Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 4672941" data-attributes="member: 23977">I guess I'm also the type that doesn't believe &quot;internal consistancy&quot; to be a big selling point.The other day I was lighting my grill... Took me like five clicks to get the stupid bendy lighter I use to work. The day before it only took one click. Was there some &quot;internally consistant&quot; reason it worked? Maybe, but I have no clue what it was, so to me it was just a random &quot;it takes five clicks this time&quot; moment.Internal consistancy to me feels too clockwork, and unatural. Again I feel this is a big difefrence between computer games and people. Computers have a HARD time not being consistant. They do what they're told, and can't do what they're not told. If I have a fire spell in a computer it can't light fires unless the programing says so. If I have a fire spell in a Tabletop game, even if the &quot;programing&quot; says nothing about lighting fires, we, as humans, can say otherwise.The more &quot;consistant&quot; rules a game has, the more it makes me feel as if that's how it wants me to rule things. When a designer thinks putting soemthign like &quot;it melts soft metals&quot; in there makes the world more consistant, I find it usually just ends up being a reason someone has for another use not to function. &quot;They said it can do this, if it could do that why wouldn't they also have put that in the description???&quot;I prefer it gives me guidelines, and lets me go from there. I'm not a computer, I can make judgement calls.Yep- sometimes this means it'll take a PC five clicks to light his fireball... But I'm ok with that. I prefer it even.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scribble, post: 4672941, member: 23977"] I guess I'm also the type that doesn't believe "internal consistancy" to be a big selling point. The other day I was lighting my grill... Took me like five clicks to get the stupid bendy lighter I use to work. The day before it only took one click. Was there some "internally consistant" reason it worked? Maybe, but I have no clue what it was, so to me it was just a random "it takes five clicks this time" moment. Internal consistancy to me feels too clockwork, and unatural. Again I feel this is a big difefrence between computer games and people. Computers have a HARD time not being consistant. They do what they're told, and can't do what they're not told. If I have a fire spell in a computer it can't light fires unless the programing says so. If I have a fire spell in a Tabletop game, even if the "programing" says nothing about lighting fires, we, as humans, can say otherwise. The more "consistant" rules a game has, the more it makes me feel as if that's how it wants me to rule things. When a designer thinks putting soemthign like "it melts soft metals" in there makes the world more consistant, I find it usually just ends up being a reason someone has for another use not to function. "They said it can do this, if it could do that why wouldn't they also have put that in the description???" I prefer it gives me guidelines, and lets me go from there. I'm not a computer, I can make judgement calls. Yep- sometimes this means it'll take a PC five clicks to light his fireball... But I'm ok with that. I prefer it even. [/QUOTE]

Verification