Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4045181" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt anyone's brain!I was thinking about the complexity of both character build and action resolution mechanics in 3E, which really give scope for gamist play. Earlier editions relied much more on non-rules-mediated player-GM negotiation for action resolution, which could support gamist play, but was also unhappily prone to abusive GMing and 2nd-ed style railroading. 3E is better at avoiding those issues, and is (in that sense) more gamist, I think.I think this is right. But that you have to drift D&D to play it fully simulationist suggests (i) that the rules themselves may be a little incoherent, but also (ii) that playing D&D in non-simulationist mode is not necessarily contrary to the rules (as has been suggested by some in this thread).</blockquote>