Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9031229" data-attributes="member: 85555">It really depends on what a person means by simulation. I don't think there is a single definition. It is a term I generally avoid, though in these discussions I often do see some of the things I like to do filed under simulation and so I defend the position. But like I said before most campaigns are a mixture of different styles and approaches, not just focused on one thing. What I think we are really talking about here for most people is a sense of believability and realism and a sense that the world outside you exists. That can be achieved by random tables (personally I love random tables for that reason). But I have been in campaigns where it was handled by fiat and or prepping things in advance and I am fine with that too as long as the feel remains. In terms of simply deciding, I think if the GM is genuinely trying to logically work out what might happen, then it is fine. Obviously a lightning strike is hard to figure out in your mind, so maybe a dice roll is called for. But even if their method is just picking something that seems realistic, I am fine with it, as long as it doesn't feel overly arbitrary or convenient (or happens to push us a long a path they had in mind in advance). For instance if a GM just decides that Old Jeb's house burned down from a lightning strike and we meet up with him weeks later and learn about it, that is sufficiently plausible and external that it fits what the GM is trying to do in my mind Personally I don't get too hung up on methods or procedures. I see them as tools groups can use or not, as they wish.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 9031229, member: 85555"] It really depends on what a person means by simulation. I don't think there is a single definition. It is a term I generally avoid, though in these discussions I often do see some of the things I like to do filed under simulation and so I defend the position. But like I said before most campaigns are a mixture of different styles and approaches, not just focused on one thing. What I think we are really talking about here for most people is a sense of believability and realism and a sense that the world outside you exists. That can be achieved by random tables (personally I love random tables for that reason). But I have been in campaigns where it was handled by fiat and or prepping things in advance and I am fine with that too as long as the feel remains. In terms of simply deciding, I think if the GM is genuinely trying to logically work out what might happen, then it is fine. Obviously a lightning strike is hard to figure out in your mind, so maybe a dice roll is called for. But even if their method is just picking something that seems realistic, I am fine with it, as long as it doesn't feel overly arbitrary or convenient (or happens to push us a long a path they had in mind in advance). For instance if a GM just decides that Old Jeb's house burned down from a lightning strike and we meet up with him weeks later and learn about it, that is sufficiently plausible and external that it fits what the GM is trying to do in my mind Personally I don't get too hung up on methods or procedures. I see them as tools groups can use or not, as they wish. [/QUOTE]

Verification