Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Slight correction: the BoH allows you to skip over (most of) the encumbrance mini-game. You still need to know what you've got in the bag.
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
darkbard
Legend
I could go on for ages answering this, but it's late so I'll just give the Reader's Digest version.
Why does this add to my sense of realism? Simply put, because reality happens sequentially. Time only moves in one* direction. Therefore realism suggests you do things at the table in a sequence based on the time sequence in the fiction: you choose your gear first because that is what happens first, and then you attempt the score. (and before any of that you do your research/casing/etc. to inform your gear choices, among other things)
Playing through the score first and then blaming failure post-hoc on choice of gear is unrealistic and inauthentic for two reasons: first, there's no way of knowing what the player/character would actually have chosen (as opposed to whatever the failure result said she didn't have) had she been able to do her own choosing; and second, because it goes backward in time in the fiction and puts the effect before the cause.
* - if the particular game/campaign has established that its fictional time behaves abnormally then all bets are off; but such campaigns are rather uncommon I think.
If the above makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again when I'm more awake.
Thanks for the response; I don't find it lacking in details in the least.
If I were to summarize your view, I guess it would be something like the sequential narrative mirroring the sequencing of events in real life is a high priority. While I don't share that priority (and disagree that this makes for a "more realistic" game), I certainly understand why you might hold such a priority.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Yup. Prefering this kind of sim play is cool, but it doesn't make the fiction any more "realistic". You can do this and still have unrealistic outcomes (the fighter that survives the fireball but none of his gear does, frex).
"Realism" doesn't depend on a specific mode of play. This has been the point since the OP.
darkbard
Legend
True enough. But it's a hill some are prepared to die upon!
Sepulchrave II
Legend
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] – my apologies. My previous posts were rather acidic.
Ironically, I suspect my actual play style hews closer to yours than, say, pemerton’s. But I think it's important to realize that every individual experience is unique; I cannot assert that “I experience [Y] more authentically than you because of [X].” This seems especially germane to any imaginative endeavour.
I am fascinated by the idea of a “sub-reality” to the game – for want of a better term. Mechanical assumptions upon which the game world is built; it is what draws me to games such as Crusader Kings – a desire to crack the algorithms which underpin the universe. System mastery and resource management scratches an itch for me. And I find playing with those systems a source of genuine creative inspiration. For me, the mechanical "sub-reality" acts as a springboard for my imagination, often by way of a challenge - i.e. how can I make the game world comport with what the numbers tell me.
But this is not true for all. I know a number of people for whom it is an honest impediment to their sense of immersion. It disrupts their subjective experience of realism.
Ironically, I suspect my actual play style hews closer to yours than, say, pemerton’s. But I think it's important to realize that every individual experience is unique; I cannot assert that “I experience [Y] more authentically than you because of [X].” This seems especially germane to any imaginative endeavour.
I am fascinated by the idea of a “sub-reality” to the game – for want of a better term. Mechanical assumptions upon which the game world is built; it is what draws me to games such as Crusader Kings – a desire to crack the algorithms which underpin the universe. System mastery and resource management scratches an itch for me. And I find playing with those systems a source of genuine creative inspiration. For me, the mechanical "sub-reality" acts as a springboard for my imagination, often by way of a challenge - i.e. how can I make the game world comport with what the numbers tell me.
But this is not true for all. I know a number of people for whom it is an honest impediment to their sense of immersion. It disrupts their subjective experience of realism.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Thank you very much.
I think that the unique experiences are where the subjectivity comes in. Lets say that X is more realistic than Y, but will person A may not think X is as realistic as person B does, and person B may not think it's fun, while person a might have a blast with it.
I agree. Even at a single table you can have 4 different people who are looking for 4 different things or combination of things out of a game. At my table I have 1 guy who in addition to roleplaying, like to figure out the builds that are strongest. He will plan out his characters from level 1-20 before the campaign even begins. Never mind that game play changes his plan multiple times, as things that happen to his character during play influence the direction his PC goes. He just likes to calculate things. Rules are very important to him. A second guy just likes to roleplay and the number mean very little to him. Periodically we will look at his sheet and discover that he hasn't leveled up some parts of his character in like 2-3 levels and we will help him out. During 3e skill points were the major offender. His dad, who I have been playing D&D with since 1984, also puts roleplaying at the top, but he will pay attention to the numbers as a way to flesh out his roleplaying. He plans somewhat, but not for power. He also likes the "rule of cool," and rules tend to take backseat to what makes sense and/or what is cool. My last player also likes to plan, but not to the extent that the first player does. He also likes rules, but that will take second seat to the rule of cool. Unlike the first player, though, he will occasionally take a sub-optimal choice if it fits his character. Roleplaying is important to him as well.
When you have people who look for different things, it's important to at least be able to integrate them somehow. At my table roleplaying is the key point. It's important enough to everyone that even though some other things can cause frustration(Player #1 vs. the guy who often forgets to level), those things are acceptable since the primary motivator is present across the board. People who are too different will often not be able to play together. It also helps that we have all been friends for anywhere from 15-35 years.
Sepulchrave II
Legend
But in the example I give, Y is a subjective cognitive state, not a function of "reality." That's the point. There is no real "Y" which exists independently of the experiencer.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
But it is a shared imagined space and we all know what reality is. Therefore, we can all imagine that X will make Y shared imaged space more realistic. We may disagree on the amount of added realism, and/or the value of it, but it's not hard for us to understand what increased realism is for the imagined space we are sharing.
Sepulchrave II
Legend
You continue to presuppose a priori what "realistic" means. It means different things to each of us. When pemerton writes that adding a table for weapon deterioration does nothing to increase his sense of realism, I am inclined to take him at his word.
Fundamentally, your argument is circular: I believe this because I believe it. My snarkiness about faith notwithstanding, it is a mode of argumentation I generally tend to encounter amongst biblical scholars.
Consider what I wrote earlier:
Me said:
Now substitute your assertion:
"I experience [the feeling of verisimilitude] more authentically than you because of [the rules which I favor]."
On what basis do you declare an insight into something which I feel, and how can you measure it against your own subjective feelings?
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
Whetstone 1 cp l lb.
Similar Threads
