So. You make a motherhood statement about how abstraction is good... then freak the fuck out with a melodramatic grognard rant about how abstraction is bad.FrankTrollman wrote:Longer than six seconds is good. If we're talking about a fantasy game, no one has clocks that are accurate to the second in any case and having combat rounds be somewhat vague is potentially OK. But people have movement rates. Their attacks have ranges. Things fall and take an amount of time to reach the ground. Having timeframes of individual combat rounds collapse and extend by an order of magnitude or more is clearly unacceptable.
The thing about the Phone Lobster suggestion is that it's stupid. It's obviously, painfully, demonstrably retarded. It doesn't simulate anything
Well sorry, but it's a lost battle on your front. MOST games, even RPG games HAVE abstracted time.
You know what else has abstracted time that DOES shift by orders of magnitude where appropriate to facilitate the situation. Movies ALL of them. In fact lets extend that. All fiction ever.
We know you are DESPERATELY looking for an excuse that talking can't happen in combat. But it DOES, in movies all the time and that DOES require, in those movies that people accept abnormal flexibility in time frames for allowing the talking to happen. And they do. Attempting to pretend otherwise is fucking insane.
You don't have a case here. You argument is LITERALLY that you want to make game design decisions that are bad for the game and good for "realizmz". Realizmz arguments are for fucking idiots the gaming den I had thought had actually established that soundly so WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU MAKING A REALIZMZ ARGUMENT, again and again and again...