You’re asking me to discuss a system I play and have described previously in this thread by how it relates to metrics you are defining as universal. I indicated that said assumption does not apply to this system and got yet another Interesting Character lecture about how systems work. Another instance where you presume your assumptions about a system you don’t play hold more accuracy that someone’s experience of the system.
I was hoping to not get dragged to this place within hours of revisiting this thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, reviving this thread was a mistake.
As is continuing to respond.
*smoke bomb*
Okay, reviving this thread was a mistake.As is continuing to respond.
Fair point.
Safe travels everyone
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.
...
Nor am I entirely clear on what you mean by "one true way" vs "toolbox"
Looks like expressed uncertainty and lack of understanding of the question posed. The natural thing to do therefore is to provide clarity.
I'm clueless as to why that's a problem. Can anyone explain why it's a problem?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Word soup
That doesn't answer the question. The question is meant seriously.
I'm autistic. I'm trying to better understand the situation. "Word soup" tells me nothing. It has dozens of potential meanings and none of them make any sense.
If you're trying to be helpful, then stop talking like I'm a normal human. Talk like I'm an alien robot with no understanding of human emotions and idioms and thus needs pure logic. Logic is understandable. Normal person, context-based reasoning is obviously not working.
I've never met an alien robot so that isn't helpful to me. I don't think in pure logic so also not helpful.
I'm not claiming to think inherently in logic, but logic is far less biased and therefore easier to parse for intended meaning, thus making it more suitable for communication when there are communication issues.
I do however, speak far more literally and directly than most. I also make distinctions that most don't make and I think with far less simplification than most people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, despite my better judgement, I will bite. Let us discuss logic.
- It is an illogical assumption that ones study about one game system is broadly applicable to all game systems.
- It is illogical to assert that all tabletop roleplaying games can replicate all D20 Fantasy play styles.
- It is illogical to equate OSR trap finding (one unique facet of dungeon delve play) is a "play style" unto itself.
- It is illogical to assume that all D20 Fantasy play styles represent all tabletop roleplying play styles.
- It is an illogical assumption that a game that is subtitled "The Narrative Dice System" is not designed in such a way as to promote an exclusively unique narrativist game experience.
- When someone with experience of a particular game system implies that said systems conceits do not address what you are asking about, it is illogical to suggest that you have superior knowledge of said system without having played it.
- It is illogical to suggest that a conversation about using a system to play a Star Trek game would require conversations about ten foot poles and "trap finding skills".
- It is illogical to assume that the play style of a Star Trek game is dictated by OSR trap finding than by the conceits of the television series.
- It is illogical to assume that someone who has repeatedly expressed a desire to not communicate with you in a particular thread would welcome your feedback simply because you posted with your alternate account.
- It is illogical to presume that everyone knows your personal nicknames for design styles.
- It is illogical for me to continue to engage with you further than this.
You make a lot of incorrect assumptions about me and my arguments.
- It is an illogical assumption that ones study about one game system is broadly applicable to all game systems.
It is incorrect to assume that I study only one or even only a small selection of systems.
I figure this incorrect assumption may be due to me commonly referencing d20 and using d20 for examples, but of all systems I've come across d20 is the most suitable to be a baseline, and is also ideal for use in making examples. Why I believe that is a different topic.
- It is illogical to assert that all tabletop roleplaying games can replicate all D20 Fantasy play styles.
As I've never talked about play styles specific to d20 fantasy, I am uncertain where you get that from.
Of course, I can't think of any play styles specific to d20 fantasy, so perhaps you just are misunderstanding what is meant here.
- It is illogical to equate OSR trap finding (one unique facet of dungeon delve play) is a "play style" unto itself.
Never did this. I never claimed it as a style unto itself, but it is a nice clear and researchable example of playing with identical mechanics but with very different expectations and conceits compared to modern popular play while being clear to see how it could be handled across different systems and yet remain identifiable as a particular way of playing.
For example, it should be clear to see how osr style trapfinding can be played in pf2, dnd 5e, mouseguard, savage worlds, etc, and yet remain recognizably osr. This fundamental concept of being it's own thing heavily impacting how play proceeds regardless of what system you are using is the point of it's use as an example.
- It is illogical to assume that all D20 Fantasy play styles represent all tabletop roleplying play styles.
It is illogical to assume that the styles I'm talking about have anything to do with fantasy vs non-fantasy or d20 vs non-d20.
- It is an illogical assumption that a game that is subtitled "The Narrative Dice System" is not designed in such a way as to promote an exclusively unique narrativist game experience.
It is illogical to assume that the expected experience the system is designed for, is the only experience achievable with said system.
- When someone with experience of a particular game system implies that said systems conceits do not address what you are asking about, it is illogical to suggest that you have superior knowledge of said system without having played it.
It is illogical to assume that if you're uncertain about aspects of a question that you've attempted answer, that you're answer correctly addresses the question.
It is illogical to believe that I claimed a superior knowledge of a specific system because I stated things that apply across all systems. I.E. If I make a comment about gravity, it is illogical to consider that indicative of superior knowledge of a ball just because the ball is subject to the effects of gravity.
- It is illogical to suggest that a conversation about using a system to play a Star Trek game would require conversations about ten foot poles and "trap finding skills".- It is illogical to assume that the play style of a Star Trek game is dictated by OSR trap finding than by the conceits of the television series.
You are not so incredibly stupid, therefore you are just being disingenuous or you are so emotionally resolved to reject anything I say that not only are you unable to accept any possibility that I might have any legitimate points at all, but also have allowed that emotion to so completely trample your ability reason and it's starting to make you sound a lot dumber than we all know know are.
- It is illogical to assume that someone who has repeatedly expressed a desire to not communicate with you in a particular thread would welcome your feedback simply because you posted with your alternate account.
It's also illogical to assume my question was feedback.
More over, it's a public thread and therefore, other than the question addressed specifically to you, it's illogical to assume that my statements are only aimed at you.
I already understand that you are so steeped in hatred for me that you just flat out are incapable of thinking with any kind of reason in regards to me. But there are other people who might read this stuff.
I had hoped to get a genuine response to my initial question, but you couldn't understand the question, or more likely, just didn't care to understand.
- It is illogical to presume that everyone knows your personal nicknames for design styles.
Hence my extensive use of explanations and examples.
- It is illogical for me to continue to engage with you further than this.
I am less certain. Might good for you to learn to open up and apply dispassionate reasoned thought to arguments made by people you hate.
While I always hold some hope the above poster will have an epiphany one of these days, I largely find this as practice to try and describe these things in a way other people might understand.
The big thing I don't get about it, is why other people have such a hard time understanding the concept. Introducing new rpg players to alternate playstyles or whatever, works fairly well, but get an experienced player and it's treated like the ravings of a lunatic not worth even thinking about. I need to understand how to break through that barrier.
So how about you journey on from the D(20)estination and talk about other systems like the intent of the thread?
You're 100% destination, 0% journey. You have failed the assignment.
And to be clear I mean the title of the thread. So when you try to say you don't understand I'm stating it here. We want to talk about the exploration of other systems and not keep brining it back to D20.
Oh, a certain kind of thinking that's independent of system but affects gameplay as much as system choice does, is not considered part of the journey?
What is there to be discovered from exploring many systems if not the general truths that underlie all systems?
Still, for other systems... I like how Mouseguard put character creation in the back. It was more about how to play and have fun first, then put character creation later, like saying "here's the focus. Mastered that? Now you can try to mix things up a bit with your own character."
The big thing I don't get about it, is why other people have such a hard time understanding the concept.
Because the thing you think you are trying to convey is not reality but some place where you confused something The Alexandrian posted as gospel truth of a secret play style no one else know about as factual and not the hyperbole of a self important game blogger.
I don’t need to have an epiphany that tells me the game I’ve played for 8 years works the way you think it should based on your “study” of the hobby.
The big thing I don't get about it, is why other people have such a hard time understanding the concept.Because the thing you think you are trying to convey is not reality but some place where you confused something The Alexandrian posted as gospel truth of a secret play style no one else know about as factual and not the hyperbole of a self important game blogger.
I don’t need to have an epiphany that tells me the game I’ve played for 8 years works the way you think it should based on your “study” of the hobby.
First, I developed these ideas long before the Alexandrian, he just says it better.
Second, it is reality, because it's what many people do and have done. It's how I was introduced to the game, and how I introduce others. The only people who have a problem understanding are the players who never played that way but got lots of experience playing differently.
People tend to play one particular way and after a while find it difficult to understand how to play differently and seem to think that anyone claiming there are other way to play are just crazy. But people who got introduced to multiple ways of play early on, they get it.
Second, it is reality, because it's what many people do and have done. It's how I was introduced to the game, and how I introduce others. The only people who have a problem understanding are the players who never played that way but got lots of experience playing differently.
It IS what many people do, and many people in the threads you haunt have told you it is what they do and you tell them that they don’t actually do it and spew lectures. My point is that it isn’t reality that it’s a secret.
What you describe over and over and over for the last five years is a common play style and it’s really damn hard to convert people from the way that they play to the way that they play by telling them that they’re lying and they really don’t play the way they say they do.
Would you play Vampire the Requiem the same way you play Dungeons and Dragons? Would you play RIFTS the same as Ten Candles? Would you play GURPS the same as Deviant the Renegades?
If the same truths exist beneath the systems playing them the same should be fine, right?
Would you play Vampire the Requiem the same way you play Dungeons and Dragons? Would you play RIFTS the same as Ten Candles? Would you play GURPS the same as Deviant the Renegades?
If the same truths exist beneath the systems playing them the same should be fine, right?
Absolutely. Systems do not dictate style. They can however be better suited to particular styles, but they neither dictate nor require particular styles.
I'll play games to try them out, but then I'll try them in the style I actually want to play.
Mouseguard for example, was interesting. I still find the jumping around to be awkward, but the group I was playing with also felt that way so after a while we just played it like we played dnd.
Second, it is reality, because it's what many people do and have done. It's how I was introduced to the game, and how I introduce others. The only people who have a problem understanding are the players who never played that way but got lots of experience playing differently.
It IS what many people do, and many people in the threads you haunt have told you it is what they do and you tell them that they don’t actually do it and spew lectures. My point is that it isn’t reality that it’s a secret.
What you describe over and over and over for the last five years is a common play style and it’s really damn hard to convert people from the way that they play to the way that they play by telling them that they’re lying and they really don’t play the way they say they do.
I deny this because I play with a lot of modern players. What they claim to do and what they actually do, do not match. More accurately, when I try describing an alternative style, they describe their own style back to me and claim we just describe the same thing when we very much didn't.
And would you play them the same if the group playing wanted to play them differently?
I deny this because I play with a lot of modern players. What they claim to do and what they actually do, do not match. More accurately, when I try describing an alternative style, they describe their own style back to me and claim we just describe the same thing when we very much didn't.
You accuse people on this forum of lying to you; or not understanding the nuance of your “special top secret but really normal D20” play style because of the number of people you play with?
There are post after post after post of you across this account and all your myriad alts of you complaining about your inability to find players, about how often they flake on you.
So you’re telling me that Mr. I’m a logical robot both cannot find players and has found enough to create a sample size wide enough to broadly define the entire hobby.
Care to explain how that paradox works out? Are you playing with a large number of players or are you constantly getting flaked on?
Are the large number of players you claim to play with as real as the degree you lied about having?
Absolutely. Systems do not dictate style.
Systems ABSOLUTELY dictate style. In Genesys the dice mechanic generates results that you spend for NARRATIVE EFFECTS.
The system dictates a narrative focused game where the dice impact the way that the story is told not just the success or failure of individual actions.
If you play that like a game of D&D you will be lost
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run a lot of Forged in the Dark games, which use mechanics meant to give a cinematic pacing inspired by heist movies, and the sessions I run there flow very differently from a system where PCs, say, have strictly-measured movement.
Neither a d20 game or a Forged in the Dark game will ever give me the play experience of “I’m Sorry, Did You Say Street Magic?” which is about creating and inhabiting a city together. All three will feel distinct from a Belonging Outside Belonging game, which use diceless, GMless mechanics to tell stories about marginalized communities.
RPGs are absolutely not one-size-fits-all. I’ve spent the last three years creating a setting and telling tons of linked stories in it, at this point now spanning over a dozen different TTRPGs, and it would’ve been pure misery doing it all in any one system.
And would you play them the same if the group playing wanted to play them differently?
Of course not. It's a group game. It's not all about me.
I deny this because I play with a lot of modern players. What they claim to do and what they actually do, do not match. More accurately, when I try describing an alternative style, they describe their own style back to me and claim we just describe the same thing when we very much didn't.You accuse people on this forum of lying to you; or not understanding the nuance of your “special top secret but really normal D20” play style because of the number of people you play with?
