Realism isn't my primary concern. I'm invested in player agency and gameplay decision making. I want players to prefer to climb a wall instead of balancing on a thin ledge because they can reasonable conclude (by reference to the system and description of the situation) they will have to make less checks or easier checks.So, given the above--what would you do to address these concerns for folks of these groups? Because even with a really really comprehensive reliable list of explicit DCs, I still think the issues above remain. To be more succinct, how do you deal with these criticisms:
- This seems like an awful lot of work to get a very small increase in realism. Why not use something simpler?
Ultimately, I then want them to start trying to change situations they face to force checks they prefer, and ideally to overwhelm the RNG of some checks to achieve a guaranteed preferred outcome.
I'm very comfortable with character respeccing, if you're concerned about character building being too restrictive, but fundamentally I want to play a game that allows me to make good decisions and find optimal lines of play, and I'm happy to accept complexity as a cost to do that.
- The high risk of making poor choices means I feel like I have to plan way in advance, which is frustrating and makes it feel much less realistic.
I'm long over sacrificing the gameplay I want for casual players. I'm playing RPGs with the same people I play Splotters and 18XX games with, I prioritize quality of decision making over accessibility in my games.
- As a player interested in casual play or doing something creative or offbeat, I feel punished simply because I'm not making optimal choices.
The activities I want to do with "casual players" are best contained to a single evening, not hours over the course of years.