gustavo iglesias's page

In Mwangi Expanse for example orcs aren't Chaotic Evil (not that it matters anymore, alignment is gone) and they don't worship Rovavug. They actually hunt demons.

So there's nothing that makes orcs genetically evil. Some might be, some others might not. Just like nothing stops a halfling, elf or gnome to be a psychopath murderer, nothing stops an orc to be an honorable wise man. I actually like this depiction of orcs more. Blame world of warcraft for it.

Edit: deleted the quote of the baiting post when I saw the moderation.

I like Soldier more than any of the proposed alternatives, FWIW

A starship/starship combat book. By far the most needed one.

The haste spell is making our parties ridiculously mobile. Even the mystic after casting the spell is running around the board full attacking people in the face

I agree.

Soon after that, they thought it was pretty OP. The ability to move, shoot and move, or move and full attack, or move ridiculous amount of distance, make it a huge tactical adventage. Huge.

I cannot stress this enough. I know it's not for everybody, but *my* game experience has become so much better since I adopted this rule.

If you play AP, drop the XP. Forget about them. Give the players a full level whenever they reach the point the AP supposes they level up (it's said in the first few pages).

That way you don't miss XP for not going a certain zone before, and players do not feel forced to do every single room of every single floor of every single dungeon just so they don't miss XP and end being a few hundred XP short of the proper level in a boss fight.

thflame wrote:

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

I'm of the opinion that any ancestry which can literally only be a single alignment is inappropriate. Like Pathfinder canonically has more non-CE Succubi than non-CE Drow.

even if we assume that, a few things stand out

1) some people don't play in Golarion. It is easy to change drows background in your home world, but it is harder to build a race mechanically if you are not a game designer. Certainly I easier to pick up Paizo 's vision
.

2) being always evil is not a problem for evil campaigns. Which some people play.

Drow is an inmensily popular race, because of certain guy with 2 scimitar. It is wise to give people popular things

WalterGM wrote:

So what if my players don't want to board the Empire of Bones and instead stick to the plan from book 5? Or board the Stellar Degenerator and try and use it to shoot down the Empire of Bones?

I understand that an AP can't account for everything, but a sidebar about these options would have been nice.

All that aside, seems like an epic ending to the story!

Honestly I have a hard time believing that any party will decide on their own to try to board the Empire of Bones. It's such a ludicrous idea that I doubt most groups will even consider it, let alone actually decide to do it without heavy GM intervention. I ran this with my group last week, and they had planned on going through the gate to get to the Stellar Degenerator, which is by far the most reasonable thing to do. Perhaps figure out how to use the weapon to destroy the Empire of Bones, or stick with the original plan and crash it into a star.

Even if they don't want to do that (I told them the Corpse Fleet had managed to get between them and the gate somehow, which already stretched the bounds of believability) then why would they think it's safe for them to try to board the capital ship? And if they do, why would they believe that the five of them could even pilot a ship larger than Absalom Station?

In the end, I had to railroad them into boarding the Empire of Bones. They hadn't even mentioned it as a possibility, and I told them that's where the adventure wanted them to go. It was awkward and very disappointing.

This is exactly why I gave them the message from Eskola, telling them through some magic necromantic transmitter in their necrografts, that she is inside the Empire of Bones and Nor has a plan. Now it boils down to if they trust Nor (might or might not be true in your game), but at least they feel now "we go into EoB because someone has a plan" instead of "let's go there, and see what happens".

However I also made it clear that they had the option to go to the Stellar Degenerator or the Empire of Bones. With Starfinder's great Graft system for monster's, it's pretty easy to transform the infiltration in the Empire of Bones into an infiltration inside the Degenerator. You can still have pretty much the same encounters, just change the marines with some automated robotic defenses, and little bit of re-skinning with the bosses into some type of outsiders, or artificial intelligences with physical bodies, or such, it can be done. Even undeads might work, if you make them kishalee undead trapped inside the degenerator ages ago. Add the possibility to hack the system with a virus that work like Wraith if your PC pass a Computer check. You can still have robotic drones that work like crw if they control cybercore and the bridge, you can still have a grav train chase, etc. Then re-skin the necromantic stuff (like the rune-worm and other things) into something more akin to kishalee, and you are done.

