Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5779774" data-attributes="member: 54877">I quoted the whole thing because it is all good. No, that doesn't mean that I agree with every last particular, or that I advocate precisely that for &quot;the core&quot;. (I think the core needs to be more flexible than that.)&nbsp;But IMHO, this is where all discussion of verismilitude should start, in a game meant to appeal to a widespread audience. And having taking yesterday off to think about it, and then seeing your excellent post, I can express why simply: &quot;I want more verisimilitude&quot; is a bad starting place for an argument. It doesn't really say anything useful, and it creates all kinds of wrong impressions. Whereas, &quot;I want different verisimilitude&quot;&quot; is a good starting place, especially if it is quickly followed by, &quot;I want my different verisimilitude to get the same support as you other people get with yours.&quot; From there, we can explore to see what can be done to satisfy as many people as possible.&nbsp;P.S. You can't have this discussion usefully if you think that &quot;disassociated mechanics&quot; is an argument clincher. That's just a more indirect way of saying, &quot;I want more verisimilitude&quot;--in bad jargon, with a bad history tied to it. If you start with the &quot;different verisimilitude&quot; version, it's, &quot;this mechanic causes me to be disassociated from the fiction&quot; which is potentially offensive only because of the prior nonsense &quot;associated&quot; with the phrase &quot;disassociated mechanics&quot;--but technically, there is nothing wrong with that formulation, because it is a simple statement of experience being reported instead of a claim that the mechanic is somehow inherently the only thing at issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5779774, member: 54877"] I quoted the whole thing because it is all good. No, that doesn't mean that I agree with every last particular, or that I advocate precisely that for "the core". (I think the core needs to be more flexible than that.) But IMHO, [B]this[/B] is where all discussion of verismilitude should start, in a game meant to appeal to a widespread audience. And having taking yesterday off to think about it, and then seeing your excellent post, I can express why simply: "I want more verisimilitude" is a bad starting place for an argument. It doesn't really say anything useful, and it creates all kinds of wrong impressions. Whereas, "I want different verisimilitude"" is a good starting place, especially if it is quickly followed by, "I want my different verisimilitude to get the same support as you other people get with yours." From there, we can explore to see what can be done to satisfy as many people as possible. P.S. You can't have this discussion usefully if you think that "disassociated mechanics" is an argument clincher. That's just a more indirect way of saying, "I want more verisimilitude"--in bad jargon, with a bad history tied to it. If you start with the "different verisimilitude" version, it's, "this mechanic causes me to be disassociated from the fiction" which is potentially offensive only because of the prior nonsense "associated" with the phrase "disassociated mechanics"--but technically, there is nothing wrong with that formulation, because it is a simple statement of experience being reported instead of a claim that the mechanic is somehow [B]inherently[/B] the only thing at issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification