A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

But, we've been repeatedly told that even a crude or bad model increases realism! How can more realism also be nonesense?

I never once said it couldn't be nonsense. I said it increases it more than nothing does. I've also said that not all realism increases enjoyment. And I've said that there are certain levels of realism that I like, and certain levels that aren't enough for me. Nonsense levels of realism aren't enough for me.

It's really easy if you pull your head out of the sand and actually try to understand the conversation instead of winning the internet.

 

[Aldarc]

Hmm. Looking at the forge I see Gamist, Narratavist, and Simulationist. No Realist. You're confusing yourself with terms again.

Realism exists in all three of the above game types.

Not quite, though I extend my apologies for using the word "gamist" as an adjective as I had not intended to invoke or appeal to Forge terminology, simply an adjectival form of "games."

 

[Maxperson]

Not quite, though I extend my apologies for using the word "gamist" as an adjective as I had not intended to invoke or appeal to Forge terminology, simply an adjectival form of "games."

Okay. Realism exists in games, too. The system that D&D uses to evoke realism with regard to weapon damage is escalating damage dice based on weapon size. From daggers at d4 to greatswords and mauls at 2d6 in 5e. Knowing how D&D models real life weapons, it's easy to see why it's more realistic for longswords in D&D to do a d8 damage rather than d10. This is also why attempts to compare two different systems inherently fail. They use different systems, so comparisons are useless. There's not a lot of comparison that you can do between D&D's d8, and Rolemaster's flat damage based on what you roll plus your crit if any.

 

[Aldarc]

But weapon size is not necessarily an indicator of damage. A spear does 1d8 damage but a common spear is larger than a longsword. A quarterstaff does 1d6 damage is but is also larger than a longsword. Why does a mace deal 1d6 damage when a longsword deals 1d8 damage?

 

[Maxperson]

But weapon size is not necessarily an indicator of damage. A spear does 1d8 damage but a common spear is larger than a longsword. A quarterstaff does 1d6 damage is but is also larger than a longsword. Why does a mace deal 1d6 damage when a longsword deals 1d8 damage?

The damaging portion of a spear is smaller than the damaging portion of a sword. The same with the staff. The function of a spear is to give reach to the weapon portion at the end, which is a bit bigger than a dagger, but can be thrust harder. It really should be reduced back down to d6. A quarter staff is blunt and only really uses the ends to deal damage with, so it deals a bit less than a longsword. A mace also uses a smaller portion of the weapon to deal damage and is blunt, so it deals less than a longsword.

It all makes sense when you look at it from a realism perspective. You should give it a try some time to understand realism, rather than just poo pooing on it because you want to win or because of some horror you experienced in the past.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

The damaging portion of a spear is smaller than the damaging portion of a sword. The same with the staff. The function of a spear is to give reach to the weapon portion at the end, which is a bit bigger than a dagger, but can be thrust harder. It really should be reduced back down to d6. A quarter staff is blunt and only really uses the ends to deal damage with, so it deals a bit less than a longsword. A mace also uses a smaller portion of the weapon to deal damage and is blunt, so it deals less than a longsword.

From the perspective of "realism" I'm not sure if actual experts would necessarily agree with your assessments that mostly attempt to provide post hoc justifications for the provided weapon damage.

It all makes sense when you look at it from a realism perspective. You should give it a try some time to understand realism, rather than just poo pooing on it because you want to win or because of some horror you experienced in the past.

If I merely muttered that water was wet, you would still feel compelled to tell me that my statement was a red herring/strawman/false dichotomy, that water is dry, and go out of your way to insult me. I am not sh*tting on this to win or because of any horrors that either you or [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION]13 falsely project onto my past to redirect my statements into some sort of PTSD. Cut this out, Max. You are being unduly rude and making personal attacks. I'm sorry that you cannot conceive the idea that others would hold opinions different to your own, but I am being genuine in my argumentation and disagreement with yours. And there are better ways to resolve that than making bad faith statements about others.

 

[Maxperson]

From the perspective of "realism" I'm not sure if actual experts would necessarily agree with your assessments that mostly attempt to provide post hoc justifications for the provided weapon damage.

Aside from being an Appeal to Authority, experts are irrelevant here.

If I merely muttered that water was wet, you would still feel compelled to tell me that my statement was a red herring/strawman/false dichotomy, that water is dry, and go out of your way to insult me.

Water isn't wet. Things that have water on them are wet.

I am not sh*tting on this to win or because of any horrors that either you or [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION]13 falsely project onto my past to redirect my statements into some sort of PTSD. Cut this out, Max. You are being unduly rude and making personal attacks. I'm sorry that you cannot conceive the idea that others would hold opinions different to your own, but I am being genuine in my argumentation and disagreement with yours. And there are better ways to resolve that than making bad faith statements about others.

Alright. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt again and see if we get a different outcome this time.

 

[Aldarc]

Aside from being an Appeal to Authority, experts are irrelevant here.

Not all appeals to authority are irrelevant. The point being is that not everyone would necessarily agree with your assessment.

Water isn't wet. Things that have water on them are wet.

Case in point proven.

Alright. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt again and see if we get a different outcome this time.

As long as you are not going into this expecting that your outcome is the only acceptable one.

 

[Maxperson]

Not all appeals to authority are irrelevant. The point being is that not everyone would necessarily agree with your assessment.

Experts are irrelevant, because you only need an expert if you intend to mirror reality as closely as possible, which is not generally the goal of realism in D&D. It's certainly not my goal. All it takes for the level of realism I seek is for me to have a system that generally works towards representing something in real life. It doesn't have to be accurate or even anywhere remotely close to being accurate.

Case in point proven.

It was a joke, hence the winky face you seemed to have missed. And do you seriously expect not to be corrected when you are wrong?