Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5230401" data-attributes="member: 3887">The thing is, I like consistency too. But I'm more interested in consistency in tone, characterization, NPC reactions, etc. Personally, I don't find strict adherence to whatever rules are in place delivers the kind of consistency I'm after.I hear you about the need for a consistent enough mechanical framework in order to make informed tactical decisions. But if you're mechanical framework is too consistent, you miss out on a lot of the cool, wahoo moments that give RPG play it's charm. This, BTW, is the most persuasive argument against 4e I've found (and I like 4e). As for simulationists... well, to be honest, I can never figure out what they're after. They claim they're after realism, or verisimilitude, a reasonable in-game world that promotes easy identification. But what they actually advocate is running the game world based a series of simple algorithms that invariable yield absurd results after a while. A short while. It seems less like a call for realism than a call to be playing early 1980's computer games. To my mind, the only way to create a halfway-believable simulation vis a vis the in-game world is to ditch formal rules entirely, and handle everything through exposition and fiat. Formal rules will always produce silly results. I like to think of it as 'consistency+' (ie consistency + the occasional batsh*t maneuver). I think M&M does a great job.</blockquote>