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

hawkeyefan

Explorer
Sure, but that's a misperception on their part. Perception is greater than reality, so when someone misperceives increased realism for decreased realism, that becomes "real" for them.
What does “perception is greater than reality” mean? I think you mean that a person can be misinformed and therefore their opinion about added realism could be wrong? Am I following?

It may decrease their enjoyment of the system, and it may decrease their sense of realism, but it still increases realism in the game.
I don’t know if I see a distinction between “sense of realism” and “realism” in this way. What’s the difference? I would think it’s all “sense of realism”.

That person't enjoyment does matter to me. I don't want anyone playing my game to not have fun. Depending on the issue, the answer could be to remove the offending system from my game, or if it's something deemed critical by myself and my other players, the new player would be very nicely encouraged to find a game where they could have fun. My group is very like minded with me. That's intentional as players should have similar tastes so as not to cause disruption in the game. A new player coming into the group would need to be similar(not the same) as the rest of us in what they are looking for in game play.
That’s all seems reasonable, thanks for clarifying.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Well, not necessarily....see the mention of bad models in recent posts.

But aside from that...the two systema we’ve been discussing each have a nod toward the real world. One mirrors real world sequentiality (it is a word!) and the other mirrors the ability of a criminal to effectively plan for a crime.

Is one of these objectively better than the other? Or is it just a matter of preference?



Okay...then how do you quantify this? Both the approaches above are reflective of reality as we know it.
Quantifying it is very easy in one respect at least: whether or not things happen at the table in the same order as they would in reality; or - put another way - whether cause and effect at the table and in the fiction mirror what would happen in real life.

The end-result tale of the score that appears in the game log is (or certainly can be) perfectly reflective of reality in either system, but the end tale isn't the point. The point here is the process: whether reality is reflected (as best as reasonably possible) in the moment as things occur, which D&D in this case does better than BitD simply due to sequentiality. Choices are made up front, and for better or worse those choices may have consequences later.

Yes a D&D character might well have decided to pack some meat along, and on meeting the dog will be happy she did so. This is fine. She just as easily might not have brought any meat, and thus ended up with an unexpected and possibly unsolvable problem. This is also fine.

With BitD this same scenario can't happen as long as the PC has a slot left, as that slot can be used at any time of the player's choosing to bypass a problem.

The highlighted bit there is the meta-part: on seeing the dog the character doesn't suddenly choose to have meat in her pack as it's far too late in the fiction to be making such choices. The player, however, can make this choice here and now at the table but retroactively in the fiction (i.e. in the fiction the meat was there all along); and the ability to make such a retroactive choice is what pulls it into the meta realm. Retroactive choice-making doesn't happen in reality unless you've got a handy time-travel machine stowed somewhere (and if you do, I want on!).

Which can lead to another issue. The meat example doesn't work here but I'll use it anyway: though it'll perhaps sound a bit absurd I ask you to look at the intent rather than the actual rather silly example.

The issue is this: if after having done 90% of the score the PC encounters a dog and declares she's using her last item slot on meat to feed it with, this means she had the meat with her the whole time. But what if the presence of the meat would have or could have had some other significant effect or consequence earlier in the score had its presence been known then, e.g. (and here's the silly example) what if the door to the loot chamber had a trap on it that sounded an alarm if any non-living meat entered the space?

In a cause-and-effect based D&D-like system this all takes care of itself: the GM knows (or can ask) what the PC has on hand when she reaches the trapped door and can take appropriate measures at the time e.g. call for a traps roll or narrate the alarm going off or whatever.

But where the dog (and thus meat) haven't come up yet and the character's items-in-slots at the time of passing through the door thus don't include any meat the GM has no reason to do anything with the meat-based trap. But when the PC uses that last slot for meat the GM is suddenly stuck with saying "By the way, you doing this means we'll have to retcon half the score 'cause that meat would have caused a problem earlier", which is utterly awful on many levels.

Unless, of course, it's taken as a given that the meat or any other item doesn't actually appear in her pack until she at the table uses the slot for it, at which point it just shows up. This might be fine as a game mechanic and avoids all those messy retcon possibilities but blows away much hope of reflecting reality.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I find that there is sometimes disconnect between your assumption regarding how D&D should be played and how other tables often play it: i.e., your play preference vs. broader play praxis. Equipment is one such case. At many tables I have seen, and this may also be a generational thing (though hopefully you can refrain from past condescending attitudes about "newer" players), the table doesn't really care about the equipment/resource minigame. The DM/Table may simply rule that a player having a particular piece of equipment is reasonable though it was never previously established on the character sheet, in the fiction, etc.
 

hawkeyefan

Explorer
[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.