We started this today.

I made a few changes, but I want to share one, which might be helpful for other GMs.

Instead of Wraith 2.0 and Tombstone being something introduced by a jelous capitan, I made it be part of Embassador Nor's plan to infiltrate the Corpse Fleet. I made Captain Eskola, the corpse fleet double agent that the PC rescue in he Drift Rock in book 1, to be an officer in the Empire of Bones. Then she contacted them right before the marine assault (in my game, PCs bought necrografts, and I used those to tell them that they had some necromantic technomagic bug that allowed direct 1 way communication from the Empire of bones. But a simple radio call could work too). She told them that Embassador Nor had a plan to defeat the Empire of Bones and avoid the Corpse Fleet to grasp the Stellar Degenerator. And she had infiltrated the Empire of Bones with 2 viruses, Wraith and Tombstone, to help them.

This might or might not work in your campaign, depending on what happen in book 1 to the corpse fleet double agent. But if the PC side with Nor, and Nor trust them, this might be a nice "kaiser soze" moment. My players loved it, because they did not expect it.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

However, as someone posted, the fact that there are only 4 spell lists now, helps. You can tag each spell as "primal, arcane, divine, occult", instead of class. That also helps with classes that have multiple spell lists available, like Sorcerer.

Yeah, it really doesn't, unless all new arcane caster classes get the exact same spells. Which limits their design space significantly.

with the caveat that anything can change during the playtest, I'm pretty confident that's the case.

I disagree. Deadmanwalking has a few threads with posts similars to the OP, with concise, concrete points expressed in clear way, both good and bad, and nobody dunked on him.

But I'd gladly change my mind if you link me to a thread with a post like the OP, where the poster was dunked on. If I don't see any melodrama on it, I'd concede the point.

It's funny how it's you that has to bring up the completely ridiculous example, while Castilliano is just using the bulk system as is. And the bulk system as is turns out to be irredeemably bad.

I made the ridiculous example to make the point, but you don't need to be ridicule for encumbrance to be absurd. It is absurd as it is.

The 24 str character in my example has 233 lb of carrying capacity before any encumbrance. That means he could drop his 2 mile long pole, go to Castillano's armory, and pick 116 short swords, without any encumbrance. If he is willing to accept the penalties for heavy encumbrance, he could carry 349 of them.

He could instead loot 70 boarding pikes, or 34 armchairs. or 149 chairs.

The only thing that precludes him to do something absurd like looting 34 armchairs, is GM judgement. Which is the same thing that could preclude him to loot 200 light shields in a bulk system.

I agree the organization in the playtest document is a problem, but I rather see a solution, than implement a non-solution that was proven wrong in the past, only because it was used in the past.

However, as someone posted, the fact that there are only 4 spell lists now, helps. You can tag each spell as "primal, arcane, divine, occult", instead of class. That also helps with classes that have multiple spell lists available, like Sorcerer.

I'm still unsure about the +level to skills, but someone the other day made a good point.

A barbarian who has been fighting dragons for 15 levels, should know a thing or two about them, even if he does not focus on Arcane Lore or whatever is the thing that cover dragon knowledge now. Just because of experience, not focus, learning, or study. He should not be as accurate, or know some obscure parts as someone who studies them, but he should know more than random lvl 1 peasants who have never seen a dragon before, if only because he has an armor made with the skin of one he killed a few levels ago.

You could use this for other fields of expertise, including physical ones. When we are talking about adventurers, "adventuring" is an area where they focus, even if they don't spend points on it.

Excellent feedback. And, funnily enough, much of the same thing most of critical people have been saying for over a week now, but now the people who normally jump on that type of post are falling over themselves praising your criticism. I guess getting the Mona Seal Of Approval so fast kinda blunted their usual modus operandi.

Not really. It's because there is no melodrama in his post, just stated things that happened, point by point, both good and bad. I still disagree with some of his views, but the way he gives his criticism is welcome, if anything, because it's a chage of pace from all the "longbows having volley is less realistic than fireballs" kind of posts.

