Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5635583" data-attributes="member: 27160">No, he didn't, but if it amuses you to think so, I won't be the one to hold you to task for it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.The issue I personally have with Mike's noodling, here, is that what he describes fits an Explorative/Simulationist game well, but fits with a Gamist game very poorly, done the way he describes it.For an explorative game where 'discovering' the setting, the characters and the situation are the focus, more possibility, more options, more things to explore - without the real necessity of any real "balance" - is just what The Doctor ordered.  For a 'gamist' experience of using your brain and imagination to use the rules systems to get cool results, however, you need to have a defined actual, well, game to play.It's just possible that this will evolve into a set of "mini-games connected by a core system", as [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] said above - but that doesn't seem to be what Mr. Mearls is talking about.</blockquote>