>From: Trotsky <TTrotsky_at_...>
>
>...It demonstrates that the particular feature does not *have* to be
>present, sure, but it doesn't say that it can't be, or that it's
>inherently undesirable. That will depend on what you want out of the game.
Sure. But... what if somebody wants all sorts of detail about cooking in the game? Shouldn't there be lists of bonuses for copper cookware? Or for certain spices?
The game is, in fact, less biased towards one or another sort of contest if there are no special rules for any one sort of contest. Now, if you want that bias, then fine. But the system works just as "realistically" either way.
>The second flaw, of course, is that it exists in multiple instances in
>literature (probably less so in film, since the need to wrap things up
>in a couple of hours often counts against it). Not the D&D spiral of
>attrition, certainly, but instances where the victor still walks away
>with an impairing injury - sure.
And here I agree with you, again. You and Rob seem to be talking past each other. He's saying that he wants his play to fit certain dramatic pattern, which ablative damage doesn't represent. You're saying that you want a system that allows for the winner to take repercussions.
The fact is that you can have your cake and eat it too, here, I think. The options you're discussing aren't mutually exclusive, and neither of you are arguing that the other guy is wrong about his requirements. So instead of talking about the priorities, how about talking about either how the systems presented either do or do not do what you want, or proposing systems that do.
Mike
Powered by hypermail