The praise is not as much for what IS in his post, but for what he left out. No melodrama, and concise points, makes the criticism much better to read.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)

I know - it's shocking that it's been done that way ever since 3rd Edition debuted. Incredible, isn't it?

At the very least 3.X had tag for each spell which class could cast them.

Weird. I'm looking at my PF1 corebook right now, and I don't see "magus" anyway near the Shield spell.

Weird, I didn't know that Magus could time travel to the release of the CRB and insert themselves into that book. Oh, wait, they can't.

But good to know that you are on the side of terribly organized books.

You missed the point. Tagging classes in the spells is only a solution if you don't plan to release any more classes, ever. Otherwise, you need something else.

I want Pathfinder to be a "zero to hero" system where the PCs start out as faces in the crowd, and they have to work to distinguish themselves.

I don't know why do you think that having an hermit that can speak with birds without being a druid precludes your characters from going from zero to hero.

I understand that, but the answer to your question is still the same. Removing the +lvl to everything does not affect the math within your own level, but it DOES affect the math against anything out of your level.

Then, removing +lvl is not something that has no effect at all except number inflation, as it seems to stem from your post. It DOES have an effect in how the game plays. Which might not be the way you want it to play, but it's not "an useless treadmill without any effect in the game other than number porn". The game assumes that if you can fight a Pit Fiend, then you should be hitting often against Horned devils, and crit almost always vs Bone Devils. The math is build under that assumption.

In PF1, a high level fighter fighting a lower level threat, will do like 5 attacks, with increasing penalties. About 2 of those attacks don't really have any chance to hit vs a high level threat, but they do have a chance to hit against lower level threats. So a high level fighter mows through lower devils because he does 5 attacks that can hit, and thus he does more damage to them than he'll do against the pit fiend. In PF2, the fighter does not gain extra attacks. The way he gets extra damage against hordes of lower level minions, is because he CRITS them. And to do that, they added the +lvl to AC, instead of arbitrarily raising the AC with ad-hoc natural armor bonuses which were, in fact, a disguised bonus to AC based on level.

Hythlodeus wrote:

In today's playtest this did not go over very well. encountering the Goblin Pyro who cast Burning Hands I was imediatly ased if he was a sorcerer or a wizard, since Goblins are a PC race now. I told them: neither. He's just a monster with spellcasting abilities...because.

IMO, NPCs should be built as PCs since they have learned abilities. I don't mind a shorthand so as to not require a full build for "harbor thug #4," but an NPC with abilities that a PC can't take needs to have an exceptional explanation for those abilities. It's ok if an NPC has a weird ability because it made a pact with a demon lord or some such, as long as you're prepared to give that out to PCs who are willing to make the same pact...

I see it exactly the opposite. Every single person should be unique and have unique abilities, and their background might influece what they are and how they fight.

HOWEVER, that's not possible for player characters, because if you let players to custom build their abilities, you'll get a lot of "I can kill everything with a mean stare" abilities at lvl 1. So we need a framework for the Players to pick for their Characters. That's why we cathegorize PCs in classes, and that's why a PC ranger has different abilities than a PC barbarian, but all PC rangers pick from the same pool.

That's not needed for NPC, you can give Bob The Hermit Who Lives in The Forest NPC any ability he needs to have to live in the forest, regardless of it being a ranger ability, or a scout ability, or an explorer ability, or a lumberjack ability. You can give Bob The Hermit the ability to speak with birds, because that ability is cool, and it's useful for your story, without having to worry if Bob needs to be a Druid for that, which level of druid he needs to be for that particular spell, how that affects his HP, saves and attack, and without having to give Bob the ability to wildshape, cast druid spells, or have an order. Because Bob is not a druid, and he is not part of an order, and he doesn't cast druid spells or have an anathema, or have Will as expert save and high wisdom to cast primal spells, and he does not have the ability to speak with squirrels or foxes just because the druid spell is "speak with animals". He is Bob, the Hermit, an NPC who lives in the forests and speak with birds. Because in the story the GM wants to tell, it's good for the narrative to have a guy whose name is Bob, lives in a forest, and can speak with birds. And that alone is enough reason for him to have it, regardless of how the PC are constructed as classes for balance reasons.

