NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5638662" data-attributes="member: 42582">Hello, here I am! Well, as fresh as you're likely to get on this sort of thread.My 3E experience, as I've posted, is pretty limited. I came back to D&D because of 4e. The mechanics that ostensibly make 4e peculiarly unattractive are the ones that attracted me to it.I agree with innerdude that responses to mechanics vary, and also with wrecan that every edition is unique.Personally I would prefer to play AD&D to 3E, I think (or perhaps C&C or some similar, slightly tidied-up version of AD&D). I find 3E to be a particularly unattractive mixture of "D&Disms" like hit points, gonzo spells and magic items, etc, with gritty, purist-for-system aspirations in its disarm, grapple, trip, skill point, etc mechanics. It is this apparent attempt to be simultaneously gritty and gonzo that, for me, "breaks the fourth wall". Whereas this is not an experience I have playing 4e - it has metagame, but isn't (for me) at all absurdist.I also agree with wrecan's use of the anthropic principle, as I've indicated upthread.My use of "simulationism" is an attempt to bring the discussion back from a description of subjective experiences - "dissociation" - to goals of play and the mechanics that support them.Agreed with the first paragraph. Trying my best to follow the instruction in the second!This is part of why I quoted Vincent Baker and Ron Edwards a bit upthread. To try to show some of the thinking about roleplaying, worldbuilding etc that motivates non-simulationist game design and game play.</blockquote>

Verification