Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5648154" data-attributes="member: 27160">Nothing wrong with figuring out what your tastes are.  I would say you should give all the 'agendas' a try, though; I find them all enjoyable, if you accept them for what they are (even though Nar is the one I really 'grok' the least).  "Roleplaying" is an appallingly slackly defined word; it's worth analysing just what it means to you, I think.  I see the word bandied about a lot with, quite evidently, a whole raft of diverse meanings.I now find 3E, like the versions before it, a rather confused and "dilute" experience.  For a Simulationist-supporting system it supports Gamism moderately well; for a Gamist-supporting system it gives a reasonable nod towards Simulationism.  It's sort of neither one thing nor the other; if I want Sim play I'll choose HârnMaster, RQ3, Traveller or the old DragonQuest systems before 3E, but if I want Gamist play 4E is just so much better.Yes, I think a lot of the rift is exactly this.  3.x is, perhaps, the only in-print (as PF) system that supports Simulationism at all in the "sub-genre" created by D&D worlds.  I find DragonQuest does it better, frankly, but that game is long OOP; such a shame.Yep, I agree with you.I hadn't thought specifically of the Nar link (despite some threads hereabouts), but I think that is a pretty insightful summary, actually.  4E is most obviously suited to Gamist play, but  Ican see that you could drift it to Nar pretty readily.No - 2E was pretty heavily Sim leaning - especially with the focus on world publications - and all the earlier systems were fairly incoherent about play agenda.  Even more so than 3E.  To be fair, they were made before anyone really had thought about such stuff.</blockquote>

Verification