Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5764712">I think they actually should be paired together in this case but it may have to do with how I am using the phrase logical consistency and the term realism. I am not talking in GNS terms of simulation, but just the general expectation for there to be some basic plausibility and internal logic and consistency in a game. To me this isn't about old style simulationism (complete with weather charts, target locations, etc) but about the suspension of disbelief.  So to take 4E, the issue of consistency emerges (for some gamers) with healing surges. Obviously whether the issue should arise in their minds is debatable, but the endless threads on the subject demonstrate a number of players and GMs are experiencing an issue with keeping the description of wounds consistent under the healing surge rule.     Everything in gaming is moveable because you are dealing with preferences. Players will all have varying cut-offs for what is believable, what is balanced, what is fun, what is a workable setting. That doesn't mean designers shouldn't strive for these things. Believability is a spectrum. There are going to be rules which are clearly on the end of straining it for a large number of gamers. Those are the rules that, IMO, should be revised or removed.</blockquote>