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

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] This is all well and good....although the Non-Living Meat Ward seems to be about as troubling as Otiluke’s OCD Sequential Backpack Exploder spell!

I’ll grant you that the D&D method “beats” the Blades method in relation to sequentiality. I’ll say that I absolutely understand the reason that you prefer that method.

My point is that the Blades method “beats” the D&D method in that it reflects the knowledge and capability of the character and removes the limitation that the player’s knowledge places on the character.

Change the word "reflects" to "pre-supposes" in the bit I bolded - as this is also true - and you might get an insight on my issue with it: it allows for pre-supposing of knowledge that the character in the fiction would not have, in situations where something unforeseen or unexpected arises. Either that, or it pre-supposes a constant and perhaps artificially high level of success in the scouting/casing/information gathering process.

Note too that 'unforeseen' and 'unexpected' both imply things a capable character might still have missed while casing the place; and while a dog might well have been foreseen or prepared for by a competent thief it was the simplest example of a missed element I could think of at the time.

Removing the limitation of the player is fine, and I can see the benefits particularly for those newer to the game. But it comes at a cost of - call it realism or believability or authenticity* or whichever term fits - where the character in the fiction never (or much less often) has to say "Oops, I didn't prepare for this!". It also intentionally violates the principle of "player knowledge = character knowledge" but in an unusual way: most often this comes up when players use out-of-game knowledge their PCs don't have; here it's the reverse, where assumed character knowledge trumps actual player knowledge.

* - authenticity gets an asterisk as while this issue affects authenticity as per the real world it does not affect authenticity within the game world, which remains - as it should - authentic to itself.

So, given this, would you agree that each method appeals to realism, albeit a different aspect of realism? And if you can, then can you see why I’m saying that which works best for a given person is just a matter of preference?

I agree they both (try to) reflect realism in their own way. Neither are fully successful, of course, so it comes down to determining which one gets closer.

If not, then please quantify the two methods for me using an actual metric other than opinion in order to prove one is more realistic than the other.

I thought I already did, unless you're looking for some sort of hard-numbers comparison - in which case you're out of luck, in that any attempt to put numbers on any of this will just lead us back away from realism and into abstraction.

 

[Lanefan]

This seems like circular reasoning, Max. You assert something as being self-evident, namely in the bold. When asked for clarification or support for that thesis, you just repeat the thesis again as if it were objective truth. This sort of circular reasoning is the primary point of disconnect and frustration that I suspect many of us are having with your argumentation.

Except he's right, at least in this much: any attempt - no matter how badly done or off the mark it may be - is better than no attempt.

Why is this? Because once the (or an) attempt has been made it's much easier to build on that attempt, refine it, and improve it than it is to start from scratch.

 

[Hriston]

Dude. When you responded with whetstone, you quoted me asking for a rule. While I was not asking you specifically for a rule, I was asking for a rule.

No, I didn’t, and no, you weren’t. Your claims are false, and you ought to know it. If you think they’re true, show me where you asked for a rule in a post I quoted or to which I responded. As far as I can tell, the claim that there’s no rule is something you started saying after I provided the whetstone as an answer to your request for “a listed part of the game”, to which I was clearly responding. I’ve agreed twice now that there’s no rule, but there is a listed game-element, namely the whetstone. It shows that blades are assumed to become dull through use in worlds of D&D.

 

[Aldarc]

Except he's right, at least in this much: any attempt - no matter how badly done or off the mark it may be - is better than no attempt.

Why is this? Because once the (or an) attempt has been made it's much easier to build on that attempt, refine it, and improve it than it is to start from scratch.

Except that asserted assumption rests on a proposition that is neither inherently true nor logically consequential.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I didn’t, and no, you weren’t. Your claims are false, and you ought to know it. If you think they’re true, show me where you asked for a rule in a post I quoted or to which I responded.

Since your memory is shot, here you go.

Quote Originally Posted by Maxperson View Post
That does nothing to change the fact that if weapons don't get dull, as they do not in D&D, adding in the ability to get dull is an increase in realism.

<snip>

For you to show a counter example, you would have to show in the D&D rules where care of weapons is a listed part of the game.

Whetstone 1 cp l lb.

It shows that blades are assumed to become dull through use in worlds of D&D.

This is patently false. If you were to play in a game with me and you bought a whetstone and I did not, going through the exact same encounters with identical characters and weaponry, we would finish the campaign with weapons in identical condition. There is no such assumption as weapons simply do not deteriorate. At all. The whetstone exists solely to provide people who want it, with a prop for roleplay.

 

[Hriston]

Since your memory is shot, here you go.

Are you saying that the whetstone is not a listed part of the game or that it's not in the D&D rules? Since it's in the PHB, I'd say it's in the rules. Does that make it a rule? I'll leave that up to you, but I think it's definitely a listed part of the game, so it meets both your criteria.

This is patently false. If you were to play in a game with me and you bought a whetstone and I did not, going through the exact same encounters with identical characters and weaponry, we would finish the campaign with weapons in identical condition. There is no such assumption as weapons simply do not deteriorate. At all. The whetstone exists solely to provide people who want it, with a prop for roleplay.