There are post after post after post of you across this account and all your myriad alts of you complaining about your inability to find players, about how often they flake on you.
So you’re telling me that Mr. I’m a logical robot both cannot find players and has found enough to create a sample size wide enough to broadly define the entire hobby.
Care to explain how that paradox works out? Are you playing with a large number of players or are you constantly getting flaked on?
Are the large number of players you claim to play with as real as the degree you lied about having?
You forget time. I've been playing a long time. How common or difficult it is to find players of a particular style changes over time.
At the beginning of 3e's run, it was much easier to find people playing more like my style, as well as a bunch of other styles. More varied back then.
But now things have gotten rather uniform. Each system has stabilized into a primary style that it's community generally plays and alternatives are hard to find.
I run a lot of Forged in the Dark games, which use mechanics meant to give a cinematic pacing inspired by heist movies, and the sessions I run there flow very differently from a system where PCs, say, have strictly-measured movement.
Neither a d20 game or a Forged in the Dark game will ever give me the play experience of “I’m Sorry, Did You Say Street Magic?” which is about creating and inhabiting a city together. All three will feel distinct from a Belonging Outside Belonging game, which use diceless, GMless mechanics to tell stories about marginalized communities.
RPGs are absolutely not one-size-fits-all. I’ve spent the last three years creating a setting and telling tons of linked stories in it, at this point now spanning over a dozen different TTRPGs, and it would’ve been pure misery doing it all in any one system.
I'm not claiming a one size fits all.
What I'm saying is there is a set of expectations, preconceptions, etc that form a mindset that affects play experience as much as system does, and mindsets are not limited to just one system.
For example, are players looking at their character as an author would and making choices based on what makes a good story, or are they trying to deeply set themselves into the character to make choices as the character to experience the world as their character without regard to metagame things like making a good story? Other things like whether characters are grand heroic heroes, or normal people facing dangerous, almost horror, situations? And factors like whether hirelings and followers are used extensively or not at all?
These things heavily impact your decision making, far more than system does in general and these factors are unaffected by system (except the first one which is sometimes affected when you switch from rpgs to storytelling games).
That doesn't mean system is meaningless. It just means that systems are not limited to one way of playing them. You can take a single system and play in multiple ways that seem like entirely different games.
You forget time. I've been playing a long time. How common or difficult it is to find players of a particular style changes over time.
Haldir had been playing a long time, but you you accused him of lying about his play style. I’ve been playing a long time, you accuse me of lying about my play style.
Provide the evidence that backs up your claims about people lying, provide your evidence about how difficult it becomes to find players over time. If you are indeed logical, you will provide the data you used to arrive at these conclusions.
You forget time. I've been playing a long time. How common or difficult it is to find players of a particular style changes over time.Haldir had been playing a long time, but you you accused him of lying about his play style. I’ve been playing a long time, you accuse me of lying about my play style.
Provide the evidence that backs up your claims about people lying, provide your evidence about how difficult it becomes to find players over time. If you are indeed logical, you will provide the data you used to arrive at these conclusions.
I wouldn't really use the term lying. That makes it sound intentional.
If a guy can't tell the difference between ash trees and oak trees, thinking they are the same, is it a lie if he claims to have a bunch of oak trees but when you get there, the trees are all ash? Certainly it turns out to be an untrue statement, but simply because the guy couldn't tell the difference.
Same case here. I'm trying to draw attention to a distinction that is not superficially obvious. I try to describe the side that is different, but when people say they understand but then talk about it without demonstrating any understanding at all, am I really supposed to think they do? Especially when they say there is no difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No wonder you can't find people to play with if this is how you behave when trying to have a conversation. Have you even ever read another game, or do you just dedicate your time to complaining about how paizo doesn't support 1e anymore or whatever?
Just because The Alexandrian has a stupid opinion about how you can run any story in DND doesn't mean it's remotely true. Simply consider the information that exists in the world that disproves your hypothesis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a guy can't tell the difference between ash trees and oak trees, thinking they are the same, is it a lie if he claims to have a bunch of oak trees but when you get there, the trees are all ash? Certainly it turns out to be an untrue statement, but simply because the guy couldn't tell the difference.
That’s cute but it’s a poor analogy for what you do. The reality of you is more like a property owner saying they have oak trees on their property, and you having never visited their property and only looking at a Google earth satellite view boldly declare that they are wrong about what trees they have. When pressed for evidence you respond about the total percentage of trees you personally planted last Arbor Day.
