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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6301344" data-attributes="member: 177">Insofar as you must impose reality within your game, no, I was really just being a bit facetious.  But, there's a point to be made.And that knowledge and experience comes from?  Interaction with the real world, which pretty solidly follows the rules. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And, watch what happens when you try to have a game that really and seriously departs from the rules of reality.  We have problems enough with elves ending up being "pointy-eared humans", because players don't really have the personal frame of reference to play outside the norms of their personal experience.  See how many times we come up with how magic fundamentally breaks our ideas of "economy", when we really consider the matter?Which is not to say that reality is a rule - but that we typically underestimate how much we impose reality upon our games, even when they're explicitly stated in the rules to be different from reality.  And cognitive dissonance then occurs....Chemistry is really just applied physics.  Biology is just applied chemistry.  Sociology and psychology are just applied biology.  One informs the next.  If you try to come up with economics without figuring in how the things below it will have an impact, you'll quickly find your economics are nonsensical.  This becomes most obvious with magic.  The number of results that should come out of Continual Light spells, but don't, come to mind.This is where we loop back to the origin of the thread.  How much simulation should we aim for?  I think the real question is, how much simulation can we really, honestly, do well enough to bother?</blockquote>

Verification