Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="goatmeal" data-source="post: 7181116" data-attributes="member: 6703670">As many have discussed in this thread (and I haven’t read the entire thing) much of the game is built on abstractions and isn’t really intended to model our world directly.  I used to get hung up on certain things that I thought weren’t “realistic” and came up with lots of house rules to adjust them.  What I found was that players were either confused or even angry about these ideas.  There are enough rules to learn for new players without trying to be “realistic.”Having said that, to your original point, I have had fun in Pathfinder relating my knowledge of chemistry to the alchemist class.  This has never been in any way that changes the rules to be more scientific, as many of the discoveries verge into hopelessly unscientific territory.  What I did instead was use some of the terminology of early chemists/alchemists in the game.  Making the game experience a bit more fun without fiddling at all with the rules.  I did write an article about this that gets into a bit more detail (and does introduce some new discoveries, so technically is changing the rules a bit) but it’s currently under review so I can’t say much more about it for the time being.In general, I would say that applying our own experiences to the game is probably best done in a way that leaves the rules mostly intact.</blockquote>