Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WhatGravitas" data-source="post: 3922773" data-attributes="member: 33132">But then, you also have to deliver a game, where you don't need a PhD for. E.g. look at chemistry - if you had enough computational power, you could calculate all chemical effects from quantum mechanical principles. Yet we don't, because we lack that power. Heck, if you're using Newtonian approach to double pendulums, you're becoming unhappy very quickly, and it took years, until a more useful and easier description, like Lagrangian dynamics, was found. Still we can &quot;guess&quot; the behaviour by looking at it without any calculations, or as my lecturer says: &quot;Use common sense. It's most powerful method.&quot; (sic)And now look into a item of cure light wounds, with constant use - not a good idea, right? How to do that without using art? Or, as I'd call it, intuition or &quot;common sense&quot;?Sure, we could take a page from AE, and add creation modifiers to spells... but this still only addresses items with spells as base.What if you'd invent non-existent effects, like a potion of animalistic limbs, which grants you the ability to gain the limbs of an animal of your choice? You have to find a close approximation as a comparison - hard to codify that as a &quot;science&quot;, it's more &quot;guesstimation&quot; - &quot;common sense&quot; or &quot;intuitive understanding&quot;.Or intuitive approximation of power - and that's what they call &quot;art&quot;.And we need that, because of the very open-ended nature of the game in general and the sheer variety magic items can have.Rather have a set of good &quot;artistic&quot; guidelines to give an intuitive understanding, than a truckload of formulas, exceptions (like healing in 3E), and caveats - while they may be balanced, it's a lot harder to do without spending too much time on it:Rather develop a &quot;feel&quot; for it and try to convey that &quot;balance feel&quot; to DMs - because &quot;common sense&quot;, our ability to develop an &quot;intuitive understanding&quot; &quot;is most powerful method&quot;.Cheers, LT.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WhatGravitas, post: 3922773, member: 33132"] But then, you also have to deliver a game, where you don't need a PhD for. E.g. look at chemistry - if you had enough computational power, you could calculate all chemical effects from quantum mechanical principles. Yet we don't, because we lack that power. Heck, if you're using Newtonian approach to double pendulums, you're becoming unhappy very quickly, and it took years, until a more useful and easier description, like Lagrangian dynamics, was found. Still we can "guess" the behaviour by looking at it without any calculations, or as my lecturer says: "Use common sense. It's most powerful method." (sic) And now look into a [i]item of cure light wounds[/i], with constant use - not a good idea, right? How to do that without using [i]art[/i]? Or, as I'd call it, intuition or "common sense"? Sure, we could take a page from AE, and add creation modifiers to spells... but this still only addresses items with spells as base. What if you'd invent non-existent effects, like a [i]potion of animalistic limbs[/i], which grants you the ability to gain the limbs of an animal of your choice? You have to find a close approximation as a comparison - hard to codify that as a "science", it's more "guesstimation" - "common sense" or "intuitive understanding". Or intuitive approximation of power - and that's what they call "art". And we need that, because of the very open-ended nature of the game in general and the sheer variety magic items can have. Rather have a set of good "artistic" guidelines to give an intuitive understanding, than a truckload of formulas, exceptions (like healing in 3E), and caveats - while they may be balanced, it's a lot harder to do without spending too much time on it: Rather develop a "feel" for it and try to convey that "balance feel" to DMs - because "common sense", our ability to develop an "intuitive understanding" "is most powerful method". Cheers, LT. [/QUOTE]

Verification