Recent content by GobHag

It's a deliberate derogatory term yes, I thought it'd be fair considering I call GMs of Micah's persuasion as 'viking hatted'

I think the devs didn't want the class to be more MAD, believability be damned.

I don't consider myself a GM yes, but I do one-shots and playtests and short 8-16 session campaign once or twice. And I'm perfectly fine satisfying the players wants, as long as I also get some of what I want in return too. That I get to use this monster, or you bite one of these plothooks, or...

I personally don't see progression have to be positive, just a move away from previous conditions/situations. The indie scene having an explosion of one-pagers back in the day wasn't for me, and I'm glad that it has regressed a bit so one-pagers aren't as big nowadays. But yes, what you said is...

Mine giving those answer to me?

Do note that I consider it on a spectrum, and my view on 'System Matters' is that it's a big pressure but not the sole thing that matters. A practically rules-less game whose only mechanic is 'if you're unsure if they succeed or not, flip a coin. Heads they succeed, tails they fail' is perfectly...

Perfectly possible yes, playing in a simulationist way doesn't require a simulationist game. Playing with a toy car doesn't mean you have to race, games/systems put pressure so that the games are a certauin way but that pressure can be ignored or overpowered depending on the players.

The cultural progression of RPG is all about the slow erosion of GMing power after all.

So? I don't respect an actual person's desires for believability or verisimilitude, why would I respect a book's? That 'rule' in of itself is bizzare considering spells or effects like dragon's breath do genuinely hit me. 5e and it's playerbase doesn't enforce it enough to make me even consider it.

IMO, Three metrics: 1. If an expert/someone trained uses those rules and have little to no complaint. 2. When your most dedicated player generally fits that simulation with minimal 'banning'/'house rules' 3. When your general players generally fits within that simulation.

Thank you, I'm very well-versed in simulationism because I have a passionate hate for it.

Both of our narration match the mechanics because the mechanics doesn't demand a specific form of narration but in that empty space we both show our goals and preference. I want spectacle, You want something that's believable.

Was being a bit rude there on my previous post, so here's my take: A simulationist design/writing is an approach where the designers/writers make rules and design content as if they were diegetic in the world. Not necessarily one-to-one all the time but works as if 'it exists' in the world, D&D...

I genuinely no longer believe this, if someone describes their PC standing stock still and the Ogre's club just smashes onto them as there's now an impression of their form on it while the PC stays the same because it's equally ridiculous to me that someone can say that they block or deflect...

That is basically the compromise between me and you, if the lore says that Tabaxi's act like this(inhuman) but so many players play them like that(human) even with rules that support or even force to act like this(inhuman) then one of the ways to reconcile is to make the lore and rules to act...