Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7738419" data-attributes="member: 6775031">A "hit" is a telling blow which causes significant physical injury, and a stronger character is more likely to land one of those with their sword than a more agile character is. Maybe not by much, in this situation, but this is an absurd corner-case scenario which is unlikely to show up during the game. The concept of rule efficiency is a design ideal which gives preference to modeling likely scenarios over unlikely scenarios. If the model doesn't work as well in absurd corner-case scenarios which are unlikely to ever come up, then that's considered an acceptable compromise for making the game easier to run.Ditto. You could make the situation even more absurd if you place that golem ten feet away, such that aiming is even less of a factor, but this simply isn't a scenario which the rules were designed to model.All models are necessarily abstract, to some degree. It's impossible to build a perfectly accurate model which is any less complex than the behavior which it is modeling. The way that RPGs get around this is by making sweeping generalizations that let them reduce complex situations to less-complex ones. For example, in Pathfinder, your ability to climb is directly tied to your ability to swim, and it's impossible for someone to be good at one but not the other (at least in the core rules). The rules assume that you're wearing armor, or there's some other explanation for why we don't care about blood loss, and that lets us exclude another chunk of reality from our model.It's a lot like doing physics homework. We want to find out what happens next, but the actual math would be far too complicated to solve in a reasonable amount of time, so we keep making simplifying assumptions until such point that it is solvable in a reasonable amount of time. That doesn't make it any less based-in-reality; it just means it's limited to a sub-set of reality which happens to fit our simplifying assumptions. The best model is the one which gives us the closest answer with the least amount of work, and it's preferable if it can also apply to a wider range of situations.I think there's been a miscommunication on this point. I actually argued that Charisma-based Resonance is entirely consistent with what we know about how the game world is supposed to work, and my only real objection is in the unusual complexity which it adds to the model. They could be more efficient with their rules if they used something like a Magic stat instead of splitting effects between Int and Charisma.</blockquote>

Verification