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

[Satyrn]

Now I just want go get sushi and not pay.

Life hack: Make friends with someone who makes sushi, and invite yourself to dinner. Often.

Pro tip: If you want more realism in your sushi, the friend should be Japanese.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

Oh! Let's go get sushi and not pay.

Maybe that will draw out the Bone Breaking Sect looking to collect.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. But most campaigns don't deal with ALL swords, do they? They deal with the swords of the protagonists and their enemies.

It's pretty clear that there are many other swords out in the fictional world (even if the DM hasn't introduced them). So, really, we're looking at the career of PCs and their exploits, and in that case, perhaps they go their entire career without having a weapon break.

Or, and here's where in an almost paradoxical way, a system that has less hard-coded rules can actually replicate this better; perhaps it's assumed that the PCs repair and/or replace their gear regularly when they go to town. In classic D&D where you track GP and other treasure and belongings, this isn't the way it's handled, but there's no reason that another game can't eschew the tracking of GP, and therefore allow such gear maintenance to be accounted for in a narrative sense.

Again, this is where "no system" is probably better than having a system. The tracking of every GP and its use actively gets in the way of the "realism" you're striving for.

To some extent I'll disagree with this, not so much from the system-v-realism point of view but from the system-v-immersion point of view.

Part of the goal of having one's game world be authentic and-or realistic is, I think, to help the players immerse themselves in the world and in the characters they play within it. Given that, having the players track their gear and expenses adds to the immersion factor in that the players are doing what the characters would be doing. Realistically, a character - particularly a poor one - is going to know how much money it has at any given time; and any adventuring character worth its salt is going to know what's in its backpack and what amount of remaining supplies it has on hand. Player knowledge matching character knowledge where it can is highly beneficial for immersion, and thus just as the character knows what's in its pack at any given time, so should the player.

Hand-waving all this makes the game easier and more efficient to play, to be sure, but note there's this trade-off to consider. Some might think the ease-efficiency is worth it, others might not.

Where realism (and other less pleasant considerations that at their extreme go all the way to cheating) comes into it is if a player can determine a character's gear-on-hand on the fly, is it realistic/authentic/believable for that PC to always just happen to have some particular piece of exotic gear available just at the moment it happens to be needed? Again, some might not care; but I sure do.

Again, this is all assumed to happen in the same way that other forms of maintenance happen....bandaging wounds and eating meals and all other forms of mundane activity that it's not fun to focus on. If you prefer to handle it in a more mechanical way, then you can certainly introduce such a rule.

If your happy with these rules, that's great. If the game feels more realistic to you with them included, that's also great.

Just don't tell people that your game is more realistic than theirs because you use these rules. Because that's not so great.

Maybe or maybe not more realistic, but I'd argue that on the whole these mechanics* push the game towards being more immersive.

* - and note this doesn't necessarily have to be done using hard-wired mechanics; the point is that it's paid close attention to at all rather than just hand-waved.

 

[pemerton]

the urinic complaint of snark

ironic? Or are you just taking the p*ss?

 

[pemerton]

Part of the goal of having one's game world be authentic and-or realistic is, I think, to help the players immerse themselves in the world and in the characters they play within it. Given that, having the players track their gear and expenses adds to the immersion factor in that the players are doing what the characters would be doing.

<snip>

I'd argue that on the whole these mechanics* push the game towards being more immersive.

I think this is very much a matter of opinion. I've never had a player suggest anything of this sort.

The only comment concerning tracking of money and gear I can remember in the past couple of years was a complaint from one player in Traveller - the owner of the starship - that he had to do too much accounting.

I don't think it made him feel immersed.

Suppose that he spent 15 minutes of 3 hours doing his sums: that would be 1/12th of the session. Whereas I'm not sure that, in the fiction, his character spent 1/12th of his time doing this maths. The time required in the fiction would be not much different from that required at the table, and the time that passed in the fiction in those 3 hours of play was over two weeks.

This is the same player who, in our Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game, had his PC steal the gold from the dark elves at the bottom of the dungeon, which mechanically figured as a Bag of Gold asset. This boosted his dice pool when money would help solve a problem. The player never suggested that the Traveller approach made him feel more immersed in character or fiction than the Cortex+ approach.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Here is the exact and full history, from my point of view-

1. I write a very lengthy post in response to what can best be described as the not-nicest post in the world.

This is weird. I didn't mention anything at all about your little tussle with Sep, so I'm not really clear why you feel the need to be defensive about it (or mention it more). Since you do seem to be keen to bring it up, I can only say that it took two to tango, there, and you didn't cover yourself in laurels, either.

2. Instead of engaging with anything I wrote, you write a one-sentence response that says I didn't provide a definition of realism. This is not only incorrect, but ignored the entirety of what I was discussing. Kind of annoying, from my POV.

Again, weird, as I did engage with what you wrote, twice now. Did I engage with everything you wrote, or, as evidenced below, what you seem to want me to engage? Nope, but that's not my duty, either.

I posted what I thought.

