approach to that system. Different things may work or not for different games, and different participants.</blockquote>

Verification