Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9594397" data-attributes="member: 4937">Regardless of the merits of the conclusion, which I'm still pondering, I find this argument and example internally contradictory.&nbsp; Hit points are not an example of D&amp;D being rules heavy or simulationist.&nbsp; Hit points are an example of D&amp;D being rules light and abstract, which is why they often drive people nuts who want consistent process simulation in an RPG.&nbsp; And if D&amp;D's hit points can't in fact map to anything vaguely realistic (which I would argue they can), then neither can any rules light abstraction and your whole argument about minimal abstract rules and perfect adjudication is undermined to the point that I can't see how it could stand.&nbsp; I therefore don't think the hit point proves that consistency isn't necessarily great for realism, even though I can imagine consistency that isn't great for realism and do agree that they are not congruent.I would also argue that a GM who could perfectly adjudicate the difficulty of any task (presumably &quot;vaguely realistic&quot;) would be frequently unable to translate that adjudication into legal FATE fortunes, given the lack of granularity provided by the FATE fortune mechanic and how cumbersome it is.&nbsp; And of course, no such perfect GM exists especially when confronted with a challenge unexpectedly.&nbsp; (Rulings are often like comebacks - you often think of perfect one far after you've committed to one you regret.)&nbsp; I pointed this out earlier when I mentioned that FATE leaves you pretty ill equipped to run Camlann or Crecy with the PC's as role-players in the outcome of the battle, and it's precisely this lack of specific expertise in a subject even more so than whether you theoretically could do so within the system that I was thinking of.&nbsp; A system that doesn't specify how to run a minigame for a particular type of seen relies entirely on the judgment and expertise of the GM regarding that field of endeavor, and just hopes the GM is sufficiently good to handle such out of the box play.&nbsp; This later area seems to be something we both agree on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9594397, member: 4937"] Regardless of the merits of the conclusion, which I'm still pondering, I find this argument and example internally contradictory. Hit points are not an example of D&D being rules heavy or simulationist. Hit points are an example of D&D being rules light and abstract, which is why they often drive people nuts who want consistent process simulation in an RPG. And if D&D's hit points can't in fact map to anything vaguely realistic (which I would argue they can), then neither can any rules light abstraction and your whole argument about minimal abstract rules and perfect adjudication is undermined to the point that I can't see how it could stand. I therefore don't think the hit point proves that consistency isn't necessarily great for realism, even though I can imagine consistency that isn't great for realism and do agree that they are not congruent. I would also argue that a GM who could perfectly adjudicate the difficulty of any task (presumably "vaguely realistic") would be frequently unable to translate that adjudication into legal FATE fortunes, given the lack of granularity provided by the FATE fortune mechanic and how cumbersome it is. And of course, no such perfect GM exists especially when confronted with a challenge unexpectedly. (Rulings are often like comebacks - you often think of perfect one far after you've committed to one you regret.) I pointed this out earlier when I mentioned that FATE leaves you pretty ill equipped to run Camlann or Crecy with the PC's as role-players in the outcome of the battle, and it's precisely this lack of specific expertise in a subject even more so than whether you theoretically could do so within the system that I was thinking of. A system that doesn't specify how to run a minigame for a particular type of seen relies entirely on the judgment and expertise of the GM regarding that field of endeavor, and just hopes the GM is sufficiently good to handle such out of the box play. This later area seems to be something we both agree on. [/QUOTE]

Verification