Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7919208" data-attributes="member: 6802765">That would only be true if you assume the model involves a one-to-one correspondence between fluff and crunch. A model with a many-to-one correspondence, however, could also satisfy your criterion that the crunch accurately reflects (models) the fluff, yet wouldn't lead to your conclusion that changing the fluff requires changing the crunch.Personally, I don't see any reason to assume that D&amp;D 5e is intended to be such a one-to-one model. I also don't see any advantages from choosing to constrain the model that way. For one thing, a one-to-one model limits the complexity of the fluff to the complexity of the crunch. (In other words, two characters with identical mechanics would necessarily be identical characters.) I'd much prefer that the crunch instead be an abstraction of the fluff, so that the fluff can have far greater complexity and nuance than exists in the crunch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7919208, member: 6802765"] That would only be true if you assume the model involves a one-to-one correspondence between fluff and crunch. A model with a many-to-one correspondence, however, could also satisfy your criterion that the crunch accurately reflects (models) the fluff, yet wouldn't lead to your conclusion that changing the fluff requires changing the crunch. Personally, I don't see any reason to assume that D&D 5e is intended to be such a one-to-one model. I also don't see any advantages from choosing to constrain the model that way. For one thing, a one-to-one model limits the complexity of the fluff to the complexity of the crunch. (In other words, two characters with identical mechanics would necessarily be identical characters.) I'd much prefer that the crunch instead be an [I]abstraction[/I] of the fluff, so that the fluff can have far greater complexity and nuance than exists in the crunch. [/QUOTE]

Verification