Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7922875" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Your suspension of disbelief apparently operates in entirely the opposite direction that mine does. It's the lack of nuance and complexity in a game world that can challenge my suspension of disbelief, not a surfeit.From my standpoint, the real world is filled to the brim with nuance and complexity, so (in the abstract) the more complex the game world is the more verisimilitudinous it feels. For me, verisimilitude is the single most important element that facilitates my suspension of disbelief. Do you find less complex settings more verisimilitudinous than more complex ones? Or is verisimilitude not important to your suspension of disbelief?And the ability to follow two different roads in-fiction, representing both with similar mechanics is, in my mind, one of the entire points of having a rules system at all. The complexity of the setting gets abstracted down to a more manageable level. An overhead sword swing and a low thrust are modelled identically in the 5e mechanics with an attack roll, despite being wildly different in-fiction. I only consider that a positive: the system would quickly become unusable if every unique type of attack were modelled separately. Similarly, I see it as a positive that (e.g.) a primitive primal warrior and a street urchin with anger-management issues can both be modelled by the Barbarian class.I assume you agree that an attack roll can model multiple types of attacks? If so, why can't a class or subclass model multiple origin stories? What permits a many-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for attacks but requires a one-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for classes?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7922875, member: 6802765"] Your suspension of disbelief apparently operates in entirely the opposite direction that mine does. It's the [I]lack[/I] of nuance and complexity in a game world that can challenge my suspension of disbelief, not a surfeit. From my standpoint, the real world is filled to the brim with nuance and complexity, so (in the abstract) the more complex the game world is the more verisimilitudinous it feels. For me, verisimilitude is the single most important element that facilitates my suspension of disbelief. Do you find less complex settings more verisimilitudinous than more complex ones? Or is verisimilitude not important to your suspension of disbelief? And the ability to follow two different roads in-fiction, representing both with similar mechanics is, in my mind, one of the entire points of having a rules system at all. The complexity of the setting gets abstracted down to a more manageable level. An overhead sword swing and a low thrust are modelled identically in the 5e mechanics with an attack roll, despite being wildly different in-fiction. I only consider that a positive: the system would quickly become unusable if every unique type of attack were modelled separately. Similarly, I see it as a positive that (e.g.) a primitive primal warrior and a street urchin with anger-management issues can both be modelled by the Barbarian class. I assume you agree that an attack roll can model multiple types of attacks? If so, why can't a class or subclass model multiple origin stories? What permits a many-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for attacks but requires a one-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for classes? [/QUOTE]

Verification