Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 5746709" data-attributes="member: 463">Yeah, I prefer to run it in a simulationist way whenever possible.&nbsp; Pemerton does not, AFAIK.4e as written is only weakly simulationist, so I'm batting on a stickier wicket than with prior editions; I accept that.&nbsp; Despite that, the 4e ruleset actually gives results much closer to the imaginary physics of my worlds than a more sim system like 3e did.&nbsp; 3e is a more simulationist engine but it simulated worlds not very much like the sort of worlds I want to play in; 4e is less simulationist in orientation but gives default results much closer to what I want.Basically I take 4e and fill in the gaps; eg I create NPC power demographics since there aren't any in 4e; 4e is written with a story-first approach where NPCs only have stats when they interact with the PCs.&nbsp; So I give them 'objective' stats.&nbsp; It's a bit of work, but I think less work than tweaking 3e to fit my worlds.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 5746709, member: 463"] Yeah, I prefer to run it in a simulationist way whenever possible. Pemerton does not, AFAIK. 4e as written is only weakly simulationist, so I'm batting on a stickier wicket than with prior editions; I accept that. Despite that, the 4e ruleset actually gives results much closer to the imaginary physics of my worlds than a more sim system like 3e did. 3e is a more simulationist engine but it simulated worlds not very much like the sort of worlds I want to play in; 4e is less simulationist in orientation but gives default results much closer to what I want. Basically I take 4e and fill in the gaps; eg I create NPC power demographics since there aren't any in 4e; 4e is written with a story-first approach where NPCs only have stats when they interact with the PCs. So I give them 'objective' stats. It's a bit of work, but I think less work than tweaking 3e to fit my worlds. [/QUOTE]

Verification