Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9042978" data-attributes="member: 13383">I am always open to discussion within reason. And I know the reasons for the things I choose to do.  From page 45 of my Basic Rules[ATTACH=full]287415[/ATTACH] I made the <a href="https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/When%20to%20make%20a%20Ruling.pdf" target="_blank">whole chapter free</a> on my website.But the real issue is trust, without it none of the advice I have given or any of the things I do will work.  There are a lot of little but important things I do before, during, and after running sessions to build that trust. That yes I listen and discuss. And will at times incorporate feedback, yes I make fair rulings, and what the NPCs do is a result of motivations and goals, not an arbitrary whim. That it is handled without any formal mechanic or social contract other than a dedication to be fair and practice good sportsmanship.For example, I am the final arbiter when I run my Majestic Wilderlands campaigns. Not because I desire control, but because a focus of my campaigns that the players can trash my setting.  One of the things I do to make that fun, and interesting means infusing the world around the player character with a life of its own. Which means things like fog of war is in play. But I am not a software algorithm of a CRPG, I encourage the players to ask questions especially if they think something is missing or not there given the circumstance. Or perhaps I had forgotten something. Also, I assume the character are competent.  For example,  the players have a high perception and there is enough time to look around. They will notice what is out of place and thus I will describe it to them.  I did this half-assed for a long time, and then played a couple of campaigns of Gumshoe made me realize what I wanted to do all along. I had good results since.[ATTACH=full]287418[/ATTACH]But there are times all of this doesn't work. I have been at it enough time to spot when that is going to happen then deal with it out of game. To clarify none of this is THE way of handling RPG campaign, it just happens to be the way I do. And given the feedback I have gotten over the years some folks seem to find parts of it useful for their own campaigns. And what I responding to here is the general criticism that some have of simulationism in this thread. To point out people have made simulationism work, that their campaigns were fun to play, and that they have been doing this for decades.Haven't read her book but I am aware of the issues outlined in the synopsis. My opinion is that running RPG campaigns is not an academic exercise. It is an activity meant to be enjoyed as a hobby to be done in the time we have for hobby. Because of the above, a referee or a group is just going to have to make the best of the available information for anything grounded in real life.  Those folks are not going to agree with each other as to what their choices whether it is a campaign run by a referee or by group consensus. Personally, I avoid running or creating historical campaigns. I will use history as a reference extensively but I am too keenly aware of the gaps. As a result, running a historical setting is not fun for me.  On the other hand, as a player, I learned to be chill when it comes to things I am very knowledgeable about. Especially when it comes to science fiction campaigns involving realistic space technology.  Or settings that I am very familiar that are refereed by another.  For referees, experience in academics, life, etc. have an outsized benefit. But there are problems and traps the experienced can fall into. Namely that too many situations there is only one possible outcome especially ones that lie in their field of expertise. For anything with human beings, one has to consider those who are lazy, indifferent, greedy, virtuous, and so on. For a given culture they will all operate within a range but personalities, motivations, and goals mean there will a lot of variations. For RPG one trick a referee will have to learn for a given culture what would a lazy individual be like, what form greed takes, what form generosity takes, and so on. Otherwise, the campaign will suffer as the party will be interacting with a bunch of stereotypes however accurate.As for Inge Clendinnen, sounds like she would have that covered especially for the Aztecs and other cultures in that region.Yet there are those, including myself, who do incorporate religion as an integral part of their campaigns and settings. My basic rules as terse as they had to be, bake in some of the central conflicts and tensions of my setting. The fact that some best selling RPGs don't doesn't mean that simulationism hasn't been made to work and found to be fun by many hobbyists. Religion plays an important role in Scourge of the Demon Wolf. In my upcoming Deceits of the Russet Lord it is one of the central tensions of the adventure.  And in neither it is not included as "There is the temple go get healed" variety.And I have to keep saying this, all that I say means it is just one way out of many to approach RPG campaigns. It may not be your way, but it has been made to work and work well.</blockquote>

Verification