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: 4223659" data-attributes="member: 42582">Lizard, I think we've had this conversation before in one (or a dozen) other thread.But to have another go at it: if the rules are acknowledged as a metagame construction for resolving the game (ie the actions that players announce on behalf of their PCs) then there is not the least reason to suppose that the people of the gameworld could infer to those rules via experimentation and observation. That experiment and observation would tell them what the ingame causal processes are - and ex hypothesi the rules of the game are in no fashion a model or simulation of these.Your contrary notion only goes through if we reject my assumption and proceed from a simulationist premise. But that does not refute non-simulationism. It just shows that 4e + simulationism entails absurdity. So you've provided a reductio prove that 4e is a non-simulationist ruleset. Which we all knew anyway. Even Rob Heinsoo has said so (though I seem to be the only person on these forums whose noticed his reference to the comparison between 4e and indie RPGs).I'll say it again: for those who want mainstream simulationist fantasy both RM and RQ are currently in print, and they're both really good games.There are two things I don't understand about this argument. First, why would I assume that baseline stats are simulationist models but templates are gamist devices? Second, why would I assume that the MM is a biology textbook for a fantasy world, when it is exressly written and marketed as a set of rules for playing a game.</blockquote>

Verification