Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5683306" data-attributes="member: 80487">It's not necessary for me to know precisely what my character is capable of &quot;mechanically&quot;.&nbsp;First things first: the thing being modeled comes prior to the model. If we are on the same page as to the nature of the situation in the imagined world, then the odds of this or that event need only be in a neighborhood that seems reasonable.&nbsp;Classic Traveller eventually included very detailed rules for vehicles and artillery in Striker. In my games, though, those tended to be overkill. It's like the bit about swallows in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Too much information! We were not all that interested in the fine points. A Mk. I Eyeball on the speed, or the ground pressure, or the chances of a rocket bouncing off the glacis, was close enough and quicker.&nbsp;If we're not on the same page about the situation, then an arbitrary mathematical abstraction is not miraculously going to satisfy everyone! Conversely, people who think it's fun to get into a prolonged and heated argument over a few percentiles either way are not likely to be dissuaded just because &quot;the rule book says&quot; this or that. No rule book can cover every eventuality.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5683306, member: 80487"] It's not necessary for me to know precisely what my character is capable of "mechanically". First things first: the thing being modeled comes prior to the model. If we are on the same page as to the nature of the situation in the imagined world, then the odds of this or that event need only be in a neighborhood that seems reasonable. Classic Traveller eventually included very detailed rules for vehicles and artillery in [I]Striker[/I]. In my games, though, those tended to be overkill. It's like the bit about swallows in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Too much information! We were not all that interested in the fine points. A Mk. I Eyeball on the speed, or the ground pressure, or the chances of a rocket bouncing off the glacis, was close enough and quicker. If we're not on the same page about the situation, then an arbitrary mathematical abstraction is not miraculously going to satisfy everyone! Conversely, people who think it's fun to get into a prolonged and heated argument over a few percentiles either way are not likely to be dissuaded just because "the rule book says" this or that. No rule book can cover every eventuality. [/QUOTE]

Verification