Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5762517" data-attributes="member: 54877">Yes.&nbsp; This is what I was trying to get across earlier, especially the &quot;gut reaction&quot; part.&nbsp; What people think of as &quot;real&quot; is all over the place--especially when they just want something in the ballpark, and are not paying enough attention most of the time to need more than that:&nbsp;Fantastically impossible thing #1, &quot;Well, alright.&quot;#2, &quot;Cool!&quot;#3, &quot;What idiot makes up this nonsense!&quot; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />&nbsp;When I was talking earlier about using keywords more heavily to square this circle, I didn't mean it this detailed, but you can use &quot;dials&quot; for more than &quot;complexity&quot;.&nbsp; You could also have &quot;realism dials&quot;--as long as they are fine grained enough to not drive people crazy with side effects, but broad and few enough to be worth messing with.&nbsp; For example, you might have one with weapons and armor that had settings something like this:&nbsp;1. Realistic - &quot;gonzo&quot; weapons banned, &quot;superior&quot; weapons rare and expensive, &quot;fitted&quot; armor custom made to the person, no spikes on armor, arrows break, encumbrance used.&nbsp;2. Standard - &quot;gonzo&quot; weapons banned, no spikes on armor, assumed restocking of arrows within reasonable means, encumbrance used loosely for main weapons and armor.&nbsp;3. Gonzo - use the full set of armor and weapons, no encumbrance other than the &quot;eyeball&quot; test, no ammo tracking at all.&nbsp;Now, is that perfect for every player?&nbsp; Absolutely not.&nbsp; But if you've got the appropriate keywords built in, it becomes very easy to communicate.&nbsp; If you want a game that is &quot;standard, but no encumbrance used&quot;, that becomes very clear.&nbsp; If you want an otherwise &quot;realistic&quot; game but spikes on armor and double-bladed swords don't bother you, go ahead.&nbsp; For me, worrying about the encumbrance of a double-bladed sword but not how it gets used effectively in combat is far more implausible than any power in 4E, but hey, the point is that you can set the nods where you want them.&nbsp;Where this kind of system can fail is to make the categories overly narrow or broad.&nbsp; You don't want to fill out a three page form in small print to set every little thing off the standard.&nbsp; But you don't want one single such &quot;realism dial&quot; for all spell casting, with everything lumped together, either.&nbsp; The dials should get people in the vicinity of where they want to be, and it should be explained that if a setting isn't quite where you want it, you are free to raid the other settings on that dial for particular tweaks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5762517, member: 54877"] Yes. This is what I was trying to get across earlier, especially the "gut reaction" part. What people think of as "real" is all over the place--especially when they just want something in the ballpark, and are not paying enough attention most of the time to need more than that: Fantastically impossible thing #1, "Well, alright." #2, "Cool!" #3, "What idiot makes up this nonsense!" :lol: When I was talking earlier about using keywords more heavily to square this circle, I didn't mean it this detailed, but you can use "dials" for more than "complexity". You could also have "realism dials"--as long as they are fine grained enough to not drive people crazy with side effects, but broad and few enough to be worth messing with. For example, you might have one with weapons and armor that had settings something like this: 1. Realistic - "gonzo" weapons banned, "superior" weapons rare and expensive, "fitted" armor custom made to the person, no spikes on armor, arrows break, encumbrance used. 2. Standard - "gonzo" weapons banned, no spikes on armor, assumed restocking of arrows within reasonable means, encumbrance used loosely for main weapons and armor. 3. Gonzo - use the full set of armor and weapons, no encumbrance other than the "eyeball" test, no ammo tracking at all. Now, is that perfect for every player? Absolutely not. But if you've got the appropriate keywords built in, it becomes very easy to communicate. If you want a game that is "standard, but no encumbrance used", that becomes very clear. If you want an otherwise "realistic" game but spikes on armor and double-bladed swords don't bother you, go ahead. For me, worrying about the encumbrance of a double-bladed sword but not how it gets used effectively in combat is far more implausible than any power in 4E, but hey, the point is that you can set the nods where you want them. Where this kind of system can fail is to make the categories overly narrow or broad. You don't want to fill out a three page form in small print to set every little thing off the standard. But you don't want one single such "realism dial" for all spell casting, with everything lumped together, either. The dials should get people in the vicinity of where they want to be, and it should be explained that if a setting isn't quite where you want it, you are free to raid the other settings on that dial for particular tweaks. [/QUOTE]

Verification