Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7174488" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I think you and&nbsp; @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6688858" target="_blank">Libramarian</a> are saying the same thing in different ways. I think Libramarian could stand to improve the way he's saying it, because currently it comes off as... not so good (&quot;a few sensitive men&quot;? *sigh*). But ultimately you both agree that inviting the controversy makes the game worse and that's a decisive reason not to use sex-based ability adjustments.I don't think you're being fair to simulationism here. Any simulation is going to have to have a cutoff level of detail it goes into. D&amp;D, for instance, limits carrying capacity based on objects' mass and doesn't bother dealing with volume. Yes, you could do the &quot;hard work&quot; and add volume to the game, turning inventory management into a 3D geometry puzzle; no, it is not necessarily &quot;worth it&quot;. It's not &quot;laziness&quot;, or a poor sign of &quot;how much thought and care is actually being put into the end product&quot;, for the D&amp;D writers to avoid that. And I don't think you'd say that it is.In fact, I'm going to reach here and guess that you wouldn't be saying these things at all if you didn't want to attack the character of the people who are using simulationist justifications for sex-based ability adjustments. Now, don't think I'm saying not to attack their character. Normally attacking character is considered a bad thing in civilized discourse, but their position is pretty damn suspicious. Remember, though, that Libramarian isn't actually one of these people, nor are loads of other gamers and designers who are facing the tricky decision of where to draw the line between detail and playability. So... just take a step back and refocus your attacks on that which deserves to be attacked, okay?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7174488, member: 6683613"] I think you and @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6688858"]Libramarian[/URL][/U][/B][/I] are saying the same thing in different ways. I think Libramarian could stand to [I]improve[/I] the way he's saying it, because currently it comes off as... not so good ([I]"a few sensitive men"?[/I] *sigh*). But ultimately you both agree that inviting the controversy makes the game worse and that's a decisive reason not to use sex-based ability adjustments. I don't think you're being fair to simulationism here. Any simulation is going to have to have a cutoff level of detail it goes into. D&D, for instance, limits carrying capacity based on objects' mass and doesn't bother dealing with volume. Yes, you could do the [I]"hard work"[/I] and add volume to the game, turning inventory management into a 3D geometry puzzle; no, it is not necessarily [I]"worth it"[/I]. It's not [I]"laziness"[/I], or a poor sign of [I]"how much thought and care is actually being put into the end product"[/I], for the D&D writers to avoid that. And I don't think you'd say that it is. In fact, I'm going to reach here and guess that you wouldn't be saying these things at all if you didn't want to attack the character of the people who are using simulationist justifications for sex-based ability adjustments. Now, don't think I'm saying not to attack their character. Normally attacking character is considered a bad thing in civilized discourse, but their position [I]is[/I] pretty damn suspicious. Remember, though, that Libramarian isn't actually one of these people, nor are loads of other gamers and designers who are facing the tricky decision of where to draw the line between detail and playability. So... just take a step back and refocus your attacks on that which deserves to be attacked, okay? [/QUOTE]

Verification