Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9025811" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Perhaps we should not be targeting our designs at teenagers and retirees to the exclusion of the rest of the population.That sounds like exactly the antithesis of fun, at least to me.Not really. What you advocate for won't predominate specifically for the reasons I've described.That is not how population statistics work.It just isn't. Real people, with real variations, are far too difficult to predict. The overlapping of the bell curves will be so broad that quite common people will occur on either side of ANY race's central tendency. That's literally the problem here! What you are talking about is simply not how statistics or biology work!Well, I should think that would demonstrate just how difficult it is to translate from one base system to another. The abstract theorems remain the same (nobody's disputing anything with a TLA), but the process of translation is a nightmare.Or, if you prefer, think of it like computer code and circuit design. In theory, ternary computing offers several advantages over binary computing. Thing is? We've been specializing in making really tiny binary transistors for ages. Even as early as the 80s, we were highly specialized in binary computing. It doesn't matter that balanced ternary provides measurable advantages (subtraction becomes much simpler, for instance), because we would need to re-develop all the hardware. And then we would need new instructions that actually use that hardware, and new operating systems and programming languages to take advantage of that stuff (or at least new compilers to translate existing high-level languages down to the new ternary machine code.)Now imagine if the Soviet Union, which had actually experimented with ternary computing, had managed to develop a successful domestic industry of ternary computing. You would have two industries that were technologically incompatible. Programs written for one could not be used with the other, even if you wanted to. Now add in a healthy dose of medievalism, where knowledge is hoarded and guild trade secrets are protected zealously, even violently. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.Sure, maybe some dwarf could go off and learn elf-style magic, with its highfalutin number system and impractical design. It would take at least as long as it did to learn superior, robust dwarf magic, what with all the false friends and subtly divergent structures. By the time you're finished, you'll have a solid decade of being a crotchety old prune before you go on to grace Durin's hall! You certainly won't be getting much work done, other than maybe translating a few widely-known spells from one system to the other.Or you could show a little dwarven pride and learn the true form of magic, and then actually use it for something worthwhile.**This statement was paid for by the Venerable Order of Durin's Dweomerkeepers and does not reflect the opinions or positions of the author.Point being: if you're already comfortable banning it outright, saying "it just works a little differently because dwarves just approach magic in a different way" isn't any harder nor any more "they just don't do that." I mean, every gnome had to be an illusionist if they went wizard, right? How is "every dwarf has to be an X" (where X gets a distinct spell list) any different?But it isn't fixed. You've just put up a sign saying "out of order" because trying to operate the machine would be dangerous. Like...the problem literally is not fixed.Alright. Suit yourself.</blockquote>

Verification