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

[Imaculata]

Outsider Perspective: Is this line of debate going anywhere productive? It seems like instead of debating the placement of goalposts or the number of angels that can dance on the AC of dragons, that the participants should reset and refocus their lines.

Well, it was originally about the perception of realism in a roleplaying game. I can certainly see why a combat/armor system that has no clear explanation within the fiction of its setting, can ruin the sense of realism in a game. It doesn't ruin it for me personally, but I can certainly imagine how the alternative: a system that works both mechanically and narratively, can greatly add to the perceived realism of a game.

The game is never going to be entirely realistic and I don't think anyone is arguing for that. But I do see how there are degrees of realism, both within the fiction and the mechanics of the game. Having the way armor works make sense, can add to that experience.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Didn't get on much this weekend, but it appears that most of the discussion is about dragon and paladon armor(?), so I'll come back to this.

Something done on a whim is arbitrary. Simply being personal preference is not. A preference is not a whim.

Example. If I'm at a supermarket and I decide on a moments notice to grab a bag of M&Ms, that's a personal whim and is arbitrary. However, if I like M&Ms and I decide that I am going to get one bag whenever I go to the store, then it's not arbitrary.

Can alway count on you to go to tge dictionary, and then focus like a laser on a narrow part of that. Here, you've turned arbitrary into "on a whim", which is true, but not the only meaning of arbitrary. If you're designing to personal preference vice an objective or systematic goal, that's also arbitrary. The proof of this pudding is that everyone has different standards of personal preference, meaning making a choice based on it for one person is arbitrary.

But, I don't need to argue definitional semantics. You seem to prefer "based on my personal preference" to "arbitrary", and that works for me. Just replace "arbitrary" for "based on Max's personal preference" in my posts and my points don't change.

When it comes to realism, I don't just decide to change anything on a whim. I keep the rule the same for quite a while while I assess what it is that I don't like about it, if it's enough to warrant a change, and in what way it will be changed if and when I do decide to change it.

Nothing I do with the game is arbitrary.

This sounds an awful lot like game design, Max. Which has been a long running point: the way we play and what we value in games is often not what we think it is. Here, you go on about how you do realism for the sake of realism, and you don't do game design because that implies considering multiple goals of play and balancing them, which can't be because realism for realism. But, right above, you show that it's only where a game system doesn't feel right to you that you start your realism pass, so that's personal preferemce, not realism driving. You then consider the change carefully, presumably weighing against ease of play and other objectives of play, before naking any changes. This is exactly what you've rejected!

You don't realism for realism's sake, you use realism where and as much as appropriate to achieve your play goal of immersion, the threshold of which is personal taste. You balance this against ither play goals, like ease of play, and ignore realism where it conflicts too much but still allows for immersion. This was the point.

And, non-existent-trap sprung, that's aces, man! That's how it should be. Recognizing this doean't make it wrong, or lesser, it just shows you more clearly where the potholes are so you can better play around them. You get so busy winning a battle that you lose sight of the war. Pyrrhus may have some advice for you.

 

[Maxperson]

This sounds an awful lot like game design, Max. Which has been a long running point: the way we play and what we value in games is often not what we think it is. Here, you go on about how you do realism for the sake of realism, and you don't do game design because that implies considering multiple goals of play and balancing them, which can't be because realism for realism. But, right above, you show that it's only where a game system doesn't feel right to you that you start your realism pass, so that's personal preferemce, not realism driving. You then consider the change carefully, presumably weighing against ease of play and other objectives of play, before naking any changes. This is exactly what you've rejected!

You don't realism for realism's sake, you use realism where and as much as appropriate to achieve your play goal of immersion, the threshold of which is personal taste. You balance this against ither play goals, like ease of play, and ignore realism where it conflicts too much but still allows for immersion. This was the point.

Realism is why I am looking at it. Not game design. Not other things. However, fun is the key to play. If realism is going to reduce the enjoyment of the game, then I'm going to grit my teeth and bear it. Realism was and is the goal. It just doesn't do me any good to make a change that is more realistic if we are then going to stop playing the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Realism is why I am looking at it. Not game design. Not other things. However, fun is the key to play. If realism is going to reduce the enjoyment of the game, then I'm going to grit my teeth and bear it. Realism was and is the goal. It just doesn't do me any good to make a change that is more realistic if we are then going to stop playing the game.

Goodness, Max, you're so intent on not giving ground you're now directly contradicting yourself to stay true. Using realism as a tool is fine, but insisting it's a goal in a pretend elf game is silly.

You just admitted that 'fun' is your goal, not realism. I propose that this is entirely wrong: to you, some amount of realism that meets your personal preference threshold is part of the "fun". Not to mention that RPGs are a leisure activity to begin with, so "fun" is a uselessly broad objective in the context of this discussion. It's all for "fun."

 

[Maxperson]

Goodness, Max, you're so intent on not giving ground you're now directly contradicting yourself to stay true. Using realism as a tool is fine, but insisting it's a goal in a pretend elf game is silly.

You just admitted that 'fun' is your goal, not realism. I propose that this is entirely wrong: to you, some amount of realism that meets your personal preference threshold is part of the "fun". Not to mention that RPGs are a leisure activity to begin with, so "fun" is a uselessly broad objective in the context of this discussion. It's all for "fun."

False. If fun were my goal, I would be looking at rules and saying, how is the rule fun and what can I do to make it more fun. I don't do that. I look at rules with realism in mind, and fun secondary. It needs to be both, but realism is my goal. An example of fun being the primary goal would be the "Rule of Cool" that many here and on other gaming sites use. I've seen them allow highly unrealistic things to occur, because cool. I don't use the Rule of Cool and never will. I'm not going to allow something that is highly unrealistic to happen just because it's "cool."

 

[Ovinomancer]

False. If fun were my goal, I would be looking at rules and saying, how is the rule fun and what can I do to make it more fun. I don't do that. I look at rules with realism in mind, and fun secondary. It needs to be both, but realism is my goal. An example of fun being the primary goal would be the "Rule of Cool" that many here and on other gaming sites use. I've seen them allow highly unrealistic things to occur, because cool. I don't use the Rule of Cool and never will. I'm not going to allow something that is highly unrealistic to happen just because it's "cool."

Okay, Max, why? Why realism?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, Max, why? Why realism?

Because I like things to make sense. That's why I'm going to allow Shield Master to be used after the first attack, rather than after the complete attack action. That way when you have extra attack, you can use it. It makes no sense(is unrealistic) that someone could shove with Shield Master after 1 attack up until they get their second attack and then suddenly be unable to do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because I like things to make sense. That's why I'm going to allow Shield Master to be used after the first attack, rather than after the complete attack action. That way when you have extra attack, you can use it. It makes no sense(is unrealistic) that someone could shove with Shield Master after 1 attack up until they get their second attack and then suddenly be unable to do so.

Wait, that's what you call realism?! Maybe we need to agree on a definition.

 

[Aldarc]

Wait, that's what you call realism?! Maybe we need to agree on a definition.

It's up there with "your dad beating up my dad is unrealistic, so I changed the rules to allow my dad to beat up your dad."

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, that's what you call realism?! Maybe we need to agree on a definition.

In the real world, if you can do something 100% of the time after one try, it's unrealistic to think that they will suddenly fail 100% of the time after one try just because they got better at it.