Arakhor wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)

I know - it's shocking that it's been done that way ever since 3rd Edition debuted. Incredible, isn't it?

At the very least 3.X had tag for each spell which class could cast them.

Weird. I'm looking at my PF1 corebook right now, and I don't see "magus" anyway near the Shield spell.

Culach wrote:

According to this Medium creatures are Bulk 8 and small are Bulk 4.

... wait... are they saying Medium creatures typically weigh 40-80lbs?!?! o.O

Remember, bulk is not ony weight. I have seen people playing around carrying someone in their backs and even racing against other couples doing the same, and the same people would not even lift a single 100 pound barbell from the ground.

EDIT: this does not mean the bulk for medium creatures might not be wrong, and need a change. Just that we have to break that habit of translating stuff from bulk to pounds and viceversa, because it's not cut and dry.

Jason Buhlman twitch interview talked about a few things the team are already looking at, based on feedback.

He said that they knew resonance was going to be contentius, they are looking at it, but they have not enough data yet. When they collect more data, they'll act.

I'm confident to say that resonance will not finish the playtest in its current form. I don't know if they remove it, change it enterely, upgrade or downgrade it, add a few tweaks, or what. But this is one of those "pushing the boundaries" things they put in the playtest, to see what happens.

Jason also said they are looking at the first level ancestry feats. In my personal opinion, it makes more sense to frontload ancestry beyond what you would do with, say, a class. Half-elves and Half-orcs aside, you cannot "dip" into another ancestry in the way you multiclass, so there's no risk to frontload a few more stuff into the first levels to give you more feeling of being an elf, while using the rest of the ancestry feats to create some customization between the races (ie: maybe not every elf practice with longswords, and some do some other stuff)

Jason Buhlman twitch interview talked about a few things the team are already looking at, based on feedback.

He said that they knew resonance was going to be contentius, they are looking at it, but they have not enough data yet. When they collect more data, they'll act.

I'm confident to say that resonance will not finish the playtest in its current form. I don't know if they remove it, change it enterely, upgrade or downgrade it, add a few tweaks, or what. But this is one of those "pushing the boundaries" things they put in the playtest, to see what happens.

Jason also said they are looking at the first level ancestry feats. In my personal opinion, it makes more sense to frontload ancestry beyond what you would do with, say, a class. Half-elves and Half-orcs aside, you cannot "dip" into another ancestry in the way you multiclass, so there's no risk to frontload a few more stuff into the first levels to give you more feeling of being an elf, while using the rest of the ancestry feats to create some customization between the classes (ie: maybe not every elf practice with longswords, and some do some other stuff)

Yes, the numbers are strange for me, the meat comes from your level, and number porn does not make things epic, for me.

As it stands now, a 20th-level Fighter (+20) with Legendary Proficiency (+3), a 22 Str (+6), and + 5 weapon has +34 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 44, so you need to roll a 10 to hit, and 20 for a critical success.

If you delete the +Level treadmill, the Fighter has a +14 to hit, and the Pit Fiend has an AC of 24, so, once agin, you need to roll a 10 to hit, and 20 for a critical success; how is the former more exciting?

Because the same level 20 fighter who attack the Pit Fiend's Horned devils minions, will attack them with +34 to hit vs 39 armor, hitting with 5+ and crit with 15+. But removing the +level, that fighter would roll +14 to hit, and the Horned devil would have AC 23, which means the fighter hits on 11+, and crits on 20s.

The system wants to make a Pit Fiend a much stronger enemy than his minions. And the thing that tells you that, is their level.

A solution could be lowering the AC of the Horned Devil as a whole. But then, you have other problems. For example, lowering a Horned Devil AC, would make it easier to hit for lvl 16 characters as well. It also means that you have a Horned Devil (or, say, an ancient white dragon) who has less AC than a random guy with a full plate, a shield, and some other minor crap.

skill proficiency ranks need to unlock uses without requiring additional feats

As of now, no matter if you're legendary, you can't pickpocket people without a feat. wtf.

That's... actually... a good idea.

Maybe give you 1 free feat when you achieve legendary status? Maybe adding a sentence in lesser feats you already know, that do something else if you are legendary (sort of what Mythic does with some feats)? Maybe a list of things you can do if you are legendary, described in the proficiency itself?

I don't know how that would mess with word count, or other design criteria. But it sounds interesting, none the less. It sounds like "I'm legendary" means something beyond "I add +1 over the guys who are masters", by itself

Also, the sorcerer divine spellcaster fill a different niche than the orcacle, from a roleplaying perspective, not just mechanically.

Divine sorcerers are people with angelic or demonic blood (and possibly other options in the future). They can be atheist, for all that matter. Oracles are people chosen by the gods for some reason. They are (or can be) normal people, and they have a link to the gods/divine philosopies themselves, not just "someone in my family in a distant past had some fun with outsiders after a party".

Yes and that makes perfect sense. If you don't allow a caster to have legendary in skills such as survival or athletics which tend to fall more on the martial spectrum then why should fighters be allowed signature skills in lore backgrounds when their Intelligence won't probably ever get past 14?

The obvious answer to that, is to let casters to have legendary skills in survival or athletics if they want.

I disagree. While it's a level higher, that level happens to be TWO.

Plate should not be the indisputable best armor for everyone who can wear it for 19 levels. There's nothing wrong with someone wanting to have the aesthetics of The Witcher instead of the aesthetics of Sir Lancelot. It's good that Splint and Half Plate have their niches.

I'm not sure if the current situation should stick with the exact same bonuses. But I like that there are armors than are useful to people, beyond the last armor of every group (like in PF1, where the only armors that matter are chain shirt, breastplate and full plate). It's cool that there are reasons for some people to pick other armors, and I hope half-plate, and others, become apealing to some subset of characters.

I think there are 2 groups of players.

The players that try to profile other players in groups of players, and those who don't.

I'm in the second group. :)

Casters SHOULD be more powerful, because they require a greater investment of time and energy to play.

That's certainly a point of view.

My point of view is "No".

Exhibit B:

Quote:

IMPROVED BRAVERY FEAT 6 - Fighter
Trigger Your turn ends.
Reduce your frightened condition by 2, rather than 1.

I can't think of a less exciting way to describe bravery. It says nothing to a new player at all, and hardly sums up the image of my fighter holding his steely nerve in the face of a fearsome demon as the rest of my party quakes in their boots.

Maybe it's just a case of having one of the writers who's very good at exciting superlatives to have a pass over the feats and spells and make them sound cool and desirable? Paizo has some outstanding creative writers there, this is something they can do comfortably within their capabilities. Crystal Frasier can't help but sound awesome whenever she writes anything down. Paizo can absolutely improve this.

It would mean accepting a few less feats in the main book, because *pagecount*. But that's the cost of flavour.

This is a very specific, well pointed criticism. Yes, the book reads like a computer manual, and should be evocative. I think this is a point that Paizo needs to look at, because it's also a point LOT of people has pointed.

I fully agree with Vic Ferrari on this one.

Legendary needs to be legen-wait for it-dary

I think the penalties aren't that bad. You can push though them. The part of the helpless characters is more troublesome.

In my table, I'd let the decisions to the players. The logic solution would be to do what the characters would do in a real situation like that. They have to decide if they stay there one day, and try to rest and take care of their team mate (or even go back and look for medical care), or leave their friend behind and finish the mission. Hopefully, with an in-game debate about morality and repercusion of your own acts. From a roleplaying point of view, it's an oportunity more than a hindrance, but yes, it sucks for the *player* of said character not being able to play for a while.

No.

But you are missing the point of Legendary, I think, and most people is doing too. Which is, actually, a fair criticism for the legendary feats, if nobody is noticing them.

The point of having Legendary Disguise Skill over , say, trained, is not that you have +18 instead of +15. It's that you are able to use a feat that allows you to instantly transform in a different person every 6 seconds, basically making you Simon Templar, The Saint.

