Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6290117" data-attributes="member: 4937">Then I'm not sure that you understand what he's talking about.&nbsp; Either that, or we've had very different experiences of D&amp;D... which the rest of your post would seem to argue against.I approve.&nbsp; Mild offense is the best kind.&nbsp; If its less than mild offense, there is nothing to talk about it.&nbsp; If it's more than that, the emotion gets in the way of learning anything.This is only fun if there is actually an interesting answer.Well, on that you are just wrong.I'm not suggesting that an economics simulation is necessarily a fun game.&nbsp; But I am suggesting that everything needs a certain economic plausibility, because smart players - like the great generals of history - will seek to attack the weak points of everything they encounter, and that includes the supply lines.&nbsp;&nbsp; They'll also question the motivations of everything they encounter, and that will include envy, greed, and power.&nbsp; If there isn't at least the basis of well thought out gloss on the economics of why the goblin tribe is occupying this cave somewhere, you don't have much of a setting to build on.&nbsp; Economic considerations might not be useful in and of themselves, but they do provoke thought about the setting which will lead to deeper and more interesting stories.Gonzo is a muppet.&nbsp; I love him, but he has no real place being in a game that isn't self-consciously roasting D&amp;D tropes and featuring players attacked by demonic clowns wielding +2 red sausages and pink dragons spraying caustic bubbles and farting rainbows.&nbsp; Even that gets old quickly, but at least it knows what it is.&nbsp; With the sort of attitude that I just need to 'go with' things, I'll probably have a brittle smile on my face at the end of the session when I say, &quot;Had fun. Thanks for the game.&quot;&nbsp; Fortunately, as a DM I've learned to be a pretty decent actor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6290117, member: 4937"] Then I'm not sure that you understand what he's talking about. Either that, or we've had very different experiences of D&D... which the rest of your post would seem to argue against. I approve. Mild offense is the best kind. If its less than mild offense, there is nothing to talk about it. If it's more than that, the emotion gets in the way of learning anything. This is only fun if there is actually an interesting answer. Well, on that you are just wrong. I'm not suggesting that an economics simulation is necessarily a fun game. But I am suggesting that everything needs a certain economic plausibility, because smart players - like the great generals of history - will seek to attack the weak points of everything they encounter, and that includes the supply lines. They'll also question the motivations of everything they encounter, and that will include envy, greed, and power. If there isn't at least the basis of well thought out gloss on the economics of why the goblin tribe is occupying this cave somewhere, you don't have much of a setting to build on. Economic considerations might not be useful in and of themselves, but they do provoke thought about the setting which will lead to deeper and more interesting stories. Gonzo is a muppet. I love him, but he has no real place being in a game that isn't self-consciously roasting D&D tropes and featuring players attacked by demonic clowns wielding +2 red sausages and pink dragons spraying caustic bubbles and farting rainbows. Even that gets old quickly, but at least it knows what it is. With the sort of attitude that I just need to 'go with' things, I'll probably have a brittle smile on my face at the end of the session when I say, "Had fun. Thanks for the game." Fortunately, as a DM I've learned to be a pretty decent actor. [/QUOTE]

Verification