Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh
In this context, copulation. Well, actually, preferably the whole line of physical closeness, starting from a hug/kiss and up to the final stages of copulation (which isn't an euphemism, but rather an acceptance that different encounters can end differently without diminishing their significance).
Oh, some descriptions are quantitative. In a way, all descriptions can be expressed quantitatively, if only by reducing them to enumerated states expressed by integers.
But many of them aren't scalar, and thus making their expression through neat numbers deceptive. Again, for the erotic case, the simplistic scalar analogous to the Reaction Table ('How good was it?') hides private axes such as intensity, originality, arousal level at a given point or on average, duration, and even trust level etc. None of those axes can be simplistically reduced to 'high==good', in fact most of them tend to have preferred levels per person and, what's worse, per situation/day/mood of any given person.
Discussing all this feels as if I'm trying to grasp at concepts of a narrativist system of some sort. (I mostly play RPGs more as simulations + freeform narrative, not combining the two to any significant extent.)
|
The thing is the above applies to many areas, not just carnal performance. People have their own measures and reactions. Social interaction in any form. But when you reduce the world to game mechanics. You can't really cover that. i've heard these same arguments used against having rolls for social interaction at all in fact.
You have to make some assumptions to quantify things in a playable format. Ex: If I get a Good reaction in this reaction it has the mechanical effect and narratively the effects are equal to or as close as possible to what would be "Good" for that target.
The dice rolls shape the narrative. At least that is how I run rpgs and prefer to play them.