Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6836711" data-attributes="member: 85870">I've come to realize I'm very much a &quot;traditionalist&quot; in my RPG play, in that I generally expect a game to provide a level of verisimilitude, as much as possible support &quot;associated&quot; mechanics, and that as much as possible the in-game fiction should have at least the appearance of being a fully functional, &quot;living&quot; world. That said, I'm also becoming much more open to mechanics and playstyles that break away from &quot;traditional&quot; play to serve the purpose of player fun. The whole &quot;fail forward&quot; thread actually re-iterated to me just how &quot;traditional&quot; most of my RPG sensitivities are, but that the means to mesh &quot;traditional&quot; play with &quot;fail forward&quot; doesn't necessarily require a complete abandonment of what I already know, but to redirect certain variables and attributes toward that goal.As a player, I'm almost always more interested in intrigue, mystery, and exploration than I am in combat. One of the things that led me away from D&amp;D was the required 6-8 encounter pacing hard baked into the rules. I played a lot of games with pointless, meaningless combats in the early 2000s, and I just got sick of that kind of play. D&amp;D always seemed to constantly fight against my desire to get inside the story, because of the assumed pacing of encounters, which was only exacerbated by the amount of time it took to resolve individual encounters generally.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6836711, member: 85870"] I've come to realize I'm very much a "traditionalist" in my RPG play, in that I generally expect a game to provide a level of verisimilitude, as much as possible support "associated" mechanics, and that as much as possible the in-game fiction should have at least the appearance of being a fully functional, "living" world. That said, I'm also becoming much more open to mechanics and playstyles that break away from "traditional" play to serve the purpose of [I]player fun.[/I] The whole "fail forward" thread actually re-iterated to me just how "traditional" most of my RPG sensitivities are, but that the means to mesh "traditional" play with "fail forward" doesn't necessarily require a complete abandonment of what I already know, but to redirect certain variables and attributes toward that goal. As a player, I'm almost always more interested in intrigue, mystery, and exploration than I am in combat. One of the things that led me away from D&D was the required 6-8 encounter pacing hard baked into the rules. I played a lot of games with pointless, meaningless combats in the early 2000s, and I just got sick of that kind of play. D&D always seemed to constantly fight against my desire to [I]get inside the story[/I], because of the assumed pacing of encounters, which was only exacerbated by the amount of time it took to resolve individual encounters generally. [/QUOTE]

Verification