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
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is the worst piece of DM advice people give that you see commonly spread?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9008489" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>If so, I fail to see how that is any different from my description of groundedness:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">feels like the real world (even if it does not actually <em>match</em> real world behavior)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">there are logical world lore consequences (so one can apply naturalistic reasoning, even to fantastical things)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the fantasy elements are clearly established and become the starting point for such reasoning</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">being like reality is not required</li> </ul><p>Is that not pretty clearly how I defined "groundedness" above, just rephrased? Certainly I grant that there are relations between the concept of "verisimilitude" or "realism" and groundedness, there would have to be if people spent so much time talking about the former two when (as I assert) what they were really after was the latter. But my examples, and the question I posed above, were meant to illustrate that when the chips are down and one really actually has to choose between them, verisimilitude (resemblance to that which is true or real) and/or realism (imitation of actually-existing things) will almost always play second fiddle to groundedness (<em>feeling</em> real and supporting intuitive, naturalistic reasoning.) Only when the cost to either of the previous two is inordinately high--high enough to threaten naturalistic reasoning--will they come into play, and as soon as the naturalistic reasoning is restored, they will become secondary priorities again.</p><p></p><p>A pithier way to say that is: groundedness has <em>intrinsic</em> value. Verisimilitude and realism have <em>instrumental</em> value. It takes an avalanche of instrumental value to equal a trickle of intrinsic.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. That does not require any loss of groundedness (and, in fact, <em>supports</em> groundedness, because it shows naturalistic reasoning in action--"wouldn't people want to be warned about dragon attacks? Oh, look, they are! Nice.") But if verisimilitude <em>got in the way</em> of groundedness, the former would be set aside for the latter. I gave my time travel example above, but there are others. For example, spells constantly violate the conservation of energy, but this does not lead to GMs mandating that every <em>fireball</em> must extract an equivalent amount of heat from the environment. (Of course, <em>some</em> will do this, but the vast majority don't.)</p><p></p><p>Instead, many of these physics-required secondary effects are ignored, even though they are theoretically required by hardline commitment to verisimilitude, because naturalistic reasoning does not generally include strict adherence to the statistical laws of thermodynamics. Partly, that's because such statistical laws tend to be really hard to observe; there's a reason we didn't develop kinetic molecular theory until quite late, and why the "caloric fluid" theory of heat held on for so long even though it's almost hilariously wrong by today's standards.</p><p></p><p>Or, consider the implications of conjuring up food. By the rules, conjured food disappears after a time, usually after a day or so. Yet conjured food that is <em>eaten</em> does not disappear. A full-throated commitment to verisimilitude would either have to reject this, or have to come up with a detailed explanation for why conjured food has no ontological inertia when it is uneaten, but gains ontological inertia when it is eaten. Most GMs don't bother with that though, even those who desire highly "realistic" worlds. They just accept that that's how magic works, that that's just a new rule for naturalistic reasoning to operate upon. Hence: the behavior is grounded, even though it is not particularly verisimilitudinous.</p><p></p><p>Many of the implications of hit points, attack rolls and AC, Initiative and combat rounds, and other elements of play fall into this category. <em>Some</em> set of these things will almost always get a verisimilitude-focused explanation. But most of them won't in any given game. They're accepted as things for naturalistic reasoning to operate on; they become part of the "new nature," as it were.