Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9861527" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As with most rules structures, it is an abstraction with only an approximate correspondence to the world itself. Sometimes, it is worthwhile going to the effort to tighten that approximation so that the two are nearly (if not actually) identical. Often, however, it is not worth putting in that effort, because doing so causes significant other problems.Game design is always a balance between so many different things. Play-experience requirements. Simplicity requirements. Depth requirements. Immersion/groundedness requirements. Balance. Theme. Etc. You are always making compromises as a designer. It's perfectly fine to, for example, say that all else being equal, small sacrifices in play-experience quality or simplicity can be worth it if they reap significant gains in, say, depth or immersion or thematics or whatever. But I see quite a lot of folks plonking down the expectation that absolutely everything can and should be sacrificed for any gain in immersion/groundedness, no matter how small--that immersion/groundedness/etc. is the only thing rules should concern themselves about and all other things are mere niceties that can and should be dispensed with if they ever cause even the slightest impingement upon groundedness.From my phrasing, folks can probably figure out how I feel about that particular attitude.</blockquote>