However, the fact many (really many) people can't see beyond the numeric bonus of Legendary, should be an attention call for Paizo. They intend to make legendary worth it because of the extra stuff you can do because of being legendary, but if nobody is noticing it, maybe it's not legendary enough.

Here is an idea for Paizo. Change the names. If Power attack was called "mortal strike" and had same mechanics (2 a ions, etc) nobody would say it is "something every body used to do and is now class locked", because the mechanic has nothing to do with what hsracterd used to do

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.

That's not true at all. You can use a bow without point blank shot, and it's pretty effective. It's better than a crossbow in most circumstances, actually, thanks to adding half your strength, being able to shoot multiple times per round and being Deadly. The volley property is a mechanism to balance bows with other long range projectile weapons. They are still a fine weapon.

The volley property is stupid, makes no sense, is ahistorical, and is less realistic than Wizards casting fireballs.

That's just not how bows work.

I give you a 6/10 in the melodrama scale. Not bad effort, but need more consistency

Rysky wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.

It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.

Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.

Belgarion, for example, is not a weak nerd. Or Radagast. The protagonist of Wheel of Time, which I can't remember now, is not a book rat either. Constantine, from DC comics. Shaman, from Marvel. The guys from Full Metal Alchemists. The protagonist of Elenium. The sorcerers of The Black Company. Teclis, Malekith or Nagash in Warhammer. Elric of Melnibone. Chandra, Jace or almost any of the planes walkers in MtG.

There are a lot of types of wizards, sorcerers, witches and warlocks, once you look at fantasy as a whole.

Noodlemancer wrote:

They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.

I heard PF overtook 4th Ed in sales at one point.

It did, and even when it was second, it was a much closer 2nd. In 5e case, it is different. It is a smashing success, far beyond 4e, because besides brand recognition, it is a well designed game that targets a clear goal and manage to deliver what that target needs

gustavo iglesias wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...

That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all.

Well, to be fair, Gandalf is not really a fantasy Wizard, per se, but a Celestial/Angel/Demigod deal.

sure. And a level 16 wizard in PF 2 is someone who can survive being submerged in molten lava. Which might not be as cool as being an angel, but it is pretty bad ass anyway. More badass than beating people in a tavern brawl

Fair enough. I still disagree, because we've been used to telling "my" story since basically the original Dungeons & Dragons came out and now we are told that "your" story is the new paradigm and is as valid and always has been as valid as "my" story. But that's okay. I know I'm probably tilting at windmills here, but that won't stop me from going all Don Quijote in the hope of killing those giants.

oh, but I totally understand that. And I even support that, heartily. Not only you have every damn right to tell the story you want, you are the final judge in your tastes, and have every right to like or not like other story telling.

My only point is that PF2 is not "poor at simulating stories". It is just simulating a different kind of stories. In PF2 paradigm,our goblin friend kills 20 guards with his bare hands because he is lvl 16. He can survive fires that melt steel. He can survive poisons, and being hit by a colossal creature 40 ton Warhammer and survive. So 20 low level guards are not a problem for him, because he is nigh inmortal, and a damn superhero.

PF1 just tries to tell a different story. A story where our goblin friend CAN survive steel melting fire, and poison, and falling off a cliff, and being hit by 40 ton hammers, but can't defeat 20 guards by himself. And that is totally fair too. It is a story worth telling. Just a different one

Gandalf is a Maiar, i.e. an angel, who took human form, he's not just some old wizard.

So what? Our friend Goblet isn't just some random goblin. He is Globerg The Dragonkiller, Son of Grafgh, heir of Magluybyet, the Widowmaker, Blood of Fiends, which is why he is lvl 16, and not some random lvl 2 goblin sorcerer. That is why is totally appropriated and a great simulation that he punches everybody in the face. He has blood of fiends, and have killed dragons, after all.

So, again, that is not "worse simulation". It is a simulation of a different story. Which might not be the kind of story you want to tell, and that is fair.

As someone who has tried this in a lot of different ways during the last 20 years, I am confident telling you it is not worth the effort.