No wonder you can't find people to play with if this is how you behave when trying to have a conversation. Have you even ever read another game, or do you just dedicate your time to complaining about how paizo doesn't support 1e anymore or whatever?
Just because The Alexandrian has a stupid opinion about how you can run any story in DND doesn't mean it's remotely true. Simply consider the information that exists in the world that disproves your hypothesis.
Behave? I'm being calm and polite and logical. I'm certainly not complaining about paizo. Yet you step in and quite aggressively yell at me. Perhaps you should check your own behavior before chastising others.
And I've lost count of all the systems I've read, and I've played dozens and dozens of systems.
Additionally, as I already noted, I believe based on personal experience and did so before finding the Alexandrian. Try reading more carefully.
Lastly, there is not one stitch of information that disproves me. Perhaps you just don't understand what I'm saying and therefore the information disproves what you falsely believe I'm saying.
If a guy can't tell the difference between ash trees and oak trees, thinking they are the same, is it a lie if he claims to have a bunch of oak trees but when you get there, the trees are all ash? Certainly it turns out to be an untrue statement, but simply because the guy couldn't tell the difference.That’s cute but it’s a poor analogy for what you do. The reality of you is more like a property owner saying they have oak trees on their property, and you having never visited their property and only looking at a Google earth satellite view boldly declare that they are wrong about what trees they have. When pressed for evidence you respond about the total percentage of trees you personally planted last Arbor Day.
Just because that's what you believe, doesn't make it true. You seem to look for reasons why you're right instead of trying to closer for nuance that you may have missed. Thus, instead of progressing the discussion towards a conclusion of shared understanding, you just end up static and stagnant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it false GM DarkLightHitomi
Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it false GM DarkLightHitomi
Ah, but I constantly test my beliefs. I question everything including myself.
Have you noticed that I don't just make claims? I present examples and present logical evidence. In return, others just make claims and not much else.
For example, if someone actually wanted to prove me wrong, a obvious starting point would be to take my claim earlier about running osr trapfinding in pf2 and 5e and trying to prove why osr trapfinding could not be played in pf2 and 5e, not that it's unbalanced or against the intention, but to prove that it can't be done.
But no one has. No one tries to prove me wrong, like to actually delve into an analysis of what's happening and why it doesn't work as I claim.
Ah, but I constantly test my beliefs. I question everything including myself.
How exactly do you test your belief about how my table plays? Do tell…
Have you noticed that I don't just make claims? I present examples and present logical evidence. In return, others just make claims and not much else.
No you don’t, you make a claim and then ramble about trap finding for several paragraphs and when anyone pushes back you accuse them of not getting what you are saying.
That is ALL you have done for literal years in this thread. So either A. You’re just wrong and shouting at people needlessly or B. Right and completely unable to get through to a single person in a forum made of people who have been in the hobby for decades. Either way, the logical course of action is to stop.
Cue meaningless trap finding talk:
For example, if someone actually wanted to prove me wrong, a obvious starting point would be to take my claim earlier about running osr trapfinding in pf2 and 5e and trying to prove why osr trapfinding could not be played in pf2 and 5e, not that it's unbalanced or against the intention, but to prove that it can't be done.
Like I said
But no one has. No one tries to prove me wrong, like to actually delve into an analysis of what's happening and why it doesn't work as I claim.
Because no one CARES TO. We all tried years ago and you got nasty, remember? You got your comments moderated a ton because you were rude to dozens of people. Then we created a separate thread (this thread) to discuss the games we play and the experiences we have and you keep showing up to make it about the nonsense that no one wanted to engage in in the other thread. I posted in here for the first time in two years and you IMMEDIATELY tried to pivot it to your usual crap.
Time to move on.
. You seem to look for reasons why you're right instead of trying to closer for nuance that you may have missed. Thus, instead of progressing the discussion towards a conclusion of shared understanding, you just end up static and stagnant.
Why do I need to reach a shared understanding with you of the “unique” play style you espouse (the one routinely seen weekly on AP’s all over the internet) the virtues of and claim is best served by a game that I do not play nor care to revisit.
What value exists in that?
