I'm going to coin a neologism here. "Unreasonability." It is based on "Unreasonably". "adv 1: not in a reasonable or intelligent manner; "she reacted unreasonably when she learned she had failed" [ant: sanely] 2: to a degree that exceeds the bounds or reason or moderation; "his prices are unreasonably high" [syn: immoderately] [ant: reasonably]"
dark brandon wrote:You don't turn it off. You just get over the fact that you don't know and that's just the way it is. There is a difference.
There is no "getting over it" without turning my mind off.
Dark Brandon wrote:I fail to see the point of your combat example. Please explain. Because we have the stats for the water gun, dragon, dragon armor, child...ect...it's the stats themselves you have a problem with, not their existance.
No, that is not what I was talking about.
My example was about unreasonability.
A child could not spot the dragon hatchling three miles away. It would be unreasonable.
A child could not aim the toy water gun at something so far away, much less hit, and do so without rolling. It would be unreasonable.
Ordinary water does not do MD. It's unreasonable that it could destroy 600 MDC.
Etc.
I constructed the example as an illustration of unreasonability and then pinned it to the weapon-damage scaling issue (that is equally unreasonable IMO).
"Getting over" the weapon damage scaling issue could be done by me as easily as getting over the combat example. Both are completely unreasonable, and all I'd have to do to "get over them" is not have a brain that can process elementary data about the way the world works.
Take the combat example, and place yourself as the player running the dragon hatchling PC. The GM you are playing with resolves the combat with the noted results. The GM has just arbitrarily declared your PC dead for no reason. Water can't hurt you, the assailant can't see you, your sixth sense should have warned you, but your PC is dead and gone just the same. The GM was completely unreasonable.
Dark Brandon wrote:The problem is we don't know why.
Not "knowing why" is not a problem for me.
Say that we are playing Recon.
If the game suddenly came up for an explanation of why a .22 caliber hold-out pistol does as much damage as a 120mm M1 tank cannon, I would think that was unreasonable, as well.
Dark Brandon wrote:Maybe it's a tech difference
This could, potentially, be an explanation. But there are specific and spectacular examples that contradict this as a general explanation.
Technological advances should be part and parcel of overall weapon-damage scaling.
Dark Brandon wrote:[...] Lets say it's balance issues. [...] if we have vehcile weapons that do 1D4x100, then players are gonna get killed in one hit.
Vehicle and starship scale weapons should have a much tougher time attacking smaller scale targets. Robotech had starship canons take a -9 to Strike against
Veritechs, IIRC, and Veritechs are pretty big.
Starship vs. Vehicle = -9
Starship vs. Human = -18
Vehicle vs. Human = -9
Human vs. Vehicle = +9
Human vs. Starship = +18
(Those figures are just tossed out, and if used, probably would require testing and refining to increase their mechanics balance and playability.)