Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mournblade94" data-source="post: 5333129" data-attributes="member: 74608">Really you can't.&nbsp; Whether or not the sky is blue is not subjective, it is empirical.&nbsp; The scientific method of inquiry was invented just so you could eliminate the subjective.&nbsp; You might have a certain interpretation of 'what blue means' but it can be proven that the light reflected into your eye falls within the range of 450 to 475nm.Yet it will STILL be an abstraction.&nbsp; What you did was make a less abstract model for combat. Unless you have experienced every type of combat you cannot know.&nbsp; I get that a 'realistic' combat system does not need to be complex.&nbsp; The only label you can put on it then is MORE realistic than X.&nbsp; Bottom line, is any paper combat system is an abstraction.&nbsp; It will not account for all variables, and therefore what you consider realistic, may not in fact be realistic.&nbsp; You mentioned before your rules system was 'cinematic'.&nbsp; If you mean 'cinematic' as portrayed by john woo or hollywood, right there realism is blown out of the water.I do not argue that realism requires a maximum level of complexity, I argue that it is an impossibility to achieve in the realm of abstract table top systems.&nbsp; At best you get the level of reality for which you are happy.&nbsp; Even when you achieve that level of reality you enjoy, I doubt the rules make any sort of game impact change.&nbsp; In other words, I doubt a feat 'more realistic' than precise shot would really effect outcome all that much within the frame of the d20 system.At that point you have to decide whether story is more important than simulation.&nbsp; I am a simulation nut, in that I want rules for research, and crafting, and castle construction, and writing spellbooks.&nbsp; I am more interested in THAT it is covered more than HOW it is covered.&nbsp; I improve rules where needed, and 'let it go' in other circumstances.So if your argument is a MORE realistic system does not have to be complex I can agree.&nbsp; If your argument is a MORE realistic system is self evident, I have to disagree, because in the realm of table top it always must be an abstraction.&nbsp; Whether your combat system is CHESS or ROLEMASTER there is always an abstraction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mournblade94, post: 5333129, member: 74608"] Really you can't. Whether or not the sky is blue is not subjective, it is empirical. The scientific method of inquiry was invented just so you could eliminate the subjective. You might have a certain interpretation of 'what blue means' but it can be proven that the light reflected into your eye falls within the range of 450 to 475nm. Yet it will STILL be an abstraction. What you did was make a less abstract model for combat. Unless you have experienced every type of combat you cannot know. I get that a 'realistic' combat system does not need to be complex. The only label you can put on it then is MORE realistic than X. Bottom line, is any paper combat system is an abstraction. It will not account for all variables, and therefore what you consider realistic, may not in fact be realistic. You mentioned before your rules system was 'cinematic'. If you mean 'cinematic' as portrayed by john woo or hollywood, right there realism is blown out of the water. I do not argue that realism requires a maximum level of complexity, I argue that it is an impossibility to achieve in the realm of abstract table top systems. At best you get the level of reality for which you are happy. Even when you achieve that level of reality you enjoy, I doubt the rules make any sort of game impact change. In other words, I doubt a feat 'more realistic' than precise shot would really effect outcome all that much within the frame of the d20 system. At that point you have to decide whether story is more important than simulation. I am a simulation nut, in that I want rules for research, and crafting, and castle construction, and writing spellbooks. I am more interested in THAT it is covered more than HOW it is covered. I improve rules where needed, and 'let it go' in other circumstances. So if your argument is a MORE realistic system does not have to be complex I can agree. If your argument is a MORE realistic system is self evident, I have to disagree, because in the realm of table top it always must be an abstraction. Whether your combat system is CHESS or ROLEMASTER there is always an abstraction. [/QUOTE]

Verification