</p><p></p><p>TL;DR: I argue the true value folks actually seek is groundedness, and verisimilitude/realism are merely tools used to get there. In almost all cases, if there <em>really is</em> no choice but to either sacrifice groundedness for versimilitude/realism, OR sacrifice versimilitude/realism for groundedness, folks will choose the latter. Because these things are related and verisimilitude/realism is often a useful tool for <em>achieving</em> groundedness, such sacrifices are rare. Oftentimes, when a potential conflict arises, time will be set aside for finding a way to reconcile it without needing to make that sacrifice. But if it really, truly is <em>absolutely unavoidable</em>, the intrinsic value of groundedness will in most cases trump the instrumental value of verisimilitude/realism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9008489, member: 6790260"] If so, I fail to see how that is any different from my description of groundedness: [LIST] [*]feels like the real world (even if it does not actually [I]match[/I] real world behavior) [*]there are logical world lore consequences (so one can apply naturalistic reasoning, even to fantastical things) [*]the fantasy elements are clearly established and become the starting point for such reasoning [*]being like reality is not required [/LIST] Is that not pretty clearly how I defined "groundedness" above, just rephrased? Certainly I grant that there are relations between the concept of "verisimilitude" or "realism" and groundedness, there would have to be if people spent so much time talking about the former two when (as I assert) what they were really after was the latter. But my examples, and the question I posed above, were meant to illustrate that when the chips are down and one really actually has to choose between them, verisimilitude (resemblance to that which is true or real) and/or realism (imitation of actually-existing things) will almost always play second fiddle to groundedness ([I]feeling[/I] real and supporting intuitive, naturalistic reasoning.) Only when the cost to either of the previous two is inordinately high--high enough to threaten naturalistic reasoning--will they come into play, and as soon as the naturalistic reasoning is restored, they will become secondary priorities again. A pithier way to say that is: groundedness has [I]intrinsic[/I] value. Verisimilitude and realism have [I]instrumental[/I] value. It takes an avalanche of instrumental value to equal a trickle of intrinsic. Sure. That does not require any loss of groundedness (and, in fact, [I]supports[/I] groundedness, because it shows naturalistic reasoning in action--"wouldn't people want to be warned about dragon attacks? Oh, look, they are! Nice.") But if verisimilitude [I]got in the way[/I] of groundedness, the former would be set aside for the latter. I gave my time travel example above, but there are others. For example, spells constantly violate the conservation of energy, but this does not lead to GMs mandating that every [I]fireball[/I] must extract an equivalent amount of heat from the environment. (Of course, [I]some[/I] will do this, but the vast majority don't.) Instead, many of these physics-required secondary effects are ignored, even though they are theoretically required by hardline commitment to verisimilitude, because naturalistic reasoning does not generally include strict adherence to the statistical laws of thermodynamics. Partly, that's because such statistical laws tend to be really hard to observe; there's a reason we didn't develop kinetic molecular theory until quite late, and why the "caloric fluid" theory of heat held on for so long even though it's almost hilariously wrong by today's standards. Or, consider the implications of conjuring up food. By the rules, conjured food disappears after a time, usually after a day or so. Yet conjured food that is [I]eaten[/I] does not disappear. A full-throated commitment to verisimilitude would either have to reject this, or have to come up with a detailed explanation for why conjured food has no ontological inertia when it is uneaten, but gains ontological inertia when it is eaten. Most GMs don't bother with that though, even those who desire highly "realistic" worlds. They just accept that that's how magic works, that that's just a new rule for naturalistic reasoning to operate upon. Hence: the behavior is grounded, even though it is not particularly verisimilitudinous. Many of the implications of hit points, attack rolls and AC, Initiative and combat rounds, and other elements of play fall into this category. [I]Some[/I] set of these things will almost always get a verisimilitude-focused explanation. But most of them won't in any given game. They're accepted as things for naturalistic reasoning to operate on; they become part of the "new nature," as it were. TL;DR: I argue the true value folks actually seek is groundedness, and verisimilitude/realism are merely tools used to get there. In almost all cases, if there [I]really is[/I] no choice but to either sacrifice groundedness for versimilitude/realism, OR sacrifice versimilitude/realism for groundedness, folks will choose the latter. Because these things are related and verisimilitude/realism is often a useful tool for [I]achieving[/I] groundedness, such sacrifices are rare. Oftentimes, when a potential conflict arises, time will be set aside for finding a way to reconcile it without needing to make that sacrifice. But if it really, truly is [I]absolutely unavoidable[/I], the intrinsic value of groundedness will in most cases trump the instrumental value of verisimilitude/realism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is the worst piece of DM advice people give that you see commonly spread?
Top