3. I state that you missed it, along with the entire point of my post.

I was unclear that I felt your attempted definition was lacking -- not that I disagree with it, which I also do, but that it was entirely lacking as a definition. I made this clear in my second response -- you just moved the pea, you didn't successfully define "realism" as a useful term. And, again, I'm under no duty to engage with what you think is the point of your post, especially when I was engaging with it's premise. I had an issue that needed discussion before we even get to what you say is your main point -- ie, the definition of "realism" that you use in your main point.

4. You then chose to say, oh, that definition? Well, whatever. It's bad. Here- let me quote this, because I think it's pretty funny:

You say this, though. Explicitly. Right afterwards. Here's the quote:

So, for example, in AD&D (1e), the inclusion of item saving throws (p. 80) makes the game slightly more realistic, as it would make the game more closely mirror something that happens in real life (the possible destruction of items from effects).

This is exactly what I paraphrased. I mean, come on, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION], we can all scroll up to older posts.

Woah!

So at this point, I have to go a little meta, since it has become increasingly clear that you're not actually reading what I write, but just trying to find things to argue with. How do I know this? Because I already addressed it in my very long post. Wait, what?

Yes, I didn't go there because it's premised on your definition of "realism," a definition, you'll recall, is just punting the essential ambiguity down the line and replacing it with an empty wrapper. Discussion of "realism" not being perfect is rather empty when the definition is still ambiguous.

And, for what it's worth, complete realism would be a 100% mirroring of the real world according to your given definition, so then moving to "but realism isn't perfection" is rather scattered and contradictory of yourself. I didn't go there because I was more interested in resolving the premise issue rather than hash out reasons for self-contradiction further down the line. You do you, though.

So it's almost as if I had already addressed this before you wrote about it! But that wasn't even the main thrust of my post. I mean, you're welcome to disagree with what I write (many people do), but at least pretend to read it first.

No, this even fails at the simplistic level you're dealing with. You explicitly said that adding 1e item saving throws provided more "realism" than not, and no part of this is predicated on perfection of "realism." Similarly, no part of my statement actually gets to your bolded bits here -- in other words, what you've bolded is irrelevant to my point.

But, let's take your definition, ambiguous as it is, as given. Using your entire post, you are claiming that so long as the intent of a system is to more closely mirror the real world, presumably by adding a complication that might happen in the real world that is current absent in the rules, that this increases realism. This fails at a first pass as I could introduce a rule in 5e that all items are automatically destroyed on a failed saving throw against a fireball. This would, according to your definition, be a net increase in realism because items can be destroyed by fire, and the rule introduces items being destroyed by fire where it was previously absent. But, this rule is nonesense and does not, in any way, actually increase "realism" because I'm still just as far away from mirroring the real world by destroying all items as I was destroying none. Both events happen in the real world on exposure to fire, so both are "realistic".

As this nonesense outcome is surely not what you mean (and I do not believe you agree even a little bit with the above), that means that your definition is actually lacking some other guidelines necessary to enact what you believe to be "realism". And, those guidelines will be arbitrary and based on your preferences. I would have a different set of guidelines than yours, so, clearly, we can't just punt the essential ambiguity of "realism" by accepting your definition -- it has the same ambiguity and is actually lacking critical components in how you would actually use it (as shown with your further arguments, which you've helpfully bolded above).

Anyway, that's my POV, and I am done with this conversation. Because I do not enjoy arguing about arguing, and, as I have often stated, the best thing about banging your head against a wall is when you stop. To the extent you want to declare yourself a winner, you're a winner. If you want my opinion, read my original post.

Take care!

Yes, this is a common statement from you in the face of disagreement. You accuse the other posters of just being argumentative and then declare you've had the last word. Again, you do not cover yourself in laurels. And, as in the last time we were here, I'm not prepared to accede.

Although, on a side note, it is funny that you'll end a post with a unilateral declaration that you will not stand for a thing when you started that post with a recap of how you righteously condemned another poster's unilateral declaration that they will not stand for a thing. The irony is positively overflowing. Or negatively? Eh, just overflowing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

ironic? Or are you just taking the p*ss?

Heh. Ironic was intended. Pee jokes are still funny, though.

 

[pemerton]

Heh. Ironic was intended. Pee jokes are still funny, though.

Thanks for taking that in good humour!

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. But most campaigns don't deal with ALL swords, do they? They deal with the swords of the protagonists and their enemies.

It's pretty clear that there are many other swords out in the fictional world (even if the DM hasn't introduced them). So, really, we're looking at the career of PCs and their exploits, and in that case, perhaps they go their entire career without having a weapon break.

Or, and here's where in an almost paradoxical way, a system that has less hard-coded rules can actually replicate this better; perhaps it's assumed that the PCs repair and/or replace their gear regularly when they go to town. In classic D&D where you track GP and other treasure and belongings, this isn't the way it's handled, but there's no reason that another game can't eschew the tracking of GP, and therefore allow such gear maintenance to be accounted for in a narrative sense.

The thing is, even fresh weapons broke fairly often when put to hard use, which adventurers do.

Again, this is where "no system" is probably better than having a system. The tracking of every GP and its use actively gets in the way of the "realism" you're striving for.

So for the record, I agree that no system is probably better than having a system. I've never introduced weapons breaking, outside of sunder and such, because it's just not that much fun. It's a perfect example of a realism increase that I wouldn't use because it would bring down enjoyment of the game.