Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5715786" data-attributes="member: 2205">I believe that it is.  It doesn't mean, as you assert, that Monte Cook is taking a simulationist approach to the game, it merely means that all of the players involved are playing the same game and have the same expectations for how the game reality behaves.  That's just as true if you're playing a simulationist game like Rolemaster or something like that, or a completely gamist game like Chess or Clue.I don't see how that quote means what you claim it means.  In fact, I'm not even sure what it means, to be honest with you.  Attempting to open the door and negotiating with the other players whether something is true in game or not seem to be two completely different fields of endeavor to me.  I also don't see how the two quotes map to any particular edition of D&D; from my perspective, the purpose of rules in a game of D&D has remained unchanged regardless of edition.  The main things that have changed with regards to rules are 1) how detailed vs. how basic they need to be (i.e., give control to the GM to make rulings vs. pull back that control and hardwire it into the structure of the game), 2) make rules systematic and consistent in application vs. willy-nilly and arbitrary in terms of how they're structured (focus on d20 rolls with modifiers to hit a target number vs. all kinds of unrelated and different subsystems to resolve different things that may come up).That seems a curious comment to me, since from my perspective, D&D has had a simulationist focus since the printing of AD&D at least, and only with 4e did it make a really conscious effort to migrate to a more gamist focus on the rules.</blockquote>

Verification