NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8634161" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I certainly wouldn't complain about it so much if I hadn't had three different campaigns, with three totally different groups, all end the same way: brutally hard encounter that either TPKs or requires heavy DM fiat to fix, players lose interest and leave.No idea.Who said anything about knowing more? There is a reason the GNS framework calls them "process" Sim vs "High Concept" sim. The rules of "process" Sim know nothing, no more than a computer running a program knows anything, even if that program is an extremely advanced neural network that can generate novel images. They simply are taken as the rules of what is, and generate results. If you think those results should be honored essentially no matter what, you favor "purist-for-system"/G&S design. If you think those rules not only can be but should be ignored literally every single time they defy some kind of projected expectation, whatever that expectation might be, then you are not a "purist-for-system"/G&S design fan, and are likely looking for C&E instead.G&S design projects nothing, except the rules themselves. C&E design projects as the core purpose of play: projecting a theme, concept, idea, etc. onto the play-space and modifying the state of play whenever and wherever necessary to ensure that that projection is satisfying.Yeah. That's why it's "process" or "purist-for-system," and not "High Concept." Having something where there is essentially no system seems to be pretty blatantly opposing an approach called "purist-for-system"!I can't really comment on ICE as I don't know what it is. But, yes, I would argue that a genuine "I do this because it's what my experience says" FKR GM is not providing a Groundedness-and-Simulation design in what they're doing. They may be doing it for the player-motive of "it will actually be more like real things of this nature,"* but they are openly rejecting Groundedness-and-Simulation in the process.*Being blunt: I don't believe most people who claim this. Even those who are super-experts on their area of expertise. Mostly because I am a huge believer in the power, and necessity, of playtesting. You can't playtest an "invisible rulebook," not even in theory. You can playtest a visible rulebook. You can't evaluate an invisible rulebook and mark the errors in red ink. Sure, we may still fall back on "invisible rulebook" things--following intuition, rather than procedure--if something goes horribly wrong. But how can you do the reverse? How can you point to something going wrong with the "invisible rulebook" and develop a visible rule to address it? You can't, not without abrogating the notion that the invisible rulebook is all you need.Alright. I've been pretty consistent about that up until now, so I'm a little surprised this is tripping you up. "Process" is not "realism." It often associates with "realism" (note the quotes, since it's not actually real things a lot of the time), but as I mentioned upthread, it is perfectly comfortable with actively non-realistic things if they arise by naturalistic reasoning and deductive logic from the rules as presented. Just as few people exclusively want a Score-and-Achievement design with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING else, few people exclusively want an absolutely purist Groundedness-and-Simulation design. FKR, by comparison, strikes me as being an actual legit absolutely-purist C&E "design," because it rejects any and all rules or structures in the name of delivering the right kind of overall experience. That's the essence of a C&E gameplay loop: faithful portrayal. In this case, at any cost, hence why I see it as an absolutist/purist "design." (Quotes because I don't actually see FKR as being designed at all, other than the vestigial "table for what bad things can happen" bit. It is actively disengaging from the design process.)Rerolls aren't advantage though. I'm specifically talking about "roll two dice at the same time, and take whichever one is better." Rerolls have existed since the dawn of time, I'm sure you could find reroll mechanics in ancient Roman dice games if we had records thereof. But the specific structure of Advantage, specifically as it appears in D&D? 4e Avenger.</blockquote>

Verification