Wherein I lay out my simulationist foundation for the design.

September 29, 1985

Real life is not quantitative, not even from an evaluative point of view. It is ridiculous to assume a boxer will win a fight just because he can bench press more than the other guy.

Real life is qualitative. If a boxer is strong, fast, and ugly you can assume he will mutilate a tall, lean, sensitive boxer. This is not to say that a boxer who wins 25 fights doesn't have a better chance against a guy who won 2; that is experience and not a measure of strength, constitution or dexterity. Rather it indicates a proficiency with a skill.

As far as I know, the role-playing industry does not have a qualitative game on the market. Thus I have decided to write one.

A qualitative game would reflect modern life. Measurable appropriate factors would be included: large caliber bullets tend to do more damage, having gone over Niagara Falls in a barrell 9 times gives you a better chance to succeed at number 10.

Irrelevant unmeasurable arbitrary factors would be left out. There is no fine line distinction between categories of strength (or any attribute for that matter). A common evaluation of an individual would either indicate that he is strong, weak, or normal. Sure you could compare two big guys and pick one that is stronger but chances are that it wouldn't be based on how strong the guy is but on the fact that he looks meaner, heavier, faster etc...

In logic you can make a value statement or an evaluative statement. You can say that John is a good boy, or that John is a good Boy Scout. The first statement is an opinion and is neither true or false, the second is true or false based on certain criteria established by the Boy Scouts of America. In a qualitative game you would have to assume that evaluative statements about the character were being made, and that he is indeed hefty, short, strong or ugly.

Next: How to establish a way to distinguish non-quantitative characters from each other.