Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad
You seem to assuming that there is causal relationship between realism and changes to game mechanics. You then go on to infer things like intent and preference based on this causal relationship.
In short those who want more realism therefore want more complex rules (or certainly rules that deviate from literalist RAW more), that is dependent on causal relationship.
I'm suggesting that there is only a correlation between the two, and that even more importantly it's not uniformly in just one direction. This makes your following inferences less relevant to the process.
I.e Those who want more realism just want more realism and are not actually thinking in terms of more or less complexity or even making actions harder or easier. Again while Sighted shots might be more restricted they get the follow up buff, unsighted ones now get a buff.
The example given was making Sighted shots AoA. You posited that there was an aspect of this precess where those involved had looked at this from a game balance point of view. Only that wasn't the case they had only looked at it from a realism point of view. It was deemed more realistic to make Sighted shots AoA, that was the be all and end all of the process. There was no ulterior or even obvious motivation in regards restricting them by the game system.
Now it's been pointed out that this change has acted to distinguish between those making sighted accurate shots having to take more defensive position, which means that those who don't have to fill more aggressive roles. But again that is a point about realism not game balance, even if it has corollary effect on game choices.
|
I'm postulating a causal relation ship because 'making things different (more realistic)' involves changing game mechanics one way or another. I'm not sure how you can, at all, add realism without changing game mechanics. At a minimum, it requires changing some modifiers.
It also seems to be the case that adding more realism tends to add complexity more often
than the opposite. Conversely, adding cinematicism seems
much more likely to reduce complexity, similar to the whole 'Roll and Shout!' and '. . . With Spikes!' attitudes. This isn't to say that cinematic rules can't be complex - they can; they're just as likely to be simpler too. I don't think I've ever heard anyone move from MA to Basic or from Basic to Lite, to improve realism. I did hear of people moving to
both more and to fewer books when striving to achieve a cinematic feel.
That people wanting more realism don't think in terms of game mechanics as an end goal doesn't cancel the fact that the end
result will still involve certain changes in game mechanics.