Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gimby" data-source="post: 9770562" data-attributes="member: 49875">This is generally true, but as the DD example shows it can rely on how strict those requirements are to determine the scale of the impact compared to other things in the game.   If I'm limited in what I can carry, but that capacity is large enough that I'll be able to cover all largely foreseeable challenges then the impact is low.  If in DD I had 100 inventory slots but the game was otherwise the same, it'd be very different in practice.Let's imagine I have two games where I am attempting to cross a desert in a 10 day trip.  In game 1 I can carry 10 days of rations without penalty, in game 2 I can carry 100 days of rations without penalty.  In game 1 I need to carefully husband my resources, think very carefully about taking a detour to that ruined temple, will struggle if I use food to distract predators.  In game 2, I can do all this fairly blithely.   In both cases I won't be able to feed the group of escaped slaves who need 200 days of provisions unless I accepted the penalty, so the choices have had an impact on both games, but they are decidedly less impactful on most cases of play in game 2 rather than game 1. Absolutely, which is why I think the versimilitude of a game is not reliant on any specific rule or feature, but the emergent effect of them all together.</blockquote>