Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7853410" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I didn't say they were actually right, just credible.&nbsp; Something I learned a long time ago regarding game rules:&nbsp; There are three things to consider in game rules:&nbsp; Realism, credibility and playability.We've had lots of discussions about physics and magic, and we know that they don't mix very well.&nbsp; Realism is nice, but if normal play requires a scientific calculator, something's wrong.&nbsp; (I recall a superhero game that required the extraction of square roots to calculate damage in some situations.)&nbsp; Rules that sound right can be credible without having to be purely scientific.&nbsp; Think of them as a bit more cinematic, if you like.Also, there are occasions where real world physics goes 100% against what most people would expect.&nbsp; (Check orbital mechanics, for example:&nbsp; If you want to catch a ship ahead of yours while both are in orbit, you have to fire braking thrusters.&nbsp; Try to accelerate and you'll fall farther behind.&nbsp; More velocity pushes you into a higher orbit, which means a longer orbital period.)So credible trumps realistic, but playable tops them all.&nbsp; It's nice to get all three, but rare.&nbsp; Two is good, but one of them has to be &quot;playable&quot;.The size of dragon wings has very little impact on how playabale an encounter is, so we can decide which is more important, realistic or credible.&nbsp; Since we're talking about a creature that flatly can't exist in the real world, credible is my choice.So sue me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 7853410, member: 6669384"] I didn't say they were [I]actually[/I] right, just credible. Something I learned a long time ago regarding game rules: There are three things to consider in game rules: Realism, credibility and playability. We've had lots of discussions about physics and magic, and we know that they don't mix very well. Realism is nice, but if normal play requires a scientific calculator, something's wrong. (I recall a superhero game that required the extraction of square roots to calculate damage in some situations.) Rules that [I]sound[/I] right can be credible without having to be purely scientific. Think of them as a bit more cinematic, if you like. Also, there are occasions where real world physics goes 100% against what most people would expect. (Check orbital mechanics, for example: If you want to catch a ship ahead of yours while both are in orbit, you have to fire braking thrusters. Try to accelerate and you'll fall farther behind. More velocity pushes you into a higher orbit, which means a longer orbital period.) So credible trumps realistic, but playable tops them all. It's nice to get all three, but rare. Two is good, but one of them has to be "playable". The size of dragon wings has very little impact on how playabale an encounter is, so we can decide which is more important, realistic or credible. Since we're talking about a creature that flatly can't exist in the real world, credible is my choice. So sue me. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification