Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7597229" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I posted what I thought.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You say this, though. Explicitly. Right afterwards. Here's the quote:</p><p></p><p>This is exactly what I paraphrased. I mean, come on, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION], we can all scroll up to older posts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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". </p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7597229, member: 16814"] 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. 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. 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. You say this, though. Explicitly. Right afterwards. Here's the quote: This is exactly what I paraphrased. I mean, come on, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION], we can all scroll up to older posts. 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. 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). 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top