Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alex319" data-source="post: 4774046" data-attributes="member: 45678">If wizards having &quot;arcane batteries&quot; that have to be &quot;recharged&quot; makes sense, then why not martial classes having &quot;martial batteries&quot;?My general point is that this is something that I see a lot - inconsistent standards. People never said that spells having per-day use limitations is &quot;unsimulationist&quot;, but they do say that martial abilities having per-day use limitations is &quot;unsimulationist.&quot; (Note: I know Christian did not call anything &quot;unsimulationist&quot;, and I am not accusing him of doing so. I am simply pointing out a common trend.)My perspective is that since we don't know how the physics of the game world works, and we know for a fact that it does not work the same way as the real world, we really have little basis for calling anything &quot;unsimulationist&quot; unless it is inconsistent.Here's an example. Suppose that in the game, there was a magical item that could be used to instantaneously communicate with anyone else having a similar item. But in order to make it not too easy to use, there were some restrictions on its use - it had to be brought back to a special &quot;place of power&quot; for a few hours every day or it would stop working, wouldn't work in certain remote areas, wouldn't work if it didn't have a clear view of the sky, and if you used it more than a certain amount of time a month it would stop working unless you paid extra. Would you consider these restrictions &quot;unsimulationist&quot; as they don't have any logical basis in &quot;reality&quot; and are just there to balance the game?How about if the game was set in the modern world, and that magical item was called a &quot;cell phone&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alex319, post: 4774046, member: 45678"] If wizards having "arcane batteries" that have to be "recharged" makes sense, then why not martial classes having "martial batteries"? My general point is that this is something that I see a lot - inconsistent standards. People never said that spells having per-day use limitations is "unsimulationist", but they do say that martial abilities having per-day use limitations is "unsimulationist." (Note: I know Christian did not call anything "unsimulationist", and I am not accusing him of doing so. I am simply pointing out a common trend.) My perspective is that since we don't know how the physics of the game world works, and we know for a fact that it does not work the same way as the real world, we really have little basis for calling anything "unsimulationist" unless it is inconsistent. Here's an example. Suppose that in the game, there was a magical item that could be used to instantaneously communicate with anyone else having a similar item. But in order to make it not too easy to use, there were some restrictions on its use - it had to be brought back to a special "place of power" for a few hours every day or it would stop working, wouldn't work in certain remote areas, wouldn't work if it didn't have a clear view of the sky, and if you used it more than a certain amount of time a month it would stop working unless you paid extra. Would you consider these restrictions "unsimulationist" as they don't have any logical basis in "reality" and are just there to balance the game? How about if the game was set in the modern world, and that magical item was called a "cell phone"? [/QUOTE]

Verification