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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7602203" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>You are wrong. I don't know what you're defending.</p><p></p><p>As I already posted, I GMed Rolemaster continuously for about 19 years. As you may know, the slogan for RM is "Get Real, Get Rolemaster". I own and have read dozens of RM rulebooks, containing dozens and dozens of mechanical subsystems. I'm familiar with the concept of "realism" in RPGing.</p><p></p><p>But I can't make sense of what you're arguing for. For instance, you seem to be saying that RPGs are more realistic than they might otherwise be because they contain such real-world phenomena as objects falling to earth when dropped, or people wielding swords that hurt others when struck by them. That seems to be using, as a criterion of "realism", <em>the presence of real-world phenomena in the fiction</em>.</p><p></p><p>But you appear to deny that introducing content such as disease, or damaged weaons, as an element of narration increases the realism of the fiction. I don't know why. My sense is that when you deny that GM narration of such things as diseases, maimed limbs, notched weapons, etc is a way of introducing realism you are using a different criterion - one which emphasises <em>mechanical system</em>. (This is what Rolemaster means when it talks about realism. RM eschews GM narration as a way to establish fictional elements.)</p><p></p><p>You also appear to have asserted that a system for generating RPG content that is triggered by extraneous events - like clocks chiming or feline flatulance - is not a realistic one. And that also seems to be using, as a criterion of "realism", <em>the process whereby the fiction is established.</em></p><p></p><p>I don't know how to reconcile what seems to me to be an oscillation between two different criteria for realism. And I don't know how to reconcile either candidate criterion with what seems to be a further claim you're making, nmaley, that <em>any</em> well-intentioned mechanical/dice-oriented system for introducing content is per se an increase in realism, regardless of whether that system and the outcomes it produces correlates in any genuine fashion to reality.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure you have something in mind that makes sense of all of the above. But I don't know what it is.</p><p></p><p>One thing I do know is that, despite invitations by me and many other posters to draw distinctinos like the ones I'm drawing - say, between <em>the content of the fiction</em> and <em>the method for generating that content</em> - you have not done so. I don't know why you don't. And the fact that you don't only makes it harder for me to work out what you have in mind.</p><p></p><p>See, the olnly person I know who uses the word "realism" like this is you. Everyone else I know would say that if the system you implement produces unrealistic incidences of swords breaking, then it in fact has not increased realism and may have decreased it.</p><p></p><p>In your usage, a player who says <em>The game was more realistic without that silly subsystem</em> is literally engaged in self-contradiction. Whereas it strikes me as obvious that a player who says such a thing not only is not engaged in self-contradictio, but might be saying something true!</p><p></p><p>One of your more recent comments has only confused me all the more, namely, your suggestion that the system of damage dice in D&D is an instance of realism. Because that's not even pointing to a real-world phenomenon. Swords are longer than daggers, and hence give better reach; I suspect they may be better for parrying (for similar reasons). But is a sword twice as "stabby" as a dagger (4.5 vs 2.5 average damage)? What does that question even mean? Damage dice perform a clear function in the game, but the notion that they map "realism" in any serious way is something that I can't even make sense of. And that's <em>before </em>we even get onto the relationship between hit points as a damage mechanic and "realism".</p><p></p><p>When RM advocates talk about <em>increasing realism</em> I know what they have in mind: more systems that (i) will produce in-fiction events that roughly correlate (in character and frequency) to real-world events, and (ii) involve a granularity of process that more-or-less reflects what happens in the real world, <em>especially</em> as far as key decision-points are concerned. Mere narration doesn't cut it. And it would never occur to them to point to equipement lists with metal longswords on them as evidence of realism: even Tunnels & Trolls has that!</p><p></p><p>I have a certain fondness for the RM aesthetic. I don't play RM anymore, but two systems that I do play - Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller - have aspects that resemble RM quite closely.</p><p></p><p>But you aren't advocating for the RM aesthetic. You oscilllate between <em>fictional content</em> and <em>content-generating processes</em> as your criterion for realism. And you seem to deny that realism in any way depends on the relationshiop between the frequency of ingame events and the frequency of their real-world correlates. And you point to stuff that has virtually no meaning outside of its mechanical context - like weapon damage dice - as instances of realism.