Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6472984" data-attributes="member: 4937">I haven't misread anything.&nbsp; I know what your position is.&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; My position remains that it is a good system both in its effect on the game and in the fact that it allows for the game to be played in the familiar pattern that most games are played in - people taking turns.I believe I have demonstrated that the size of the corner cases is smaller than one might think, and that those corners can be largely filled by a smaller set of rules than you might expect.&nbsp; Heck, you can even fix really big holes like 'pass the baton' in a single sentence.To the extent that we've uncovered real limitations to what we can't fix, in my opinion they are less a problem having to do with AoO's or even the turn based nature of the combat mini-game than they have to do with granularity in chargen and system resolution.&nbsp;&nbsp; Those problems are truly unavoidable because they have to do with limitations of the proposition-&gt;fortune-&gt;resolution cycle that any simulation is going to have.&nbsp; It's only in 'how granular are we going to be' where we find holes all the way down, and then primarily only because the time to resolve the proposition becomes itself a problem with the system.&nbsp; The AoO's are fine and can and should be leveraged in a common sense fashion, as we have already been doing in this discussion.&nbsp; Only as we try to solve problems of granularity, &quot;Can I take a 2 foot step?&nbsp; What does it mean?&quot; or &quot;How should the advantage in reach of my 42&quot; blade be modeled when I fight a 36&quot; blade compared to a 24&quot; blade?&quot; that we hit problems not solvable by rules (at least without a computer assisted resolution).&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;Can I stand here and let someone attack me, and if so what happens?&quot;, is not a problem that is remotely unsolvable by applying rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6472984, member: 4937"] I haven't misread anything. I know what your position is. I disagree. My position remains that it is a good system both in its effect on the game and in the fact that it allows for the game to be played in the familiar pattern that most games are played in - people taking turns. I believe I have demonstrated that the size of the corner cases is smaller than one might think, and that those corners can be largely filled by a smaller set of rules than you might expect. Heck, you can even fix really big holes like 'pass the baton' in a single sentence. To the extent that we've uncovered real limitations to what we can't fix, in my opinion they are less a problem having to do with AoO's or even the turn based nature of the combat mini-game than they have to do with granularity in chargen and system resolution. Those problems are truly unavoidable because they have to do with limitations of the proposition->fortune->resolution cycle that any simulation is going to have. It's only in 'how granular are we going to be' where we find holes all the way down, and then primarily only because the time to resolve the proposition becomes itself a problem with the system. The AoO's are fine and can and should be leveraged in a common sense fashion, as we have already been doing in this discussion. Only as we try to solve problems of granularity, "Can I take a 2 foot step? What does it mean?" or "How should the advantage in reach of my 42" blade be modeled when I fight a 36" blade compared to a 24" blade?" that we hit problems not solvable by rules (at least without a computer assisted resolution). "Can I stand here and let someone attack me, and if so what happens?", is not a problem that is remotely unsolvable by applying rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification