Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7194313" data-attributes="member: 996">Then it can't represent itself as allowing you to play such a character.&nbsp; Instead of class: Bard, can sing real well.&nbsp; You have class: fighter, if you can sing, so can your fighter. &nbsp;Not really, no, it's just a matter of abstraction.&nbsp; The same as you can abstract swinging around sharp lengths of steel in a life-or-death struggle down to rolling an icosahedron.&nbsp; The player's mental abilities &amp; knowledge aren't taken out of the equation, even though mental abilities &amp; knowledge might very well matter when fencing, they're just shifted from the act itself, to the mechanics of the game.&nbsp;It is a failure of the system, if it purports to model the decision-making ability or charisma of the /character/.&nbsp; &nbsp;I see the middle as the player extends into the game space, just not into the fictional space.&nbsp; That is, if you can optimize your character to be good with a sword and decide who he attacks with his sword, even if you have absolutely no experience, formal skill, or even third-hand knowledge of sword-play, then that game has given you the option of playing a character who is good with a sword.&nbsp; Even if, theoretically, you might occasionally chose to attack the 'wrong' enemy, from the PoV of a real soldier, say - for instance, in D&amp;D, it's prettymuch always optimal to focus fire, while IRL, depending on the weapons &amp; doctrines involved, it may be considered ideal to wound as many enemies as possible, instead.&nbsp; The same /does/ apply to anything else - that the character capability may have less to do with physical abilities notwithstanding - if the game models it abstractly and brings it into the realm of play (game mechanics, rules, player decisions about same, etc), then the player can play a character with entirely different capabilities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7194313, member: 996"] Then it can't represent itself as allowing you to play such a character. Instead of class: Bard, can sing real well. You have class: fighter, if you can sing, so can your fighter. Not really, no, it's just a matter of abstraction. The same as you can abstract swinging around sharp lengths of steel in a life-or-death struggle down to rolling an icosahedron. The player's mental abilities & knowledge aren't taken out of the equation, even though mental abilities & knowledge might very well matter when fencing, they're just shifted from the act itself, to the mechanics of the game. It is a failure of the system, if it purports to model the decision-making ability or charisma of the /character/. I see the middle as the player extends into the game space, just not into the fictional space. That is, if you can optimize your character to be good with a sword and decide who he attacks with his sword, even if you have absolutely no experience, formal skill, or even third-hand knowledge of sword-play, then that game has given you the option of playing a character who is good with a sword. Even if, theoretically, you might occasionally chose to attack the 'wrong' enemy, from the PoV of a real soldier, say - for instance, in D&D, it's prettymuch always optimal to focus fire, while IRL, depending on the weapons & doctrines involved, it may be considered ideal to wound as many enemies as possible, instead. The same /does/ apply to anything else - that the character capability may have less to do with physical abilities notwithstanding - if the game models it abstractly and brings it into the realm of play (game mechanics, rules, player decisions about same, etc), then the player can play a character with entirely different capabilities. [/QUOTE]

Verification