Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5777710" data-attributes="member: 54877">To me, your preferences do count, but frequenlty the problem in this situation is that both of your are, in effect, short-changing yourselves. The preference is too vague to be realized, and often not paying sufficient attention to the potential or even probable consequences of seeking it. This vastly reduces the chance that you'll get what you reall want. From the other side of the argument, I'll tell you what it often looks like (even when I know full well it isn't): It looks like the guy with the preference doesn't want to be pinned down on details for some reason.   This is why so many counter-arguments show frustration so fast, and talk about things the guy with preference don't really care about.  They are trying to dig out the details in order to discuss it and/or remembering previous conversations that did not go so well. That's why I said earlier that the boundaries are what matters here, if you want results. You want moment by moment pacing? OK, typical turns are 1 second, 3 seconds, 6 seconds? What can a character do during that time? And then you might say, "Naw, 1 second is too fine. We aren't playing full-bore GURPS here." Well, already we are making progress. But we can't make that progress until we get past this: Sim Guy #1 (who wants 1 second): We need moment by moment pacing.Sim Guy #2 (who wants 3 seconds): Sounds great!Sim Guy #3 (who wants 10 seconds, multiple actions): Yeah, that's great!Playability Guy: Couldn't that turn into something overly detailed?Sim Guys in Chorus: Naw man, we need moment by moment pacing, we all agree! Why you always trying to knock us down? I perhaps engage in a bit of hyperbole here for effect. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> But seriously, the dirty secret of simulation preferences is that most people want at least a little simulation, at least part of the time. So the range is huge. You know what used to kill immersion for me? Having heavily armored warriors that have no mechanical means to punish monsters that blithely run by them to smack their robed wizard pal. Oh, well I often just had the monster act like they ought to act given the "reality" of the situation, not how the game said it worked. So understand the idea that the mechanics not fitting the reality of the widget in question can be annoying. But having had to wait almost 30 years to get a version of D&D that effectively addressed my annoyance in this regard, I'm well aware that what people say they want in general and what they mean in particular is not always as closely linked as it first appears. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification