Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4460959" data-attributes="member: 18280">That's true; there are several places in 1e (as in all &quot;e&quot;s) where, explicitly, mechanical implementation is given precedence over simulation.&nbsp; It isn't that you can't describe it at the table; it is simply that (at some point) simulation breaks down in terms of what is mechanically desireable/possible.&nbsp; Likewise, one doesn't want a Craft skill for basketweaving that forces you to simulate each step of the process.However, there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical in the traditional way.....just don't think about it.There is a difference between abstracting subsystems, and major abstraction of what the characters themselves represent.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4460959, member: 18280"] That's true; there are several places in 1e (as in all "e"s) where, explicitly, mechanical implementation is given precedence over simulation. It isn't that you can't describe it at the table; it is simply that (at some point) simulation breaks down in terms of what is mechanically desireable/possible. Likewise, one doesn't want a Craft skill for basketweaving that forces you to simulate each step of the process. However, there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical [i]in the traditional way[/i].....just don't think about it. There is a difference between abstracting subsystems, and major abstraction of what the characters themselves represent. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification