A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
I don't agree. Indexing a made up number to represent a fictional effect is pretty different on the arbitrary scale from setting the already existing and defined second (which could be traced back to an arbitrary decision, yes) to a measurable, physical phenomenon. That assignation was actually removing arbitrariness from the definition of a second.
The history of time is actually pretty interesting, and is much less based on arbitrary decisions as it was on astronomical observations and daily usefulness. It was a considered choice, based on serious thought and physical observation.
Also, not 0 Kelvin, near 0 Kelvin. We can't get to 0 Kelvin, maybe ever.
I am not saying that there was not serious thought put into it and on the other hand it is as arbitrary as hell.
I dont make the definitions, I just think them up and write them down.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Um. You know Max posted the definition of arbitrary upthread, right? I prefer Merriam-Webster, myself, but the dictionary.com version does okay. You should have another look.
Gah, now I feel dirty. I hate arguing definitions.
Another one you might want to double check. I looked at Wikipedia, and it doesn't say 0 K, either.
Ok so we wont debate the whose arbitrary definition of arbitrary is correct but I really do have to laugh when in a thread about how the game world is not like real life someone tells me that the definition that I literally cut and paste from the Wiki does not say what the Wiki says.
So tell me again how real is real life when that happens?
Neonchameleon
Legend
For myself being on the verge of dying from injury but those injuries in no way slowing you down or making it harder for you to climb or swing a sword is far more unrealistic than merely recovering fast. When I want realism I break out a system that wasn't originally written by someone who called realism "the refuge of scoundrels". GURPS or Apocalypse World for preference but even the World of Darkness rules are significantly more realistic than D&D.
And going right back to the start of the thread no a GM telling the players about the gameworld isn't like real life. There are however two different approaches - do you go for an extremely low rez version of real life (which the GM telling matches) or do you go for something that rhymes with real life (when the players get to specify things because their characters know the setting and know what to expect).
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Cool. Enjoy!
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
In my first response to you I gave the broad definition of what realism is. I'm still giving the same definition. If I've moved any goal posts, it's to move them back to where they belonged after some here have moved them first.
Pretty much everything is on the spectrum since it covers 100% unrealsitic to 100% realistic. All that's left to do is take something on the spectrum and either leave it where it's at, make it less realistic, or make it more realistic. Let's take D&D magic. Magic exists as a concept in the real world, so there's X level of realism involved with D&D magic. However, just because it's magic doesn't mean that you cannot make it more realistic. You could for example, remove the magic mechanics as D&D provides them, and in their place put in a magic/worship system called Voodoo, then do research and make the new system closely mirror what real world Voodoo is supposed to be able to do. Bam! A more realistic magic system.
If I wanted to do that, it doesn't matter than ultimately my magic system will still not mirror the real world version of voodoo, or that magic doesn't exist in the real world. It still has a measure of realism due to it's relation to the real world Voodoo religion/magic and the closer I make it in the game, the more realistic it will be.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
This is true, but we then go back to some unrealistic things being necessary for the game to play. Let's talk combat. It's unrealistic in the extreme that my PC standing 10 feet from the door can't get out before the 20 goblins who won initiative all move 30 feet and dash 30 more to cut off my escape. However, if we start trying to play combat like real life where everyone can react in real time to what creatures are doing near them, the game would bog down to the point where combat is simply unplayable.
Introducing a wound system where the pain from injuries starts to inhibit PCs to the point anywhere near what happens in the real world would make combat miserable for most people. Some intense simulationists might enjoy it, but most of us would rather scratch a chalkboard with our fingernails 10 times in a row. Making healing a bit more realistic, though, that's going to be acceptable to a good percentage of people who play the game.
This is an empirical claim, about what is possible in game design and game play, and I don't think it's true. It's not that hard to have a combat resolution system that gives the goblins a chance to cut you off, but equally gives you a chance to escape. Modern D&D stop-motion resolution is a very particular way of doing combat resolution, that is far from universal and that I don't think I had even come across before 3E was published.
Similar Threads
