Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6075288" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Generally speaking, I tend to agree. IMO, D&D started pretty Gamist, longed to be Narrative for 2e, but in the process created its own unique style of fantasy, which 3e then tried to simulate and extend. (..to the point where people on the FATE yahoo group are arguing about "generic" magic systems, when they really mean "D&D-like" magic systems.) However, D&D tends to be a mixture of Gamism and Sim in all of its incarnations, its the change in the degree of Sim that's important here.In that regard, I think 3e was significantly more Sim than 4e. At its base, Stats and mechanics attempted to directly reflect character knowledge or ability. Various classes had mechanics and rules that were supposed to (loosely) simulate the functioning of one type of ability or another, rather than rely on Narration/fluff with a unified underlying mechanic as 4e did. So, if you wanted to change the way something worked, you could (in fact, needed to) directly change the relevant rules and mechanics in 3e. That's very different from the 4e method, where you could "refluff" a set of powers to create a whole new feel or theme for it (or so I'm told, never got around to trying it). Consider the complaints regarding Fighter Dailies in reverse.</blockquote>