This is fantastic, -E. It doesn't, if you read the enhanced principles about abstraction and such, offend the sensibilities of different "styles" of gaming.
Thanks! Agreed -- the principles,if they're good ones, should be sound across a wide spectrum of preferences and priorities.
However, my guess is you're going to have to pry the lack-of-physical-world-modeling of more abstract games out of their cold dead hands. Why?.
Because in some circles, there is a vested interest in the idea that number-of-words = importance-of-rules. So if a game designer spends four pages on modeling the physical world, it has four pages worth of importance. Now, you and I might assert that the real "importance" is not in the number of words/pages, but in the level of abstraction and likelihood of deployment.
But that approach might be too...nuanced...for rational discussion about RPGs.
The idea that a metric as crude as page-count could be used that way astonishes me.
It's either a profound misunderstanding of how people use gaming systems or an agenda (I think the latter is more likely). Maybe people who "roleplay" are an evolutionary-step above the cretins who merely "rollplay" and need crude tools like combat systems in their games.
Either way, I agree: not much hope for rational discussion.
And, lest we forget, Dallas had violence in it too. Quite a bit if I recall correctly. People getting in fist fights, getting shot, etc.
Hell yeah. Violence -- or thread of violence -- is prevalent across many genres. Even/especially intrigue and plotting stories. I've seen people complain that PC's in Call of Cuthulhu resort to violence (cinematic or otherwise) in ways that are contrary to the theme/tone of the story.
When you actually *read* the source material, you see a very PC-like move: they run over Cuthulhu with a ship. Sounds like your average bunch of PC's to me.
Again: A Dallas game probably wouldn't *focus* on violence. Spending 1/3rd of the page count for a dedicate system on combat might well be a mistake -- but I think the solution is to use a generalist rules-set that has sufficient combat rules and spend most of the Dallas source-book material on Dallas-related game advice and setting.
Needless to say, I think the GURPS approach is nearly perfect in this regard.
Very long falls, while usually fatal, are not always. It depends on how "hollywood" or over-the-top or whatever you want to call it you want your game to be. If you are OK with the PCs being in the middle of special events you'd actually represent such things with highly heightened odds from boring ol' Real Life™.
Any, to the original question, if falling or being in water (or some other aphixiation sitution) is anywhere remotely possible and relavent to the game I don't see what the problem is? I actually hadn't even noticed before the jeering you mention. Perhaps that represents good choices on my part of what threads to read?
New principle: the rules should cover surviving a huge fall by aiming for a skylight!:eek:
In a heroic game of any kind, I guess I'd want the rules to provide some chance of survival. In a low abstraction game, I'd want the rules to differentiate outcome (i.e. damage) based on what you hit when you land, and then be able to make an adequate ruling when a PC hits several things on the way down to slow his fall.
My basic premise: combat, falling and asphyxiation (along with several other basic events) are "anywhere remotely possible and relevant" to virtually *all* games -- even Dallas, DiTV, and Call of Cthulhu, and therefore should represented in the system.
Cheers,
-E.