Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6299371" data-attributes="member: 85870">I have a lot of differing views on general RPG design from you @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6696971" target="_blank">Manbearcat</a>, but in this instance this is dead-center spot on. Encounter budgets have NOTHING to do with &quot;making the party win.&quot; Unless of course, as a GM, it serves your intentions. In which case, you ABSOLUTELY want to have guidelines to serve that intent. If there's one, tiny, hidden argument that can easily derail &quot;simulationist&quot; arguments, it's the simple fact that no matter how &quot;simulationist&quot; you want your rules and system to be, ultimately the GM controls what the players encounter.In any number of situations, it may be perfectly reasonable to encounter a TPK-level threat, or a milquetoast pushover encounter in a given scene. The scene setup, world, situation, etc., may allow for either in a perfectly &quot;simulationist&quot; fashion. As long as the GM can rationally provide a &quot;simulationist&quot; reason for the encounter, either one may fit the bill. But which one does the GM actually WANT the players to experience? Totally up to the GM. In this light, having ENCOUNTER GUIDELINES is a massively good thing---because you've set up the encounter the way you expect it to play out. How many GM's have set up a scene in a game, thinking it should be a &quot;manageable&quot; encounter, consistent with the &quot;simulationist&quot; needs of the setup . . . . only to have the party struggle mightily to stay alive, or be a total pushover with unexpected post-scene consequences?There's no contradiction between something being &quot;simulationist,&quot; and having the ability to predict the outcome. If anything, it's MORE simulationist, because it follows real-world military and business modeling. As a CEO, you want to be able to predict as accurately as possible the outcome of any business path before you do it. Real-world people make real-world decisions using this mindset. Unless as a GM you're purposefully trying to surpise the PCs, in a simulationist world the PCs are going to be searching for every bit of representational data about an encounter . . . . because &quot;simulatively&quot; they're going to want to know if they can handle what's in front of them or not. If you as a GM don't have any idea whether the PCs can actually handle an encounter, how can you accurately represent that information to them &quot;simulatively&quot; through the game world?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6299371, member: 85870"] I have a lot of differing views on general RPG design from you @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6696971"]Manbearcat[/URL][/U][/B][/I], but in this instance this is dead-center spot on. Encounter budgets have NOTHING to do with "making the party win." Unless of course, as a GM, it [I]serves your intentions[/I]. In which case, you ABSOLUTELY want to have guidelines to serve that intent. If there's one, tiny, hidden argument that can easily derail "simulationist" arguments, it's the simple fact that no matter how "simulationist" you want your rules and system to be, [I]ultimately the GM controls what the players encounter.[/I] In any number of situations, it may be perfectly reasonable to encounter a TPK-level threat, or a milquetoast pushover encounter in a given scene. The scene setup, world, situation, etc., may allow for either in a perfectly "simulationist" fashion. As long as the GM can rationally provide a "simulationist" reason for the encounter, either one may fit the bill. But which one does the GM actually WANT the players to experience? Totally up to the GM. In this light, having ENCOUNTER GUIDELINES is a massively good thing---[I]because you've set up the encounter the way you expect it to play out[/I]. How many GM's have set up a scene in a game, thinking it should be a "manageable" encounter, consistent with the "simulationist" needs of the setup . . . . only to have the party struggle mightily to stay alive, or be a total pushover with unexpected post-scene consequences? There's no contradiction between something being "simulationist," and having the ability to predict the outcome. If anything, it's MORE simulationist, because it follows real-world military and business modeling. As a CEO, you want to be able to predict as accurately as possible the outcome of any business path before you do it. Real-world people make real-world decisions using this mindset. Unless as a GM you're purposefully trying to surpise the PCs, in a simulationist world the PCs are going to be searching for every bit of representational data about an encounter . . . . because "simulatively" they're going to want to know [I]if they can handle what's in front of them or not[/I]. If you as a GM don't have any idea whether the PCs can actually handle an encounter, how can you accurately represent that information to them "simulatively" through the game world? [/QUOTE]

Verification