A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is one of the few people whose word I won't take on things like this. Not because I think he's lying, but rather because he's notorious for redefining terms to fit his needs and expecting others to either conform to them, or at least accept his personal definition.


"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?
I think people are capable of recognizing reality in an imagined space, and if they can recognize reality when they "see" it, they can recognize shifts in it. It can't really be quantified for the reasons I've given, but they can tell if something is becoming more or less realistic.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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. :)

Well...

Even the 1e 01-30 quality BoH will accommodate 250 pounds worth of gear of up to 30 cubic feet. While you couldn't put ridiculous stuff in that space it is enough to hold a heck of a lot of ordinary dungeoneering type equipment. Enough that only highly unusual situations would require you to keep track of it beyond "when I go to town I replenish whatever was used up." You could carry 100's of feet of rope, dozens of spikes, many bags, backpacks, belts, pairs of spare boots, 100's of torches, dozens of flasks of oil, several lanterns, and many other supplies of a diverse nature without exceeding that limit.

If you are blessed with even an average bag of holding, up that to 500 pounds and 70 cubic feet, which certainly seems like enough to carry many suits of armor, a small arsenal of weapons, and all the stuff mentioned above.

And of course if you happen to be lucky enough to have a Portable Hole! Heh, forget it, you're set. The hole is presumably 6' in diameter, by 10' deep, which means a bit over 300 cubic feet in size and there is no weight limit. My 1e Wizard actually figured out how to equip a fairly usable magical laboratory in his!

Of course, all of these items could well be quite rare. Still, they do kinda pretty much subvert the basic logistics game.
 

pemerton

Legend
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.
Generally I agree with the thrust of your posts, but just wanted to come in on this given I was mentioned:

I accept the proposition that weapons can deteriorate through use. I think there are a range of ways of introducing this into the fiction: mere background colour, as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] suggested; as narrated consequence of failure in a system that permits that (Prince Valiant would be an example; so would Burning Wheel; so, I believe though not from experience but from posts in this thread, would be BitD); via a GM-side complication mechanic (which is how Cortex+ Heroic handles it); and via a randomisation mechanic annexed to the attack roll resolution process, which is what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to have in mind.

Any of these might contribute to a sense of realism, depending on details of implementation. I think the lattermost is also often liable to detract from it, if (i) it generates implausible frequencies (too many to be taken seriously; or so convoluted an unlikely that it never comes up, thus not engendering the realistic/authentic experience that was looked for in the first place), or (ii) it creates an implausible contrast with other salient features of play (eg why do our weapons always break but our pitons and armour never do?).
 

I think people are capable of recognizing reality in an imagined space, and if they can recognize reality when they "see" it, they can recognize shifts in it. It can't really be quantified for the reasons I've given, but they can tell if something is becoming more or less realistic.

But, if you read the posts earlier discussing the way BitD introduces an element into the game via its architecture and mechanics which could be seen as more realistic, but where that realism is in terms of 'authenticity of the narrated outcome' vs 'authenticity of the process' (which [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] argued for) then you must know that at least these two deeply differing sorts of realism exist, and yet not everyone seems to recognize them, or consider them to be effective at increasing authenticity. It is really just not as simple as 'subsystem X which arbitrates injection of element Y into the game, where element Y exists in the real world is the definition of realism and everyone recognizes that'. Where that true, then your criticisms, or those of [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] etc. would all be super accurate, but they're not because there really truly is no one single agreement about this. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] cares about reality of outcomes, but [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] cares about process (and I assume he would say that outcomes take care of themselves to some degree).
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Any of these might contribute to a sense of realism, depending on details of implementation. I think the lattermost is also often liable to detract from it, if (i) it generates implausible frequencies (too many to be taken seriously; or so convoluted an unlikely that it never comes up, thus not engendering the realistic/authentic experience that was looked for in the first place), or (ii) it creates an implausible contrast with other salient features of play (eg why do our weapons always break but our pitons and armour never do?).

So just a little addition. Were I to implement some sort of breakage system, I would include armor, shield, pitons, and anything else that would be placed in similar situations and could deteriorate/break. I wouldn't limit it to just weapons.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But, if you read the posts earlier discussing the way BitD introduces an element into the game via its architecture and mechanics which could be seen as more realistic, but where that realism is in terms of 'authenticity of the narrated outcome' vs 'authenticity of the process' (which [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] argued for) then you must know that at least these two deeply differing sorts of realism exist, and yet not everyone seems to recognize them, or consider them to be effective at increasing authenticity.

I've already acknowledged multiple times that there are different ways to institute realism into a game. And that people will have different opinions on how much realism any given addition adds to the game. :)
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Whetstone 1 cp l lb.

That's better, but a whetstone can be used to sharpen cutlery, too. There's no rule about caring for weapons, and further, if I were to go around at the next convention at the open gaming area looking at character sheets, how many do you think would have whetstones? I'm going to go with 0, but I could be wrong. Some people still hold over from 1e and buy just about one of everything for their backpacks. It would definitely be a small minority, which means that weapon care isn't happening for the vast majority.
 




Remove ads

Top