Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 4506141" data-attributes="member: 1645">In order to be a good game, it has to give you interesting choices to make.&nbsp; It doesn't have to contradict realistic expectations.Not all real scenarios will involve interesting choices that lead to a fun game.&nbsp; We can agree on that.&nbsp; Delving into deeper and deeper detail in your simulation won't make the scenario interesting.On the other hand, making the scenario less and less like a battle and more and more like a board game (one that does not resemble combat, I mean) doesn't solve the problem either.I think you've missed my point entirely.&nbsp; I'm not arguing for D&amp;D to become a hyper-detailed war game, where we minutely detail all the least interesting elements of historical warfare.My analogy was meant to demonstrate that a good rule set &quot;disappears&quot; when you use it.&nbsp; If you do what makes sense in the situation being described, you end up doing what makes sense within the rules.In a bad rule set -- &quot;bad&quot; in the sense of being a poor model -- the situation being described and the situation within the model are clearly different.&nbsp; If you try to narrate why players make the moves they make, it doesn't make sense outside the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mmadsen, post: 4506141, member: 1645"] In order to be a good game, it has to give you interesting choices to make. It doesn't [i]have to[/i] contradict realistic expectations. Not all real scenarios will involve interesting choices that lead to a fun game. We can agree on that. Delving into deeper and deeper detail in your simulation won't make the scenario interesting. On the other hand, making the scenario less and less like a battle and more and more like a board game (one that does not resemble combat, I mean) doesn't solve the problem either. I think you've missed my point entirely. I'm not arguing for D&D to become a hyper-detailed war game, where we minutely detail all the least interesting elements of historical warfare. My analogy was meant to demonstrate that a good rule set "disappears" when you use it. If you do what makes sense in the situation being described, you end up doing what makes sense within the rules. In a bad rule set -- "bad" in the sense of being a poor model -- the situation being described and the situation within the model are clearly different. If you try to narrate why players make the moves they make, it doesn't make sense outside the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification