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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4161891" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is not a hole: there is no gap in the action resolution rules for PCs, for NPCs, or in the interaction between the two (at least as far as we know).The build rules for the two are different - but the build rules are not part of the gameworld, and so generate no inconsistencies in the gameworld.And nothing stops the PCs doing this. Presumably they can, in-game, get answers to their questions.  You now seem to be talking not about the PCs, but about the players. The players know that, unless they or the GM has purchased the appropriate sourcebook (or done some houseruling), they cannot play PCs with abilities X, Y or Z. But this has always been the case in RPGs, that the character build rules are incomplete (in the sense that they do not cover everything that can be conceived of as existing in the gameworld - whether this be for reasons of balance, or complexity, or flavour, or whatver) to a greater or lesser extent.In short: Hong is correct when he repliesMy point was that choosing to play in a simulationist mindset is just that: a choice. If you drop the assumption that player = PC, and are prepared to recognise that there are other ways of understanding the relationship between game (and rules) on the one hand, and gameworld on the others, then there will not be problems. Which was the point of my original question about whether Derren was critiquing the game, or the gameworld.</blockquote>

Verification