Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6960082" data-attributes="member: 996">Up-thread someone mentioned post-apocalyptic games and stop signs as weapons.&nbsp; Couldn't find that one, so I hope you don't mind the tangent...In the last edition of Gamma World, you had a fairly meaningful choice of weapons.&nbsp; One-handed or two-handed; light or heavy; melee, ranged or 'gun.'&nbsp;&nbsp; Each had a simple advantage:&nbsp; one-handed weapons let you use a shield, two-handed did more damage, light hit more often, heavy hit harder, ranged weapons had unlimited ammo, guns ran out.&nbsp; That's basically 12 weapons. Now, your weapon could be /anything/.&nbsp; A two-handed heavy melee weapon could be a stop sign or a wallhanger replica sword or a handy tree-trunk - or even a pair dumbbells. You'd think that, XOMG, that eliminates meaningful choices, since your wallhanger aluminum Katana isn't any different from my pool cue (light two-handed melee weapons, both).&nbsp; But, if you look at the number of meaningful, viable weapon choices games typically have (ever want to get your weapon specialization bonus with a magic weapon in late 1e? best bet's the longsword), 12 really is pretty good.That you also get to make cosmetic choices without being penalized is just a bonus.Is anything, other than the accuracy of the simulation, made&nbsp; better by more simulationism?&nbsp; I rather doubt it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; Realism, verisimilitude, mechanics 'reflecting the game world' (more accurately, determining the game world in an absolute sense), simulationism - they all seem to come up as a justification for refraining from a possible improvement or accepting needless complication, imbalance, and outright boredom.&nbsp; ;P</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6960082, member: 996"] Up-thread someone mentioned post-apocalyptic games and stop signs as weapons. Couldn't find that one, so I hope you don't mind the tangent... In the last edition of Gamma World, you had a fairly meaningful choice of weapons. One-handed or two-handed; light or heavy; melee, ranged or 'gun.' Each had a simple advantage: one-handed weapons let you use a shield, two-handed did more damage, light hit more often, heavy hit harder, ranged weapons had unlimited ammo, guns ran out. That's basically 12 weapons. Now, your weapon could be /anything/. A two-handed heavy melee weapon could be a stop sign or a wallhanger replica sword or a handy tree-trunk - or even a pair dumbbells. You'd think that, XOMG, that eliminates meaningful choices, since your wallhanger aluminum Katana isn't any different from my pool cue (light two-handed melee weapons, both). But, if you look at the number of meaningful, viable weapon choices games typically have (ever want to get your weapon specialization bonus with a magic weapon in late 1e? best bet's the longsword), 12 really is pretty good. That you also get to make cosmetic choices without being penalized is just a bonus. Is anything, other than the accuracy of the simulation, made better by more simulationism? I rather doubt it. ;) Realism, verisimilitude, mechanics 'reflecting the game world' (more accurately, determining the game world in an absolute sense), simulationism - they all seem to come up as a justification for refraining from a possible improvement or accepting needless complication, imbalance, and outright boredom. ;P [/QUOTE]

Verification