Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5116021" data-attributes="member: 18253">On #1, I personally like worlds that make sense and have trouble engaging long term with worlds that don't seem to make sense (at least to me). Readily admit this is a personal thing but that's the way it is for me. If everything else about the setting is fun I can overlook it but it is something I generally consciously have to do. On #2, as player or GM, a little meta-game talk is fine. Basing decisions solely on meta-game aspects or staying heavily on that side, not so good. Part of the fun my group and I have on game days is discussing the game mechanics itself and making fun of such things so we do have some meta-game chatter. But we have unspoken limits because we do try to roleplay and the refs generally invest a lot in setting so when it happens, it is more a "witty" meta-side comment followed by a return to normal in-character stuff. #3- at times, sure. It's hard for any system to perfectly model things. They all have their trade-offs. We as a group are quite willing to acknowledge that our selected game system is simply a balance of competing constraints (time versus realism being one basic one). #4- we sometimes play rules-light games (especially for sci-fi) but for fantasy the complexity of any of the recent D&D systems works fine for us.</blockquote>