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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 9568969" data-attributes="member: 75787">So this is a straight simulationist definition of fairness. It says that the closer the ruling is to the way the "real" world would work, the fairer it is. It is certainly one way to play.Personally, I'm more in favor of a version of fairness which is based on every player having an equal amount of fun. That can often conflict with a simulationist basis of fairness. As an example, if some characters are melee combatants, and some are ranged snipers, the simulationist POV says that the melee fighters will die way more often than the ranged ones.This is bit like the difference between equality and equity. Simualtionism emphasizes equality -- the same rules apply to everyone equally and if that penalizes a certain style of play and makes the players who like that style of play have less fun, then so be it. For me, I prefer to make rulings that are less about "how would the physics work" and more "does his make the game more fun for all".Following on from my example of ranged versus melee, I would tend to make rulings that penalize ranged combat more than melee (e.g. increasing range penalties, making armor resist piercing more than was historical, ...) Nothing huge, but rather than the proposed method of only considering what makes the most accurate simulation, and hoping that that makes the game joyful (an excellent goal!) I prefer to cut out the middle goal and go straight for a ruling that makes the game more fun for everyone.So:"Track orcs across rocky ground with a three day head start?"A low level ranger will almost certainly fail. So a simulationist approach sets the difficulty so high it auto-fails, or just says 'no'. The goal would then be to have fun by fining another way to achieve the goal. My approach would generally be to rule it much easier than it actually is, because my players will have more joy getting to the orcs immediately than searching around for other methods."a ranger tracking a deer in a forest"If there is joyful outcome to failure, sure, roll! Again, the same criterion as above. If the fun is finding the deer and dealing with it, go right there. If not, roll and if there's a failure, find the fun in alternative options.In general, I look first for the fun (the joy) and then see if a purely simulationist ruling fits that. If so, great, because equality is easier to remember and implement than equity. But if not, I'll tweak the rule, because equity is a better end goal than equality.--------------------“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”― Anatole France</blockquote>

Verification