Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5996449" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Regarding a &quot;fatigue point system&quot;, if you're running a proper Simulation and interested in immersion derived from it, then, again, you need to apply these physical laws that bind your &quot;fatigue point system&quot; universally.&nbsp; You can't apply them here and there arbitrarily.&nbsp; What's more, they need to properly model real world &quot;fast-twitch musculature endurance&quot; and &quot;slow-twitch musculature endurance&quot; and the body's response to various stressors - physical pain, mental hardship, morale loss, blood pressure loss.&nbsp; You should probably have a Saving Throw to not trigger an outright Vasovagal response after a certain &quot;stressor-threshold&quot; is reached.&nbsp; You should probably have a death-spiral mechanic.&nbsp; You should have loss of physical characterstics (Speed, Strength, Dexterity, etc) contingent upon &quot;location damaged.&quot;&nbsp; I just don't understand pretensions to &quot;simulation&quot; and &quot;process-sim&quot; and the verisimilitude that it alleges to engender when the standards aren't universally, objectively applied and what is really happening is &quot;kinda-sorta-sim...only when its not&quot;.&nbsp; And then grievances against other things that are &quot;anti-verisimilitude&quot; and go against the grain of this &quot;kinda-sorta-sim...only when its not&quot; when its already borked.If folks would just acknowledge that DnD is &quot;kinda-sorta-sim...only when its not&quot; and that we all have our own preferences and thresholds for Gamist conceits, mechanical abstractions, &quot;implied setting incoherencies&quot;, mechanics that aren't hard-coded as Process-Sim associated directly from actor stance/PC-player conduit perspective, etc...and that all of these tastes are subjective and table-specific, a hefty portion of the edition wars and the willful marginalizing of playstyles would fade into the background.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5996449, member: 6696971"] Regarding a "fatigue point system", if you're running a proper Simulation and interested in immersion derived from it, then, again, you need to apply these physical laws that bind your "fatigue point system" universally. You can't apply them here and there arbitrarily. What's more, they need to properly model real world "fast-twitch musculature endurance" and "slow-twitch musculature endurance" and the body's response to various stressors - physical pain, mental hardship, morale loss, blood pressure loss. You should probably have a Saving Throw to not trigger an outright Vasovagal response after a certain "stressor-threshold" is reached. You should probably have a death-spiral mechanic. You should have loss of physical characterstics (Speed, Strength, Dexterity, etc) contingent upon "location damaged." I just don't understand pretensions to "simulation" and "process-sim" and the verisimilitude that it alleges to engender when the standards aren't universally, objectively applied and what is really happening is "kinda-sorta-sim...only when its not". And then grievances against other things that are "anti-verisimilitude" and go against the grain of this "kinda-sorta-sim...only when its not" when its already borked. If folks would just acknowledge that DnD is "kinda-sorta-sim...only when its not" and that we all have our own preferences and thresholds for Gamist conceits, mechanical abstractions, "implied setting incoherencies", mechanics that aren't hard-coded as Process-Sim associated directly from actor stance/PC-player conduit perspective, etc...and that all of these tastes are subjective and table-specific, a hefty portion of the edition wars and the willful marginalizing of playstyles would fade into the background. [/QUOTE]

Verification