Especially in a thread designed to discuss the systems we enjoy playing as our journey through the hobby advances? We’re not here to discuss your bugaboos, start your own thread {cue the response where you say that you did and got no engagement… gee I wonder why.}
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does OSR trap finding tell me about running Gubat Banwa or Dread or Beam Saber?
Self why isn't anyone ever refuting me? It must be, Self, that you hold all the correct answers.
Self, if I hold all the answers why do people keep disagreeing with me? I was wrong, Self, you don't hold all the answers.
I posted in here for the first time in two years and you IMMEDIATELY tried to pivot it to your usual crap.
No, I asked a question about your experience with the system you were using. You said you didn't understand what I was asking and gave a bit of info that didn't really address the question, therefore, I tried to clarify what I was asking. And you jumped from that to dragging up the past.
What does OSR trap finding tell me about running Gubat Banwa or Dread or Beam Saber?
OSR trapfinding isn't supposed to be telling you anything about those systems. That's a question entirely unrelated to the discussion.
The recent restart came from me asking a question about his recent game experience and how flexible he felt the new system was. He claimed to not understand the question and things went downhill from there and brought up an old discussion.
That old discussion is me making two claims,
Primarily, I claimed that mindset, things like expectations, preconceptions, etc, would impact gameplay experience so much that the game would be massively different even if using the same mechanics and same genre.
Secondarily, I claimed that more experienced a player was but with only one mindset, the harder it becomes to get them to understand that alternative but viable mindsets even exist.
That's basically what it all boils down to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you forgetting where you challenged all of the systems we posted about by demanding that we explain why they were better than D20 which is “the perfect system”
I didn’t
You're basically posting a randomized contextless message every time you post. Which is very impressive tbh that you can't reply to yourself, let alone other people
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(except the first one which is sometimes affected when you switch from rpgs to storytelling games).
Ah, this is a bait thread where we dismiss games you don’t personally like as somehow not being RPGs.
My mistake; carry on, then.
So Vampire the Masquerade with the name baked in, the Storyteller System, isn't a rpg?
Incorrect. I asked your opinion on the system's versatility.
The systems overall versatility for other styles of play was unrelated to what I said, and not something I intended or wanted to discuss as the topic of different play styles wore out its welcome with me years ago.
This is a text based communication. You're talking to a known autistic. And you've dealt with me plenty before. That's three distinct reasons to know that you will be taken at your actual word, and not what you're imagining in your head.
You know I interact on these forums with other people who are autistic. They don’t call themselves robots, in fact they argue AGAINST that stereotype. That and the way you only ever bring it up as an excuse for rude behavior or to excuse badgering someone in a constant barrage of questions about your preferred topic of D20 and the “secret style” makes me wonder if it is legitimate. You are a known liar who has been caught in multiple fabrications over the years. Why should we trust that you aren’t using negative stereotypes to give yourself cover to be rude?
Then discuss them on your pedantic terms.
I’d said everything I intended to say in my first post.
No it doesn't because there's no such thing as a unique baked in play style.
Says the person who has never played the game. Multiple people in this thread in the last week have given examples to you of games with unique play styles, scroll back to read their names.
It’s like all those posts in the PF2 Remaster thread where you lecture PF2e Infinite designers on the encounter math of PF2 and refused to acknowledge that they were telling you the encounter math in PF2 is NOT the same as in 3.X.
You were so sure, and even though they design content for the setting and you only played in a few one shots - you MUST be right. That’s arrogance.
This is one of the things you said that confirms your earlier statement that you weren't [sure] what I meant
No, it just proves 1. you don’t know what you’re talking about. Which happens when you try to speak with authority on topics you’ve not ever engaged with.
I do not have a d20 fixation, nor is my goal to prove it superior. My opinion about how good it is at one particular play style, of any definition, is irrelevant to the main topics
There are pages and pages and pages across multiple threads including this one that disprove the claim you just made.
D20 comes up a lot because it is great for examples as it is a broadly understood system
No, in this thread it comes up a lot because you bring it up a lot.
On these forums it would tend to be PF1 that would come up, but due to your fixation you always go back to 3.X.
So Vampire the Masquerade with the name baked in, the Storyteller System, isn't a rpg?
It got that name a long time ago. Certainly misleading. Not intentionally of course. I don't think anyone was really trying to make academically good terminology at the time and rpgs include stories. I'm not sure if any true storytelling games even existed at the time.
But seriously, you can't trust names anyway, certainly not product names which have a certain need to be appealing.