>that's how grognards think
actually that's how the RPG mainstream has been thinking and continues to think. only the narrativist niche disagrees.
>(not that they achieve it).
turn structure is a decent enough mechanism towards ensuring consistent, plausible combat resolution. narrativist games dispose of it at times because it gets in the way of freeform story-telling.
>The second part, considering PBTAs have modifiers, is objectively retarded.
what's the difference between shooting
a running
a walking
a standing
target, user?
t. never played final revelation for trail of cthulhu
>You are stupid.
nothing you have shown so far demonstrates that you're capable of making that judgement.
>PbtA games specifically place consistency above other concerns in the GM section.
you realize that we're talking about enforcing consistency through rules, right? no, you don't.
>The game does simulate a world, you abject retard. It couldn't not, as an RPG
no, it doesn't. when in doubt, it puts story-telling needs first. world simulation is only an after-thought, in so far as any storyteller cares about a somewhat plausible, consistent world. what you're not understanding, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, is that GNS is about PRIORITIES. pbta's are clearly on the narrativist side. this is no secret that i am spilling here.
>Threats are used to simulate shit happening in the background
from a storytelling perspective. right. but that's beside the point. any RPG has story-telling, game and simulation aspects. GNS is about priorities.
>You can take turns if you prefer it that way, nothing's telling you not to.
sure, i can homebrew. that doesn't change one iota about the system design and its priorities.
>DnD doesn't simulate a world either. Most systems don't.
you don't even understand the basics of gamism, simulationism, narrativism. catch up on it while I "read the GM section", lel.