The "That's Unrealistic!" Retort Compendium

[StreamOfTheSky]

Mythbusters might be entertaining, but I wouldn't take any of their science that seriously, it is pretty poor experimental science even in the best of their episodes.

I'd laugh if someone tried to use Mythbusters to prove a point.

Yeah, I've never liked that show. I'm not an expert scientist by any stretch, but a lot of their tests I watched didn't seem like definitive proof. Also, they come across as cocky to me, which is a major turn-off.

Not to fill up this thread with all tumble-related stuff, but this is an old (in internet time) classic of using tumble and jump to reduce falling damage.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urpDn4L6GQA[/ame]

 

[JoeGKushner]

I had one GM tell me that I couldn't use one of my powers to knock down a large creature because it wasn't realistic and I was a fighter. He wanted to keep the game realistic. I asked him if that was going to be true for the clerics and wizards powers as well to which he thought about it and changed his mind realizing that the effect was an actual very important part of the game mechanics as opposed to how that effect was delivered.

Since then I've tried to help him 'accept' it by indicating some methods that I'm using when using that knockdown ablity to well, knock down big things like a leg sweep.

In some games, it's probably not as problematic if you've got a GM willing to tell thosep layers that it's high game. It's more often difficult, I've found, when it's the GM going against the rules or the spirit of the rules as to what can be done.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

In some games, it's probably not as problematic if you've got a GM willing to tell thosep layers that it's high game. It's more often difficult, I've found, when it's the GM going against the rules or the spirit of the rules as to what can be done.

Exactly. I'm not advocating trying to use this thread to houserule things beyond what the rules allow. For example, if you wanted to use that armor video to justify changing the tumble rules. If you want to do that, it's cool too, just not the point of this thread. I made this thread for when DMs try and houserule it so you can do LESS than what the RAW actually allows (to follow the armor example, say...a dwarf in full plate told he can't tumble because it's not realistic), which is a major pet peeve of mine. It's those instances, IME, that are both the most maddening/frustrating as well as the most difficult to convince the DM otherwise.

 

[wedgeski]

Mythbusters might be entertaining, but I wouldn't take any of their science that seriously, it is pretty poor experimental science even in the best of their episodes.

They don't claim to be scientists, and they've acknowledged on multiple occasions that their program is there to entertain, but they *do* have method. I think they deserve a little bit more credit than this.

 

[jonesy]

The topic of surviving falls came up in one of the threads. Here's something:
Damn Interesting: Vesna’s Fall

A 10km free fall. Coma, hospitalization, full recovery. Since it was free fall that's pretty much the maximum jump anyway.

Imagine the same with healing magic. You could regularly jump down from orbit.

They don't claim to be scientists, and they've acknowledged on multiple occasions that their program is there to entertain, but they *do* have method. I think they deserve a little bit more credit than this.

And at the very least they make you think. That's valuable tv.

 

[lin_fusan]

This sums up my feelings about Mythbusters:

xkcd: Unscientific

In a culture that appears to be increasingly distrustful of science, scientists, and the scientific method, I feel that Mythbusters at least instills the idea that 1) not everything should be taken a face value, and 2) if you have doubts, there are ways to find out the truth, ie. experimentation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep, at least they're trying to do decent tests.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Boy, being right is serious business.

 

[lin_fusan]

I think this is why I've been gravitating toward cinematic physics rather than realistic physics.

I feel too often that when a DM says that an action isn't realistic, the DM is preventing a player from doing something interesting or cool.

Whereas when a DM says that an action is cinematic, the DM is allowing a player to do something interesting or cool.

With more permissive rulings, stuff happens. With restrictive rulings, stuff doesn't happen. Since I'd rather have stuff happen in a game, I'd rather be cinematic rather than realistic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I may be a tad bit more restrictive, but not by much. I like the term, though: "cinematic realism" or "cinematic physics" has a nice ring to it.

But even I have lines I won't cross; where cinematic becomes silly.