Rules

No. It's not. 3.PF is an example of a poorly put together system. A properly put together sim system would be something like GURPS or Fudge, which do not share the "bullshit" of PF at all. Just because it is a poor system does not mean that is due to the fact that it is a "genre sim" game; it's just a poor game. By extension, this also means that sim games are not inherently bad by nature. You just cherry picked a shitty example, and in this case you are the one who is an idiot and/or full of shit.

SotC isn't that bad, but it is a crude early incarnation of Fate with some poor mechanics and unnecessary bloat compared to "modern" Fate, which I thought paralleled to PF well enough for illustration purposes. It is not a badass game by any means. On the other hand, your statement can also be mirrored for demonstrational purposes...
>I don't get why people hate 3.5. I had a ton of fun with it.

Rules-as-gameworld-physics leads to some of the most retarded shit known to man.

*It is not a bad game by any means

You mean like real life, where weird an unexpected things just happen sometimes?
Or do you mean silly things like the peasant railgun which are simply artifacts of interactions with abstractions in an otherwise sim-based rulesset?

Note: sim rules don't necessarily mean simulating PHYSICS. Mutants and Masterminds is a pretty traditional system, but doesn't really simulate wounds as such as an example; you won't find rules on how hard you need to punch a head for it to pop. What it DOES simulate is how people get injured IN COMICS, and it does it in a sim based and direct mechanical way rather than by affecting the "story" as such (it's based on strength of your Powers, the toughness and traits of the individual, etc.). A non-sim based approach would be like Fate or Risus, where stress is simply and explicitly a pacing mechanism for combat (Fate) or abstractly reduces your ability to accomplish things by reducing your dice (Risus) thereby causing a sort of abstract death spiral and loss of agency.

SIM BASED DOES NOT MEAN EXPLICITLY MODELING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Hence why D&D can be considered traditional genre sim even though a huge portion of D&D is quite abstract (but not "narrative).

Bump for more real/thoughtful responses and less knee jerk, intellectually dishonest and reactionary bullshit.

I like physics. It makes describing things easier and makes GMing less subjective.

This matches up pretty well with my comfort zone. I like a mix, and personally I think the most fun RPGs are a careful and deliberate combination of multiple methods (even better, those which are designed to allow you to tweak/shift the balance of those elements one way or another depending on your preferences in play).

Thread almost kill.

FUDGE in one category and Fate in the other? Is this a troll?

Rules exist to support and enforce the lore while enabling fun stories and games. Where they fail to do this, gamers need to step up and make a call.

Also, game-rules should be focused on a subset of stories and games. A game about superheroic highschool adventure does not need random tables to itemize the contents of slain soldiers' wallets. A game about soldiers grappling with the horrors of war does not need guidelines for how likely a high school seniors are to accept the romantic advances of underclassmen.

Way to show you have not played or even read both systems.

3.5e

If you want to play a roleplaying game, where you take on the role of a character and choose their actions in a world that has realistic and natural consequences then a physics system for want of a better term is best.

If you want a collaborative story game that tells a cohesive narrative then a story telling system is best.

The former is better at resolving minute actions that build up into one whole picture later on, as in 'real life'. The latter is better at forging an overall narrative arc where small, individual actions are less relevant. Both are valid but both offer distinct styles of gameplay.

Good post.

Last bump.

both, depending on what I'm/we're doing.
see
>this

Gee, it's almost like Veeky Forums is just a bunch of mouthbreathing idiots regurgitating random inflammatory shit about things they've never played or even read.

>You just cherry picked a shitty example
one of the most popular and imitated RPGs ever is not "cherry picked"

There's a difference between game physics which make physical sense and game physics that don't.

I prefer Physics, but if the frame work is bad it sucks.

Because story systems are so mushy you can more easily force them into shape.

"Cherry picked" in this context meaning he made an intellectually dishonest statement by deliberately choosing 3.PF as both his example and justification while also ignoring a multitude of sim games which are examples of actually good RPGs, his submission being that 3.PF alone is definitive proof that sim games are all inherently "a plain bad idea" due to their shared goal toward some form of simulation, most probably motivated by some petty desire to reaffirm the sense of superiority attached to his personal and entirely subjective opinion on gaming rules preferences.

In other words, he was being a fucking idiot. You're not far off, yourself.

I can agree with all that.

What about FATAL, is FATAL a good example?

...

>Basically, do you prefer the rules set to interact directly with and provide consistency for the story itself, or the world instead? Why?
The world. Story is somewhat planned, mostly emergent, and requires no mechanics. I also intensely dislike the fluffy nothing that comes with storygame mechanics, where something is "as X as the narrative requires it to be," or when you can spend metanarrative currency to automatically succeed at something. Makes the world and characters feel hollow and plastic, like the action figures you smashed into each other as a kid.

I only like the former, the 'physics' when it's used to facilitate an idea of the world it's meant to represent or the designer has at least a design goal in mind.

If the idea is just "we want to simulate 'reality' " well that gets sketchy fast since then you run the risk of some lardass trying to fumbly pull a katanna from its sheath in under a second and thus concluding that it's impossible to draw a weapon and attack it in the same round.

Also the bloat of the rules should be accounted for. If you wanna have rules for hunger and starvation in this game that's fine but not if it's suppose to be about political intrigue and running a kingdom cause what the fuck does starvation and hunger have to do with ANY OF THAT?

Also gonna play devils advocate here and say I think the latter idea ultimately holds more water than the former if only cause there's more of a direction with that idea.

At least when you say "okay I wanna tell a story" you can decide what kind of story you wanna tell and build rules that accurately represent the drama and interactions that go on in that kind of story if your starting point is just "I wanna simulate physics" well buddy lemme put it like this unless you're smarter than a giant global supercomputer I'm gonna doubt your ability and considering you aren't out there solving world hunger either way you're an asshole.

...

>what the fuck does starvation and hunger have to do with ANY OF THAT?
When your character is taken as prisoner by an invading force and only gets one poor-quality meal a day. Or when your character is exiled to an island by the king for trying to intrigue yourself into the throne. Or for logistics. I'm sure you can think of more situations where it would be relevant.

The point is that it's such a rare case which is so tangential to the focus of the game that its inclusion does little more than clutter the game manual.

Logistics is hardly tangential to a kingdom-running game. Hungry and starving armies have shite moral and are weaker than a well-fed army, likewise with citizenry. It would only take a sentence or two to let those rules be applicable to individuals.

You're both correct. This is also where spot rulings and adjudication comes in. Unless you're using a generic system that has those rules somewhere already, in which case all you have to do is...

DONT OPEN THE FUCKING BOOK DONT YOU DARE DO IT DONT EVEN FUCKIN THINK ABOUT IT. When in doubt, roll and shout. Look that shit up later and tell your players "sorry I fucked it my dudes" and fix it if you really have to. Don't slow down play, regardless of what game you're using.

If you have a light but "additive" game, then that's also basically the same process, except now you're making up your own shit and you don't even have to look anything up later.

I prefer having the support of the former, but fully respect the latter.