Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9509055" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I prefer &quot;groundedness&quot; myself, for a variety of reasons. (The biggest being that &quot;verisimilitude&quot; + &quot;anything not explicitly supernatural works exactly like it does IRL&quot; is precisely what screws over non-spellcaster characters over and over again, literally just reproducing the problem of the term &quot;realism&quot; that &quot;verisimilitude&quot; was meant to escape from.)My problem is that I find that a lot of DMs who do the ultra-high levels of worldbuilding expect a sort of blanket deference and trust from the players, when the actual effect should be quite the opposite. I know more or less what to expect if someone proposes Star Trek or Middle Earth or Athas. I've no idea what to expect if someone proposes Thraes or Artha. This intensifies the already pretty significant need for the DM to prove why I should care. Just because they did a lot of work doesn't mean I should feel anything at all about that work. I don't owe the DM anything just because they wrote a lot of setting material. That was their choice, and it doesn't create any sort of duty on my part as a player.As much as I'm a fan of innovative settings, I don't think they automatically deserve more respect simply because they're new. Novelty is a perk, but it's not proof of quality. I can certainly grant that it's nice when folks put in the time to do something new. But just because you worked on it, doesn't mean the finished product is great. As you say, it needs to be new and good. Newness neither guarantees nor averts goodneses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9509055, member: 6790260"] I prefer "groundedness" myself, for a variety of reasons. (The biggest being that "verisimilitude" + "anything not explicitly supernatural works exactly like it does IRL" is precisely what screws over non-spellcaster characters over and over again, literally just reproducing the problem of the term "realism" that "verisimilitude" was meant to escape from.) My problem is that I find that a lot of DMs who do the ultra-high levels of worldbuilding expect a sort of blanket deference and trust from the players, when the actual effect should be quite the opposite. I know more or less what to expect if someone proposes Star Trek or Middle Earth or Athas. I've no idea what to expect if someone proposes Thraes or Artha. This intensifies the already pretty significant need for the DM to prove [I]why I should care[/I]. Just because they did a lot of work doesn't mean I should feel anything at all about that work. I don't owe the DM anything just because they wrote a lot of setting material. That was their choice, and it doesn't create any sort of duty on my part as a player. As much as I'm a fan of innovative settings, I don't think they automatically deserve more respect simply [I]because[/I] they're new. Novelty is a perk, but it's not proof of quality. I can certainly grant that it's nice when folks put in the time to do something new. But just because you worked on it, doesn't mean the finished product is great. As you say, it needs to be new [I]and good[/I]. Newness neither guarantees nor averts goodneses. [/QUOTE]

Verification