Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5994483" data-attributes="member: 27160">Huh??? What on earth is "armchair academic" about assuming that people might conceivably have the nouse to try out other RPG systems? When alternatives are so plentiful, so well documented and so easily available this makes no sense to me at all.I think your question is based on a misunderstanding. If we don't use process-Sim, then there is no narration of the process that leads to the outcome determined by the systems spoken aloud. Each player imagines a process that makes sense to them, and that results in the outcome determined by the system and die rolls. My own internal envisioned process stands up to my scrutiny precisely because I have invented it such that it does just that. Each other player does likewise. The only point that we have to assure ourselves of is that we all agree on the outcome - the state of play after the process that leads to the outcome has to be clear, but the process that led there can be variable, suited to the processes that each player at the table finds believable.Clear rules are a great help, here. By knowing what outcomes the rules support, I can prepare a range of processes that I imagine might explain or result in those outcomes.</blockquote>