| From: | keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | The new SR4 map (removed spoilers) |
| Date: | Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:42:21 -0700 |
>the reality itself (reality used here to mean
>world - in this case an imaginiary one).
In exatly the same way that s=1/2at^2 is an
abstraction of motion under constant acceleration.
In exactly the same way that the fundamental laws
of physics and chemistry are abstractions that
define our world.
You use these terms to confuse the point, dude!
The rules of a game define reality within the
game in exactly the same way as the rules of
physics define our reality.
>When a PC in my game get's shot, I do NOT say
>"you take an M wound".
In exactly the same way that when a guy gets
shot in this world, no one stops to say, "My
there significant kinetic energy invloved, lets
solve some equations!"
That doesn't mean that the laws of physics
didn't define what happened to the poor bastard.
>The game designers did NOT delineate laws
>of physics when they said a heavy pistol
>does 9M.
Sure they did! They decided what action in the
game would produce what outcome. That's the
definition of defining the laws of physics
>DID. NOT.
Totally fuckin' DID TOO!!!!!
>What they did was make some decisions about
>probability and game balance. And how to make
>their resulting model kind of fit what they
>knew about physics.
...and thus defined the laws of physics for
the game world.
>A heavy pistol should be, relative to a
> light pistol, THIS hard to resist and do
>THAT much damage on average. In other words,
>they made the mechanics try and represent a
>set of physical laws abstractly.
...and thus defined the laws of physics for
the game world.
>And the physical laws they were trying to
>represent were the same ones that operate
>in the real world. Period.
Not quite... they tried to come close, knowing
that they needed something people could relate
to from their own experience, yet internally
consistent within the framework of the rules.
>They did the same thing with every rule they
>set to paper. Looked at the world, and tried
>to approximate it with abstract mechanics.
You keep using this word 'abstract' like it
doesn't applied to EVERYTHING within a gaming
universe... heck and most things in this
univsers. Abstract as opposed to concrete...
Keep in mind that the laws of phsyics are
abstractions of the physical world...
Abstraction abstraction abstraction... it
doesn't mean anything in the context of this
argument.
>It is not like my gaming table has a physics book on it.
>Hell, I barely passed physics in college. I am a system
>administrator working on an MBA. Science is NOT my topic.
>Believable storytelling, OTOH, is my bread and butter.
And, oddly enough, I'm an actor. Storytelling literally
is my bread and butter.
If a game is internally consistent, it doesn't need
fixing based on its differences with your real world
experience... that's all I'm saying.
-k
