Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5268601" data-attributes="member: 23240">I don't accept everything what is possible in the game mechanics as believable and possible in the game world. The rules are not the laws that rule the setting - they are simplified to be usable at a game table. Like every simplification or abstraction, it creates some edge cases that are artifacts of the mechanics, not a part of the game world. In most games I played, the settings as described make no sense if it is expected to work exactly by mechanics - they are only believable if the system is treated as a simplification, not as whole truth.On the other hand, having to think by the rules that don't corresponds to how the setting really works pulls me out of a character. For this reason, I prefer games that fall into one or more of three categories: - strongly simulationist, where the system keeps close enough to the setting not to cause problem- rules light, so I don't have to think about the rules when I play- abstract and focused on color, not immersion - where the system resolves conflicts but it's up to the players to describe it in-setting</blockquote>