dark brandon wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:If you were to try out a game where shotguns inflict 1 point of damage to normal human beings, but knives inflict 1d4x1000, would you like that game?
Probably not, because it's too unrealistic to make any sense.
It would simply depend on the reasoning between them.
Nope, sorry. Try again.
If there were reasoning between them, then that would be
logical.
We're talking about rules that are illogical and inconsistant, and your claim that such rules don't interfere with suspension of disbelief. That it's all up to the player.
I agree that a dragon ripping a tank apart with its claws is pretty cool... unless that same dragon isn't strong enough to accomplish that task.
It's like having some guy who can only lift 20 lbs punch through a brick wall simply because "it's cool", with no further thought or reason.
Now if they gave dragons the actual physical strength to back up that ability to shred a tank, THAT would be cool.
And it would even make sense.
The problem is that you're basically "thinking too much" on it. In this case, SN strenght is lifting and carring a great amount of weight, and damage. All that matters is that SN strenght is > Normal strenght and that's probably about as much thought that has been put into it. That doesn't make it illogical, not unless you think on it too much. But this once again is the proble with the player, not the game.
I'm sorry, but I play RPGs in order to think and to stimulate thoughts, not in order to put on blinders to things that blatantly don't make any sense.
For example, I've NEVER heard anyone complain about SN strenght.
Actually, I have.
Many times.
The reasoning is that it held it's logic to the base minimum. SN strenght can lift more than normal and can do MD damage because of it's great strenght.
Only it doesn't.
Supernatural Strength of 1-16 can lift and carry exactly as much as normal strength. The only difference is that it can inflict mega-damage with punches and kicks.
Are you seriously telling me that there's any
reasoning behind that?
Another example is your dislike for F-13th movies. Instead of taking it for granted, you question more than the movie revield. Just for example. He drowned when he was a child, but returns as an adult. You take it as being illogical, I would see it as instead of "dieing" he actually continued to grow.
Meaning that if you work really hard at it, then you can try to fill in the obvious gaps and mistakes that the writers make.
That's great; but that's you going above and beyond the call of duty, trying to make up for flaws in the writing.
The fact that you can fix things, for yourself, when you watch the movies does NOT negate the fact that it's crap writing.
He's bullet-proof but not machete proof in that you can't kill him (period) but you can chop him up to little bitty pieces.
A machete can cut chunks off of him.
A shotgun cannot shoot chunks off of him, even with repeated shots at point blank range.
This makes sense to you?
Being undead he can see very well in the night and he gets lucky shots (throwing the screwdriver).
Yeah, he just rolls nat 20s a lot.
He is able to "out-run" is prey simply by knowing the woods so well he can use short-cuts to cut them off.
Only time and space don't bend that way.
If somebody is running in a straight line away from you, anything other than a straight line behind them is not a short-cut.
Here's an example of thinking too much on the movie. I love night of the living dead, but in this case I can show how it's illogical. When a person dies his muscles release all the calcium in the body, how is it able to animate the body into movieing the way they do? Normally, human jaws and teeth are not strong enough to bite through skin (at least now a days), and concidering that the dead, even being dead for a few days would cause the gums to shring and if you DID try to bite human flesh (Not even concidering through a regular shirt) your more likely to pull your teeth out than hurt them.
Actually, human teeth ARE plenty strong enough to bite through skin.
And I don't recall any corpses in Night of the Living Dead that were several days old.
In this case, Jason is more "logical" in that his very being is based on some unknown hell-spawn thing. The dead on the other hand can be easily shown to be very illogical from their very core.
Actually, Jason was just a dead kid who came back from the grave to avenge the death of his mother, who was killed for trying to aveng Jason's death by kiling innocent people.
(which once again is pretty darn stupid)
There was nothing demonic about him until later movies.
In any case, the fact that he's supposed to be supernatural doesn't mean that his powers, abilities, and his very nature should be so inconsistant or illogical.
Edit:
BTW, there never was a definite explanation for Night of the Living Dead. It could just as well have been supernatural as not.