Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7596968" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Being charitable about both your eliding my full sentence and the urinic complaint of snark...</p><p></p><p>You didn't actually offer a definition, though, you just moved the pea. The complaint was that "realism" was too vague to be useful; it was ambiguous. You're responded by defining realism in ambiguous terms and then declaring the problem solved because "realism" was now defined. You just moved the pea: your definition does nothing for the duscussion but provide a cover for dismissing it.</p><p> Strawmen aren't useful. There's no argument on that front, but instead that "realism" is too subjective a term to discuss in objective ways. Multiple refinements have been offered and rejected in favor of retaining the "realism" term. At this point, saying that we're arguing semantics just underlines that your grasp of our argument is shallow, not tgat our argument is shallow.</p><p></p><p>I don't think my point is either brilliant or inventive -- this is well trod ground which is why it's so confusing that your still fighting over it. Again, the argument isn't a semantic one. "Realism," as defined by you, is entirely subjective, meaning that what's "realistic" to one is not to another. And we've seen this exact thing multiple times in this thread. Yet, here you are declaring it's an obvious thing and that those that disagree are full of themselves and just engaging in semantics. I submit you have the wrong target.</p><p></p><p>There's actually been some quite goid things in this thread. Your occasional jump and yell posts notwithstanding.</p><p></p><p>And, I'm not here to dunk on Max at all. I find his unwillingness to peel back the layers and engage in actual discussion of game goals and methods, rather than reflexive defense, to be disappointing. It seems like there's a feeling that admitting that you do something just because you prefer it is bad, which I do not understand. All of my gaming is because I prefer it, but I'm willing to examine those preferences separately from the mechanics to see if they align. Max seems to have welded these things together so a discussion on what a mechanic does is inseparable from an attack on his preferences. This is his hangup, though.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Weird, as I haven't quoted Stewart nor do I have this misconception. However, knowing the quote and accepting its broad point as being as good as we can do is utterly useless in a duscussion of whether this soecific thing is or is not pornography. I am being needlessly obvious here, because one as well-read and non-argumentative as you would immediately grasp this point.</p><p></p><p></p><p>All of this being said, you did make the claim that item destruction is "more realistic" even as applied to 1e item saving throws. To that, I present the following scenarios for your opinion:</p><p></p><p>Case 1: </p><p></p><p>A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. His cloak burns up.</p><p></p><p>Case 2: </p><p></p><p>A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. No items are damaged.</p><p></p><p>Case 3:</p><p></p><p>A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. All of his items are destroyed: his armor, weapons, clothing, and other gear.</p><p></p><p>Which of these cases are more or less realistic? They are all using the 2e rules because the 1e rules are ambiguous on when to use item saving throws and 2e us mot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7596968, member: 16814"] Being charitable about both your eliding my full sentence and the urinic complaint of snark... You didn't actually offer a definition, though, you just moved the pea. The complaint was that "realism" was too vague to be useful; it was ambiguous. You're responded by defining realism in ambiguous terms and then declaring the problem solved because "realism" was now defined. You just moved the pea: your definition does nothing for the duscussion but provide a cover for dismissing it. Strawmen aren't useful. There's no argument on that front, but instead that "realism" is too subjective a term to discuss in objective ways. Multiple refinements have been offered and rejected in favor of retaining the "realism" term. At this point, saying that we're arguing semantics just underlines that your grasp of our argument is shallow, not tgat our argument is shallow. I don't think my point is either brilliant or inventive -- this is well trod ground which is why it's so confusing that your still fighting over it. Again, the argument isn't a semantic one. "Realism," as defined by you, is entirely subjective, meaning that what's "realistic" to one is not to another. And we've seen this exact thing multiple times in this thread. Yet, here you are declaring it's an obvious thing and that those that disagree are full of themselves and just engaging in semantics. I submit you have the wrong target. There's actually been some quite goid things in this thread. Your occasional jump and yell posts notwithstanding. And, I'm not here to dunk on Max at all. I find his unwillingness to peel back the layers and engage in actual discussion of game goals and methods, rather than reflexive defense, to be disappointing. It seems like there's a feeling that admitting that you do something just because you prefer it is bad, which I do not understand. All of my gaming is because I prefer it, but I'm willing to examine those preferences separately from the mechanics to see if they align. Max seems to have welded these things together so a discussion on what a mechanic does is inseparable from an attack on his preferences. This is his hangup, though. Weird, as I haven't quoted Stewart nor do I have this misconception. However, knowing the quote and accepting its broad point as being as good as we can do is utterly useless in a duscussion of whether this soecific thing is or is not pornography. I am being needlessly obvious here, because one as well-read and non-argumentative as you would immediately grasp this point. All of this being said, you did make the claim that item destruction is "more realistic" even as applied to 1e item saving throws. To that, I present the following scenarios for your opinion: Case 1: A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. His cloak burns up. Case 2: A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. No items are damaged. Case 3: A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. All of his items are destroyed: his armor, weapons, clothing, and other gear. Which of these cases are more or less realistic? They are all using the 2e rules because the 1e rules are ambiguous on when to use item saving throws and 2e us mot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top