Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4244953" data-attributes="member: 42582">But not every RPG can be all things to all people.Why assume that it is the GM who is setting the agenda? If in fact most players don't care to loot kobolds, then dropping the rules for that from the book does not hurt the vast majority of players regardless of what the GM does or does not permit their PCs to do in the gameworld.To me this really suggests "social contract" problems. At the least, in such a case the players aren't all agreed on what they sat down at the table to do.So instead of solving social contract problems directly, it's better to import a clunky simulationist mechanic into the game and do it that way? I know that D&D has a history of doing it this way (alignment would be the paradigm of this) but I'm pretty sceptical myself.Some of us have been saying this - that the game would not suit those with simulationist preferences - since the first announcements that every class would have a mix of at-will, per-encounter and daily powers.As I've noted in other threads, both RM and RQ are currently in print, and both a really good games that cover much the same subject matter as does D&D (ie heroic fantasy with a touch of sword-and-sorcery).</blockquote>