Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9032208" data-attributes="member: 82106">The exact physical capabilities of lightning bolts aside (I mean, I agree natural lightning in the real world cannot split open a mountain, so obviously we CAN construct scenarios where its not realistic); there's a piece I feel is missing from your conception here that is critical to me. That is, you posit 'lightning can be assumed to exist as in the real world', but you don't then demonstrate any mechanism by which its other attributes are established; that is how frequently and where it strikes. I don't see the overall realism at all. Its like you are all saying that because you describe the existence of trees that the forest is realistic, but the forest has emergent and supervenient properties that aren't attributable to common-sense reasoning about trees. I've not argued, and don't argue, that you cannot describe a tree, a lightning strike, a pit, etc. in fairly plausible terms. Its the contention that this connects in any way to overall realism, except in a superficial sense, that I balk at.The difficulty with the dragon and the magic lightning is actually a separate issue, though also problematic in that I cannot see how there are more or less simulationist dragons or magic lightnings. Obviously you can simply relegate those to some other non-simulationist game aspect though, so I'm not sure that's absolutely critical as long as they have very limited overall world effect. That is to say, if there are 100's of dragons in your world, doing completely fantastical and impossible-to-constrain-by-reference-to-simulation things, then it's likely the whole world would be turned upside down by them. I recall there was this whole vitriolic argument against 4e eledrin along these lines once in which the 'misty step' was invoked as being some horrible thing because nobody could possibly measure its impact on society.</blockquote>

Verification