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?

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.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What does “perception is greater than reality” mean? I think you mean that a person can be misinformed and therefore their opinion about added realism could be wrong? Am I following?
It means that if the reality is that there is added realism, but the person's perception is lower realism, reality takes second seat to perception. I also use this example a lot. If a person is very hard working, but takes his two breaks at irregular times and his boss happens to come out during those times, the bosses perception may be that the person isn't working very hard. That worker may not get a good raise, despite working hard, because perception is greater than reality.

I don’t know if I see a distinction between “sense of realism” and “realism” in this way. What’s the difference? I would think it’s all “sense of realism”.
Their sense of what the level of realism is may not match what the increase of realism is. There is an objective increase, and there is a perceived increase or decrease.

That’s all seems reasonable, thanks for clarifying.
Sure.
 

hawkeyefan

Explorer
It means that if the reality is that there is added realism, but the person's perception is lower realism, reality takes second seat to perception. I also use this example a lot. If a person is very hard working, but takes his two breaks at irregular times and his boss happens to come out during those times, the bosses perception may be that the person isn't working very hard. That worker may not get a good raise, despite working hard, because perception is greater than reality.
Okay, gotcha. By “greater” you mean in the sense of being “more meaningful to the individual”.

Their sense of what the level of realism is may not match what the increase of realism is. There is an objective increase, and there is a perceived increase or decrease.
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.
 

Hriston

Explorer
So a whetstone is neither a rule, nor proof that weapons degrade in D&D. If no whetstone is ever purchased, no weapon in 5e will ever degrade and become dull or dinged up. There simply are no rules for those things in 5e. You could buy a whetstone if it makes you feel better I suppose, but it's never going to be needed if you play by RAW.
I asked for a RULE for weapon degradation(that would be a mechanic in case you weren't aware), not a whetstone that is not a rule.
You didn't ask for a rule (not from me anyway). You asked for "a listed part of the game", which is exactly what the whetstone entry on the equipment list is. The intent of its inclusion seems obvious, i.e. to aid in the roleplay of your character caring for its bladed weapons that would otherwise become dull. I agree there is no rule that obligates you to imagine blades being dulled in your game, but the lack of such a rule by no means prohibits you from doing so. In fact, the inclusion of the whetstone entry encourages exactly that sort of play!
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Okay, gotcha. By “greater” you mean in the sense of being “more meaningful to the individual”.
That's very close, but "more meaningful" implies that they know what reality is. When perception is greater than reality, the individual is wrong about what reality is and is going on perception, which in these cases is really misperception or misidentification of what they are perceiving.

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.
There is. Any time your model brings in something from the real world and attempts to model the real world to some degree, realism has increased, even if the model is still highly unrealistic. The real world connection and modeling must have greater realism than having nothing at all, because nothing = 0 and you have at least something greater than 0 with those connections.

I don’t think you’ve established this objectivity that you insist is present. I don’t think it can be established.
Right. This is where our differences originate and I'm not sure we can get past it. :)
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You didn't ask for a rule (not from me anyway). You asked for "a listed part of the game", which is exactly what the whetstone entry on the equipment list is. The intent of its inclusion seems obvious, i.e. to aid in the roleplay of your character caring for its bladed weapons that would otherwise become dull. I agree there is no rule that obligates you to imagine blades being dulled in your game, but the lack of such a rule by no means prohibits you from doing so. In fact, the inclusion of the whetstone entry encourages exactly that sort of play!
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. ;)
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Any time your model brings in something from the real world and attempts to model the real world to some degree, realism has increased, even if the model is still highly unrealistic. The real world connection and modeling must have greater realism than having nothing at all, because nothing = 0 and you have at least something greater than 0 with those connections.
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.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
[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

Victoria Rules
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

Explorer
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

Adventurer
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. :erm:
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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

Explorer
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

Morkus from Orkus
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

Explorer
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.

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

Morkus from Orkus
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.
 
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.
 

Advertisement

Top