What are they roleplaying their characters as doing when using this item? Sharpening their weapons you say? Why are they sharpening their weapons if blades do not become dull in their world? Could it be that I am roleplaying that part of my PC's activities while you are not and that your PC has his/her blade sharpened off-screen, perhaps by a specialist during downtime?

 

[Maxperson]

Are you saying that the whetstone is not a listed part of the game or that it's not in the D&D rules?

Items are not rules.

but I think it's definitely a listed part of the game, so it meets both your criteria.

My criteria was D&D rules, so it fails to meet it. You don't get to change my criteria.

What are they roleplaying their characters as doing when using this item?

Wasting time and energy.

Sharpening their weapons you say?

No. I don't say.

Why are they sharpening their weapons if blades do not become dull in their world?

To make themselves feel better. OCD. Who knows, but it's not to sharpen the weapons.

Could it be that I am roleplaying that part of my PC's activities while you are not and that your PC has his/her blade sharpened off-screen, perhaps by a specialist during downtime?

No.

If the rules do not state that weapons get dull, they do not unless the DM adds it in. Suppose I'm playing in Undermountain or another campaign where there is no specialist or other off-screen way to sharpen weapons. What happens to my sword? Absolutely nothing. The game does not include weapon deterioration.

 

[Hriston]

Items are not rules.

They are listed parts of the game found in the D&D rules, which is exactly what you were asking for.

My criteria was D&D rules, so it fails to meet it. You don't get to change my criteria.

I haven't changed anything. You stipulated a requirement to be shown where care of weapons is a listed part of the game in the D&D rules. I showed you it's in the equipment list.

Wasting time and energy.

Really? The whetstone is included so players can roleplay their characters as time-wasters? Somehow I don't think that's the intent of that game-element.

No. I don't say.

Then what? What's the item for, if bladed weapons don't get dull, seriously?

To make themselves feel better. OCD. Who knows, but it's not to sharpen the weapons.

I seriously doubt that the whetstone is listed as an item so players can play deluded characters, or characters with personality disorders. I think it's intended as a piece of equipment with the function for which it was designed. I.e., the item exists in the game-world because blades becoming dull is a phenomenon in that game-world.

No.

So if I declare that my character spends part of a short rest following a fight sharpening his sword with a whetstone to keep it sharp for the next fight, is your character going to wonder why in the world my character would hold on to such a ridiculous superstition as blades becoming dull?

If the rules do not state that weapons get dull, they do not unless the DM adds it in. Suppose I'm playing in Undermountain or another campaign where there is no specialist or other off-screen way to sharpen weapons. What happens to my sword? Absolutely nothing. The game does not include weapon deterioration.

Then what’s the whetstone for? It’s in the game. It’s in the rules. Weapons get dull. I think what you mean to say is that the way weapons get dull isn’t implemented to your liking, in which case you’re free to house-rule it.

 

[Maxperson]

Really? The whetstone is included so players can roleplay their characters as time-wasters? Somehow I don't think that's the intent of that game-element.

Show me the rules for weapon deterioration then. If you can do that, I will concede that weapon deterioration is in the game.

Then what? What's the item for, if bladed weapons don't get dull, seriously?

Not weapon deterioration. It doesn't exist in 5e. If it did, you could quote me the rule.

I seriously doubt that the whetstone is listed as an item so players can play deluded characters, or characters with personality disorders. I think it's intended as a piece of equipment with the function for which it was designed. I.e., the item exists in the game-world because blades becoming dull is a phenomenon in that game-world.

Again, if this were true you could in fact show me the rule for weapon deterioration. Since you are making the claim that it exists, quote it.

So if I declare that my character spends part of a short rest following a fight sharpening his sword with a whetstone to keep it sharp for the next fight, is your character going to wonder why in the world my character would hold on to such a ridiculous superstition as blades becoming dull?

You can say it all you like, but my PC who is right next to you with the exact same type of short sword purchased at the exact same time and used in the exact same fights, will have an equally sharp short sword despite never once having sharpened it. Why? Because weapons simply do not get dull in 5e.

I think what you mean to say is that the way weapons get dull isn’t implemented to your liking, in which case you’re free to house-rule it.

There's nothing to house rule. There are no rules that state that weapons deteriorate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay, gotcha. By “greater” you mean in the sense of being “more meaningful to the individual”.



Here’s where I don’t think your take holds up. There’s no objective addition. There is only a sense of realism, which will vary from person to person.

I don’t think you’ve established this objectivity that you insist is present. I don’t think it can be established.

This is exactly why I used the label 'authenticity'. There's no consideration of ACTUAL realism here, certainly not in the sense of particular incidents in the game narrative can be ascertained to be closer to some real world analog. At best we have an idea that the participant wants to feel like what happened was authentic, that it resonated with the player in some fashion and made them feel like the experience was real, not that it was actually like any real experience in any measurable way.