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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5637159" data-attributes="member: 58416">I think it's important to point out that there is a difference between players trying to outwit each other and characters trying to outwit each other.  In the latter, I believe you would get a more accurate portrayal of a situation because meta-game knowledge would not be used to change the actions of the characters.As for bad intel and mental quirks - that is something which GURPS also addresses.  As such, that would still be my choice.Everything in your post actually fortifies my opinion.  I completely agree that flexibility helps train for multiple situations, and, as such, I would want a system which was flexible enough to handle multiple factors and situations.  As it is a toolkit system, I can simulate a very wide range of scenarios.  Likewise, I'll again mention that I would want a system which gives me results which seem most probable.  If I want to account for variables, I can run the scenario multiple times and change certain factors.As for typical training being stale and rigid, I think that would highly depend on what kind of training.  There are training methods for some things which I would say approach the flexibility of imagination and rpgs.  One example would be the MILES gear used by the military.  However, one of the problems with MILES gear is that the fear of being shot/hurt isn't as much of a factor as it should be; as such, some units use 'simuntion' rounds which hurt when you are shot by them.</blockquote>

Verification