Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9704581" data-attributes="member: 71699">This echoes the "diegetic" requirement in Sorensen's manifesto, adding a second condition. Roughly, rules are"simulative" when they act to conform what is said in play to a represented subject and such things as inhabitants that are part of subject, are affected by them in all the ways not defined as exceptionalWhat the "not defined as exceptional" part means is that you evidence a normative belief (which must come from somewhere, such as our real world) that peasants co-habiting an imagined world with D&D high-level fighters ought to be aware of fictional facts such as that crossbows can't harm them. That doesn't withstand further rules that could create exceptions to it, such as a rule that peasants for some reason were oblivious to (and presumably forgetful about) the powers of high-level fighters.I like this contrast with Earthdawn, where it's true that adepts and their disciplines are woven into namegiver societies. It seems to exemplify that designers can fashion more concretely "simulative" rules (assuming the definition above is right) if they tie their game to one imagined world. D&D, in aiming to support multiple worlds, is unable to say as much: it's impossible to say whether a given rule turns out to satisfy both parts of the definition without knowing the imagined world at each table.</blockquote>