Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9523927" data-attributes="member: 7006">What ends up happening more often than not for a lot of people (myself included) is us just holding onto the &quot;wargame&quot; exceedingly loosely-- not treating the round-by-round actions of the wargame to be an actual representation of the &quot;reality&quot; within the story that is worth us keeping.&nbsp; Rather, the wargame fights are just that-- pieces of gameplay-- that we participate in because the D&amp;D combat game engine can be fun in and of itself, but which we don't really care what the specifics are for most of it as we move forward with our stories.I mean I know for me in the Pathfinder game I am playing in... 95% of the fights we've gotten into have not had any lasting impression or result in our campaign-- other than just us not dying and thus the campaign could continue.&nbsp; And even for those 5% of combats that have had a lasting imprint on the campaign... it hasn't been the entire combat's blow-by-blow action that we've remembered... it's been that one or two very specific moments in the combat that changed or highlighted events in the campaign's story.&nbsp; So as I've said many times (to many people's chagrin, LOL)... the game itself doesn't matter (for a lot of us), merely the moments and results of the &quot;wargame&quot; do.At the end of the day... I think for most of us D&amp;D would never be considered the optimal &quot;game engine&quot; to use in order to generate the story results people like me are usually looking for.&nbsp; But because it's the game we've always used, the game we have the most supplies for, the most experience using, and the intimate knowledge of how to just ignore or forget the parts we ultimately don't care about... we just keep using D&amp;D anyway.&nbsp; And it's never been a big deal that we always end up using the &quot;wrong tool&quot; for the job.&nbsp; <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=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9523927, member: 7006"] What ends up happening more often than not for a lot of people (myself included) is us just holding onto the "wargame" exceedingly loosely-- not treating the round-by-round actions of the wargame to be an actual representation of the "reality" within the story that is worth us keeping. Rather, the wargame fights are just that-- pieces of gameplay-- that we participate in because the D&D combat game engine can be fun in and of itself, but which we don't really care what the specifics are for most of it as we move forward with our stories. I mean I know for me in the [I]Pathfinder[/I] game I am playing in... 95% of the fights we've gotten into have not had any lasting impression or result in our campaign-- other than just us not dying and thus the campaign could continue. And even for those 5% of combats that [I]have[/I] had a lasting imprint on the campaign... it hasn't been the entire combat's blow-by-blow action that we've remembered... it's been that one or two very specific [I]moments [/I]in the combat that changed or highlighted events in the campaign's story. So as I've said many times (to many people's chagrin, LOL)... the game itself doesn't matter (for a lot of us), merely the moments and results of the "wargame" do. At the end of the day... I think for most of us D&D would never be considered the optimal "game engine" to use in order to generate the story results people like me are usually looking for. But because it's the game we've always used, the game we have the most supplies for, the most experience using, and the intimate knowledge of how to just ignore or forget the parts we ultimately don't care about... we just keep using D&D anyway. And it's never been a big deal that we always end up using the "wrong tool" for the job. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification