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="Sadras" data-source="post: 7597377" data-attributes="member: 6688277"><p>Okay due to the number of responses I have only responded to @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=5142" target="_blank">Aldarc</a></u></strong></em>'s comment so far, other points I either agree with or haven't really gotten around to them or do not form part of the conversation topic I'm interested in. I also provided a short synopsis of many of the responses below as it makes it easier for me to gather my thoughts. Feel free to correct.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, in that instance I can agree with you when one attempts to measure up differing mechanics which are attempting to do the same thing (AC versus Absorption for instance). it does come down to subjectivity.</p><p></p><p>Would you agree though, for the sake of the argument, if we look at D&D solely and said the next edition of D&D will either have an AC mechanic (as it does now) or every attack will be considered successful, no die roll required. If you have to compare those two scenarios - is one <em>more realistic/authentic</em> than the other or do you feel that still comes down to preferences: those that wish to role dice and those that don't.</p><p>Personally I feel at this point it cannot be just preferences and that there is a case for <em>insert preferred buzzword</em>, either wearing armour protects your character in some way, however abstract, or it is just cosmetic. </p><p> </p><p><strong>SYNOPSIS</strong></p><p> </p><p>My conversation starter was AC vs No AC which is <em>more real</em>.</p><p></p><p> @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=5142" target="_blank">Aldarc</a></u></strong></em> suggested its preferences as you cannot measure what is <em>more real</em> between AC vs Absorption mechanic. Mostly dealt with above.</p><p></p><p> @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=16814" target="_blank">Ovinomancer</a></u></strong></em> said he would measure <em>more realism</em> at the fiction level not via processes and described a 'GM decides' game which inputs <em>realistic</em> results via GM narration. Have to give this more thought. </p><p></p><p> @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6785785" target="_blank">hawkeyefan</a></u></strong></em> is ok with the terminology <em>more realism</em> except when measuring system vs system, a little similar to Aldarc as he follows the line of preferences which I understand, but probably no surprise to him, I disagree with the BitD example he used - it is TOTALLY gamist and we probably won't agree. In this specific instance I would probably side with Max. </p><p></p><p> @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=82106" target="_blank">AbdulAlhazred</a></u></strong></em> returns to the semantic debate and prefers the term <em>more authentic</em> giving his reasons for the use of either term as he views it. I may not agree entirely, but my interest does not lie in the semantic debate. I'm ok with the term <em>more authentic</em> as I've said many times, I was using the <em>more realism</em> term as a shorthand for a great many things. </p><p></p><p> @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em> reiterates everyone else's point in his first two replies (which is where I am). Where I feel I need to point out, the mechanics giving rise to <em>more realism</em> were always acknowledged as very abstract in design and overly simplistic. i.e. If we fall from a distance in RL we take damage, similarly in the gaming fiction. Are they same or even close in design or outcome, of course not. @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23751" target="_blank">Maxperson</a></u></strong></em> has made this point numerous times, but posters still feel the need to mention how poorly mechanics imitate RL.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 7597377, member: 6688277"] Okay due to the number of responses I have only responded to @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=5142"]Aldarc[/URL][/U][/B][/I]'s comment so far, other points I either agree with or haven't really gotten around to them or do not form part of the conversation topic I'm interested in. I also provided a short synopsis of many of the responses below as it makes it easier for me to gather my thoughts. Feel free to correct. Okay, in that instance I can agree with you when one attempts to measure up differing mechanics which are attempting to do the same thing (AC versus Absorption for instance). it does come down to subjectivity. Would you agree though, for the sake of the argument, if we look at D&D solely and said the next edition of D&D will either have an AC mechanic (as it does now) or every attack will be considered successful, no die roll required. If you have to compare those two scenarios - is one [I]more realistic/authentic[/I] than the other or do you feel that still comes down to preferences: those that wish to role dice and those that don't. Personally I feel at this point it cannot be just preferences and that there is a case for [I]insert preferred buzzword[/I], either wearing armour protects your character in some way, however abstract, or it is just cosmetic. [B]SYNOPSIS[/B] My conversation starter was AC vs No AC which is [I]more real[/I]. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=5142"]Aldarc[/URL][/U][/B][/I] suggested its preferences as you cannot measure what is [I]more real[/I] between AC vs Absorption mechanic. Mostly dealt with above. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=16814"]Ovinomancer[/URL][/U][/B][/I] said he would measure [I]more realism[/I] at the fiction level not via processes and described a 'GM decides' game which inputs [I]realistic[/I] results via GM narration. Have to give this more thought. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6785785"]hawkeyefan[/URL][/U][/B][/I] is ok with the terminology [I]more realism[/I] except when measuring system vs system, a little similar to Aldarc as he follows the line of preferences which I understand, but probably no surprise to him, I disagree with the BitD example he used - it is TOTALLY gamist and we probably won't agree. In this specific instance I would probably side with Max. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=82106"]AbdulAlhazred[/URL][/U][/B][/I] returns to the semantic debate and prefers the term [I]more authentic[/I] giving his reasons for the use of either term as he views it. I may not agree entirely, but my interest does not lie in the semantic debate. I'm ok with the term [I]more authentic[/I] as I've said many times, I was using the [I]more realism[/I] term as a shorthand for a great many things. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I] reiterates everyone else's point in his first two replies (which is where I am). Where I feel I need to point out, the mechanics giving rise to [I]more realism[/I] were always acknowledged as very abstract in design and overly simplistic. i.e. If we fall from a distance in RL we take damage, similarly in the gaming fiction. Are they same or even close in design or outcome, of course not. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23751"]Maxperson[/URL][/U][/B][/I] has made this point numerous times, but posters still feel the need to mention how poorly mechanics imitate RL. [/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