</p><p></p><p>When I say that I don't understand what the position is that you're defending, I'm quite sincere.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7602203, member: 42582"] You are wrong. I don't know what you're defending. As I already posted, I GMed Rolemaster continuously for about 19 years. As you may know, the slogan for RM is "Get Real, Get Rolemaster". I own and have read dozens of RM rulebooks, containing dozens and dozens of mechanical subsystems. I'm familiar with the concept of "realism" in RPGing. But I can't make sense of what you're arguing for. For instance, you seem to be saying that RPGs are more realistic than they might otherwise be because they contain such real-world phenomena as objects falling to earth when dropped, or people wielding swords that hurt others when struck by them. That seems to be using, as a criterion of "realism", [I]the presence of real-world phenomena in the fiction[/I]. But you appear to deny that introducing content such as disease, or damaged weaons, as an element of narration increases the realism of the fiction. I don't know why. My sense is that when you deny that GM narration of such things as diseases, maimed limbs, notched weapons, etc is a way of introducing realism you are using a different criterion - one which emphasises [I]mechanical system[/I]. (This is what Rolemaster means when it talks about realism. RM eschews GM narration as a way to establish fictional elements.) You also appear to have asserted that a system for generating RPG content that is triggered by extraneous events - like clocks chiming or feline flatulance - is not a realistic one. And that also seems to be using, as a criterion of "realism", [I]the process whereby the fiction is established.[/I] I don't know how to reconcile what seems to me to be an oscillation between two different criteria for realism. And I don't know how to reconcile either candidate criterion with what seems to be a further claim you're making, nmaley, that [I]any[/I] well-intentioned mechanical/dice-oriented system for introducing content is per se an increase in realism, regardless of whether that system and the outcomes it produces correlates in any genuine fashion to reality. I'm sure you have something in mind that makes sense of all of the above. But I don't know what it is. One thing I do know is that, despite invitations by me and many other posters to draw distinctinos like the ones I'm drawing - say, between [I]the content of the fiction[/I] and [I]the method for generating that content[/I] - you have not done so. I don't know why you don't. And the fact that you don't only makes it harder for me to work out what you have in mind. See, the olnly person I know who uses the word "realism" like this is you. Everyone else I know would say that if the system you implement produces unrealistic incidences of swords breaking, then it in fact has not increased realism and may have decreased it. In your usage, a player who says [I]The game was more realistic without that silly subsystem[/I] is literally engaged in self-contradiction. Whereas it strikes me as obvious that a player who says such a thing not only is not engaged in self-contradictio, but might be saying something true! One of your more recent comments has only confused me all the more, namely, your suggestion that the system of damage dice in D&D is an instance of realism. Because that's not even pointing to a real-world phenomenon. Swords are longer than daggers, and hence give better reach; I suspect they may be better for parrying (for similar reasons). But is a sword twice as "stabby" as a dagger (4.5 vs 2.5 average damage)? What does that question even mean? Damage dice perform a clear function in the game, but the notion that they map "realism" in any serious way is something that I can't even make sense of. And that's [I]before [/I]we even get onto the relationship between hit points as a damage mechanic and "realism". When RM advocates talk about [I]increasing realism[/I] I know what they have in mind: more systems that (i) will produce in-fiction events that roughly correlate (in character and frequency) to real-world events, and (ii) involve a granularity of process that more-or-less reflects what happens in the real world, [I]especially[/I] as far as key decision-points are concerned. Mere narration doesn't cut it. And it would never occur to them to point to equipement lists with metal longswords on them as evidence of realism: even Tunnels & Trolls has that! I have a certain fondness for the RM aesthetic. I don't play RM anymore, but two systems that I do play - Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller - have aspects that resemble RM quite closely. But you aren't advocating for the RM aesthetic. You oscilllate between [I]fictional content[/I] and [I]content-generating processes[/I] as your criterion for realism. And you seem to deny that realism in any way depends on the relationshiop between the frequency of ingame events and the frequency of their real-world correlates. And you point to stuff that has virtually no meaning outside of its mechanical context - like weapon damage dice - as instances of realism. When I say that I don't understand what the position is that you're defending, I'm quite sincere. [/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