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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 9745714" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I think the issue that I have with the no-table talk "simulationist" approach is that play just doesn't feel like a simulation at all.If these were real adventurers going into a dungeon, surely they would have more detailed conversations about each other's capabilities and how they would interact. Except nobody ever does that. That's incredibly boring for most players to sit around and just talk about strategies, especially on a second or third campaign. Actual adventurers risking their real lives would talk about it.If you're doing that... I mean I guess good for you, but my games resemble basically every actual play where nobody even thinks of doing that.If the cost of tactics and cooperation is "metagaming" to have a conversation with the players about what the characters should do... I just don't care about that. Especially if the results are a lot of fun.I've said this elsewhere, but the breakpoint for us for "tabletalk is metagaming" I think was in a campaign where one player got frustrated because he couldn't figure out how to play an Int 25+ character and wanted help. Then the next session a character was Feebleminded, and just had to sit there and not say anything when the adventure stalled... even though what he knew is not exclusive to his character just something only he remembered. Nevermind all the social encounters where everyone silently stares at the Bard while he does whole encounter by himself for 30 to 40 minutes... for the whole campaign.The character isn't the player and the player isn't the character. It's a game about collaboration and cooperation. So let the players collaborate and cooperate already!</blockquote>

Verification