D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

If the house is one that is likely to have a cook, why is it shocking or unrealistic for there to be a cook?


How does that work? Do you pause the game or end the session early so you have time to prepare? Do you rely on random tables? Do you literally populate every single building in every single settlement in your world before the game starts? Are your players allowed to take any actions that you haven't already prepared for?

I use a lot of random (but curated) tables, sometimes during prep, sometimes when needed at the table.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, exactly. But that’s why you reference experts, they have access to the evidence to support the claims they’re making.

You still have to provide that evidence along with your expert for it not to be a fallacy. You have to give more than, "You're wrong because this expert over here says you are."

 

[Maxperson]

Right. It’s not so much that experts aren’t useful. It’s that experts can be wrong. Which is why appeal to authority is a fallacy in the first place - being an expert/authority doesn’t mean you are correct.

The second issue is, who decides what makes a person an expert/authority?

Usually it's the amount of time you spend learning and practicing your field, which makes a lot of us here experts in D&D and RPGs in general.

 

[pemerton]

What you're describing is the 100% realism strawman. The idea that, because one's priority is verisimilitude, and perfect verisimilitude isn't possible, one's priority is nonsensical. Throwing the concept of hit points out as a counterpoint is another example. There are places in my game where I bow to abstraction and practicality at the table. I am, believe it or not, not filled with shame about this, and continue to value setting logic and an Earth-like reality (sans fantasy elements), whenever possible.

Given that there are a billion RPGs out there that have various forms of simultaneous combat resolution, and that have versions of degradation in combat that are more verisimilitudinous than hit points, I don't feel the force of your "isn't possible".

I also don't understand why you launch so many attacks on others approaches to play as lacking verisimilitude, when you so casually cast it overboard for "practicality".

I mean, suppose that I asserted that my Burning Wheel game has more verisimilitude than your D&D-esque game: because the PCs are not silo-ed into arbitrary "classes"; because combat causes actual injuries that cause varying degrees of penalty and take varying times to heal depending on severity; because those who attempt cold-blooded murder sometimes hesitate momentarily as they contemplate the enormity of what they are doing; etc - I predict that you would regard that as pretty controversial.

But that's how it looks to me. I really don't see how the play you describe involves much verisimilitude or reality/logic at all.

 

[pemerton]

Presumably you also learned about radiation and the impact it has on the human body at some point in your schooling.

Huh? That's the authority I'm referring to. I read a book and listened to the teacher. I didn't perform any experiments involving radioactive materials and living beings!

 

[Maxperson]

Do you have a citation for that? Because God in Heaven that quote would be useful to me!

Gary said something along those lines in the 1e DMG, followed immediately by, if it won't make the game worse or would make it better, then of course you should engage in realism.

Basically, he's saying that making people have their characters go to the bathroom X times a day, every day would be unfun as all heck, but other forms of realism might not be that bad, so do it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given that there are a billion RPGs out there that have various forms of simultaneous combat resolution, and that have versions of degradation in combat that are more verisimilitudinous than hit points, I don't feel the force of your "isn't possible".

I also don't understand why you launch so many attacks on others approaches to play as lacking verisimilitude, when you so casually cast it overboard for "practicality".

I mean, suppose that I asserted that my Burning Wheel game has more verisimilitude than your D&D-esque game: because the PCs are not silo-ed into arbitrary "classes"; because combat causes actual injuries that cause varying degrees of penalty and take varying times to heal depending on severity; because those who attempt cold-blooded murder sometimes hesitate momentarily as they contemplate the enormity of what they are doing; etc - I predict that you would regard that as pretty controversial.

But that's how it looks to me. I really don't see how the play you describe involves much verisimilitude or reality/logic at all.

That's what I enjoy about this argument. You claim that I'm lying about my play and what I like because it doesn't match your vision of what those terms mean to you, you basically claim that a desire for simulation is wrong-headed at best, and yet you also posit that I'm the one launching attacks against other people's playstyles. All I've done is tell you what I don't like. I don't question your right or ability to like it.

 

[pemerton]

If you pressed them on it, they could explain it though. And I suspect they'd be willing to.

Sure. That doesn't mean that it's a fallacy to believe them because of their expertise. I can tell you that drivers in Australia travel on the left (British or Japanese style) rather than on the right (US or French style). Why do you believe me?

All you've got is testimony. I mean, you could travel to Australia and check it out. But most human knowledge depends upon accepting the testimony of those who are qualified to give it (ie authorities). That's why the notion that it's a fallacy to appeal to authority is a fallacy.

Do you think game design is so arcane that we have to listen to the experts in this way?

I think if someone wants to know what Luke Crane thinks action resolution should look like, reading the rules that he wrote is a pretty good way to learn.

But someone upthread said that, on the contrary, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority!

(Ironically, that same poster probably expects the rest of us to take their posts as authoritative evidence of what they believe.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Gary said something along those lines in the 1e DMG, followed immediately by, if it won't make the game worse or would make it better, then of course you should engage in realism.

Basically, he's saying that making people have their characters go to the bathroom X times a day, every day would be unfun as all heck, but other forms of realism might not be that bad, so do it.

But only the first part of that passage supported their point! Why would they bring up the rest?

 

[pemerton]

You claim that I'm lying about my play

I don't think you're lying. But you appear to use the D&D combat rules. That's enough for me to infer how versimilitudinous combat is. I believe that you use the D&D PC building rules. Which is enough for me to infer how verisimilitudinous the characters are.

All I've done is tell you what I don't like.

Which is all I have done. I prefer verisimilitudinous RPGing.