Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9030752" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I explained what I took the post to be about. It's not an attempt to white knight. Notice how I simply explained my understanding of the post in an attempt to offer another take than yours, and didn't feel the need to attribute you with some motive (like pearl-clutchery, for instance). You've now attributed two motivations to me... snark and white knighting... needlessly. Let's move on from this nonsense. Right. Is fidelity to simulation more important than the play experience? Is the decision to place such importance on it... to place it on a pedestal... sometimes a negative? It's not a trick question, just a question. I've seen plenty of comments in this thread that would demonstrate otherwise. Again, I think there's plausibility involved... what is reasonably likely to happen, what makes sense based on what we know... that kind of thing. But as has been mentioned, I don't know of any games that don't attempt to be plausible, except perhaps for games that lean into that idea ([USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] mentioned Toon and Over the Edge as possible examples; there may be others). The range of what's plausible will vary wildly from game to game and according to preference. My game of The 13th Fleet was absurd at times, and pushed plausibility to its limits. Compared to my game of Spire, which although it contained crazy supernatural elements, was at its core about very understandable concepts and emotions. And you mention choice here, too, which I think is interesting. When it comes to RPGs, what role does choice play in simulation? Should it be removed? Limited? Applied only at certain times or in certain ways? I think there's a difference between having some desires, and making sure those desires come about. I absolutely incorporate ideas I think will be interesting into my games. However, I don't force outcomes. Nothing's precious. That was a big hurdle for me as a GM. It does take some discipline. Most such games offer strong advice in the form of principles of GMing and/or playing, so that can really help. Beyond that, the mechanics themselves lend themselves to disclaiming outcomes. Player facing rules and processes, player empowerment to affect the outcome. Things as simple as static success results and GMs never rolling can accomplish quite a bit. Also PC traits that are meant to be focal to play... if you're not challenging one or more of those in some way, it's likely clear to everyone that you're not really focused on what you should be focused on. As you say, mistakes are always possible, but I can think of many games that have a lot more checks against them than others.</blockquote>

Verification