Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5764739" data-attributes="member: 957">I don't agree with this statement.To me it is about cause leading to effect in a consistent and rational manner.If the mechanics can handle that then you can define setting specific cases of how cause and effect differ from reality.  But in D20 I can easily define a hundred different settings, each with unique distinctions on how causes lead to differing effects.  That isn't to say that I can't happily run every single one of those settings use 4E.  But it is to say that I'd find the quality of the simulationist value to be much higher when done under the 3E system.And, more specific to the point, it is to say that the setting does not remotely need to be "fixed" first when working with a quality simulationist mechanic.It WOULD be accurate to say that the specifications developed for the setting in question then in turn become part of the mechanics for that specific campaign or setting.  They do need to be set before players get to that table.*  But I don't consider that relevant to defining a quality core system aimed at mass market appeal.* - Not to suggest that new things may not be discovered, even by the GM, on the fly.  That is certainly a big part of the fun.</blockquote>