Again, you're the one adding value judgements - not me.
Gotta say, I find this conversation pretty funny. I said you seemed contemptuous. You seemed offended, but didn't actually say that you weren't contemptuous. And now we're arguing about...something.
Narrative is "an account of events". Setting effects are elements stemming from the chosen setting.
Wouldn't that include everything that could ever matter to a simulation?
This has me at a bit of a loss on how to respond. It's simply so limitingly untrue that all I can do is say "no" or throw out examples.
Well, the "unless it's a fact" qualifier that I threw in there was pretty important. And this isn't a fact, there's room for disagreement.
Aspects enable a group to create very realistic events. Therefore they are suited to simulating reality. I'm not sure where the hole in that argument is supposed to be.
As for why it sounds like an insult to me, let me give a few other similar statements that are clearly intended as insults:
-D&D 4e just isn't a good system for roleplaying.
-The Dresden Files, unlike most urban fantasy, are about plot and not about porn.
-The Storyteller system isn't really about who has the biggest numbers.
(All paraphrasings of things I've actually heard.)
Just a side question that is or could be related - depending on how it's answered:
How do summoned creatures affect the action economy? If I summon a Cerberus Cub using Ritual, how does it act in combat? Does it get its own initiative? Does it have its own consequences?
If it does, it seems to me that Ritual is a much better way to make a pet than IoP, especially if your pet is something that CAN be summoned in the first place.
I also don't like the argument that if someone pays for a pet it should always be there. Pets and henchman need to sleep, gollums need to be repaired/re-imbued with magic, robots need to be recharged. The amount of time a pet is with you can all be simulated by using shifts of power on the time table. Eventually, the pet need to rest/return to its demense/run wild in the forest and the pet owner needs to re-aquire/make new deals with/reattune/locate their chosen pet or henchman.
I like the idea of using the mechanics of designing a follower/pet, not to actually SUMMON a follower(unless it's appropriate), but to aquire them. Then run them as you would a typical summoned creature.
If summoned creatures use up the summoners turn in combat, then my whole point is moot.
Summoned creatures can have their own actions, but they're not actually extensions of the character who summoned them. They're NPCs that just happen to be obedient.
At least, that's how most takes on summoning work. Including mine and UmbraLux's.
The problem with using Ritual is, like I explained last thread, that Ritual has a bunch of baggage.
It uses Lore, Discipline, and Conviction. It fails utterly whenever getting your ally's help isn't much effort. It assumes that you don't have your pet all the time, which may or may not be the case. It involves a lot of dice rolling. It gives out focus item slots.
And worst of all, it gives a bunch of abilities that have nothing to do with having a pet. Ritual's rules text is basically "do whatever the hell you want within a theme, as long as you put in enough time and effort". Limiting it to summoning one specific creature would be unfairly restrictive, so anybody who obtains a pet through Ritual will pick up the ability to do all kinds of thematically related stuff while they're at it.
Using Ritual just doesn't cover the multitude of pet-using character types out there. All that baggage will be appropriate for only a fraction of the characters that would use ally rules.