Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7342396" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hehe, yes, we have very different approaches to RPGs, in some respects. Its still fun that we can play basically the same game in cool different ways. For the record, I don't mind being a player in some well-considered games of the type you're talking about. As long as my PC can accomplish something and build a little on his accomplishments, I don't feel its a huge big deal.But I just don't like to run games like they're world simulators. I think there's still a good deal of basic consistency in most of my games, the players and I assume that the world works basically in some way that we define, and if the PCs are 'special' that's OK. I don't NEED to play out something that is offstage between NPCs because it only needs to be established in relation to how it works in the story. So, if the PCs picked a good assassin and gave him good info and enough incentive to do the job right, then it will get done. I don't even think that is at odds with process sim. There is SOME point in any resolution sequence where the PC has 'done enough' to succeed. The assassin example is a bit indirect, but I don't think that really makes it somehow 'wrong' to assume something set in motion was successful. Rolling more dice doesn't make it somehow 'more accurately simulated' or something like that (I would argue there's no meaningful level of accuracy in RPGs anyway, but that's a topic for a different day).This is an interesting point. I understand that it represents a fairly often cited reason why everything has to follow some set kind of process where some platonic ideal of a 'PC neutral world' exists. IMHO though no such world ever exists, or even close to exists, so its mostly moot. Still, it seems to be a strong leg of the conceptual framework that supports a certain type of play. As I said, interesting.</blockquote>

Verification