A stick in the mud, a dinosaur?

[Desdichado]

What makes you think my argument is purely tech-based here?

The fact that you use the word physics, when the word you're really probably looking for is metaphysics. I've read a fair amount of your theories on homebrewing D&D, and I think it's fairly safe to say that if your approach isn't unique, it certainly is unusual to the point of few people on these boards even understanding what you're trying to do, much less do the same thing.

And I'm hoping that doesn't come across as insulting, as that's not my intention at all. Merely that I think what is clearly your top priority for rules and setting selection isn't even a priority at all to almost everyone else.

 

[Turjan]

The fact that you use the word physics, when the word you're really probably looking for is metaphysics.

Yes, it was the word 'physics' that spurred my response. I have to acknowledge that, as I'm not a native English speaker, I might be missing out on some specific meaning of the word 'physics' that I'm not aware of. On the other hand, I can understand the concept behind seeing alignment in D&D as some sort of law of nature with impacts that are very similar to the laws of physics in our world.

Whether rationally or not, people who want fidelity to physics respond positively to Eberron because those promoting it perceive the tensions between D&D's physics and its genre and state that they are seeking to address this.

I see that the setting is promoted in such a way. However, I still don't see this 'fidelity to physics' point as a truly tangible feature. The Eberron approach constitutes one way to rationalise a society with liberal access to magic, the FR go a different way. I'm still not convinced which rationalisation is the better one *shrug*. But it's true, this point is not so important for me. Though I like verisimilitude in my games, I'm not so keen on strict realism (as far as the term 'realism' can be used in fantasy economics/physics). That's also the explanation why I never had problems with the abstract HP mechanics.

I managed to find a matching set of the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser books, in damn fine condition on eBay. They were $15 shipped. The Elric books are rather easy to find, not sure about Vance, never read any of his books (though I imagine I will).

Have fun . If you ever get hold of some of the better Jack Vance books, you will see, that the reference to Jack Vance is seemingly in contradiction to the original idea of this thread. Jack Vance writes mostly Science Fantasy, and that's where my main fantasy influences lie. It might sound completely crazy, but as much problems I have with steam railways in my fantasy, spaceships don't bother me in the slightest . Call me inconsequential !

 

[fusangite]

The fact that you use the word physics, when the word you're really probably looking for is metaphysics. I've read a fair amount of your theories on homebrewing D&D, and I think it's fairly safe to say that if your approach isn't unique, it certainly is unusual to the point of few people on these boards even understanding what you're trying to do, much less do the same thing.

And I'm hoping that doesn't come across as insulting, as that's not my intention at all. Merely that I think what is clearly your top priority for rules and setting selection isn't even a priority at all to almost everyone else.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of my priorities. Things bug me that don't bug other people. Things entertain me that don't entertain other people.

That said, I use the word "physics" for the following reasons:
(a) In this particular case, I meant "physics" -- the rules by which the world works.
(b) In premodern cultures, there was no category called "metaphysics" -- physics included everything we consider science and everything we consider metaphysics. They were all in one package. So, when I say "physics," my use of the term is premised on a non-separation along the arbitrary boundary we have erected between physics and metaphysics.

But you're probably right. I throw the term around as though people are on my personal intellectual journey and out of context. I'll endeavour to provide some proper background/justification the next time I use the term.

So, I'm not insulted at all. Thanks for reminding me for whom I'm writing.

 

[fusangite]

I see that the setting is promoted in such a way. However, I still don't see this 'fidelity to physics' point as a truly tangible feature. The Eberron approach constitutes one way to rationalise a society with liberal access to magic, the FR go a different way. I'm still not convinced which rationalisation is the better one *shrug*.

Fair enough. I simply don't know enough about Eberron to leap to its defence here. I just wanted to clarify one of the reasons behind people's allegiance to the subgenre.

But it's true, this point is not so important for me. Though I like verisimilitude in my games, I'm not so keen on strict realism (as far as the term 'realism' can be used in fantasy economics/physics). That's also the explanation why I never had problems with the abstract HP mechanics.

Well, as you may have gathered from my other threads, my idea of verisimilitude is to make the setting conform to the rules, not the reverse. So, in my worlds, what matters is making people's behaviour consistent with having a hit point mechanic like that.

 

[Desdichado]

In premodern cultures, there was no category called "metaphysics" -- physics included everything we consider science and everything we consider metaphysics. They were all in one package. So, when I say "physics," my use of the term is premised on a non-separation along the arbitrary boundary we have erected between physics and metaphysics.

True, but in modern cultures and study there is. So when you say physics, people don't think of physics the way Medieval man did, they think of forumalae they learned in high school for calculating force = mass * acceleration, or how to compute the trajectory of a thrown object, or some such. In my experience, most gamers don't care too much about that as long as the rules don't aggregiously break their expectations of what will happen from a physics point of view.

On the other hand, I think more gamers, curiously, are interested in the implications of "what if the world really is made of four elements; earth, fire, water and air, for instance. However, he's probably not thoroughly versed in Medieval philosophy (I'm certainly not, for instance) and he probably thinks, "hey, back then and now we have these vastly different theories on the nature of the universe, but didn't we both have essentially the same set of observations on which to make that judgement, i.e., the natural consequences of doing something were pretty much the same as then, with the exception that we now have better ways of correllating and observing those same consequences." In other words, does it really make much difference at the end of the day if the world is really made of four elements instead of 100+ some odd that the periodic table shows.

 

[RFisher]

There's a feeling of "been there, done that" regarding traditional settings.
Eberron and such are explorations.

One of the reasons I prefer the traditional is because the non-traditional gives me the feeling of "been there, done that". I find that once the luster has worn off both, the traditional remains more appealing.

In my experience, most roleplaying gamers are traditionalists. They not interested in buying (or discussing) every new product, though, so they don't have a big impact on the market.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The setting I play has been discontinued for years.

But then again, every time I play a Planescape game, it's almost completely different. So I guess I'm not a stick in the mud. *phew*

 

[MaxKaladin]

I don't much care for some of the new stuff that's out there, but I think that's a result of growing older. I look at stuff that's popular with the kids these days and think to myself that I could see myself really getting into it and thinking that was the coolest thing ever if I were their age again, but I'm not. It doesn't mean I won't give it a try or even like some of it. I've enjoyed anime, for instance, just not the "swords the size of volvos" kind. I'd probably have fun with a steampunk game if I played in one, but I still like more traditional settings more though. Besides, it's all relative. Wait 10 or 15 years and the current crop of teens and twentysomethings will be wondering if they're dinosaurs because they just don't "get" the appeal of the latest thing. Who knows, perhaps traditional settings will come back in some form in the same way fashions from previous decades get recycled.

 

[Desdichado]

As an aside, why would swords be the size of Volvos in anime anyway? Shouldn't the phrase be "swords the size of Hondas" or maybe "swords the size of Toyotas" or even swords the size of "Mitsubishi Eclipses" or something like that?

 

[MaxKaladin]

As an aside, why would swords be the size of Volvos in anime anyway? Shouldn't the phrase be "swords the size of Hondas" or maybe "swords the size of Toyotas" or even swords the size of "Mitsubishi Eclipses" or something like that?

Why do they have anime with names like "Bubblegum Crisis" (which, I understand, has nothing to do with bubblegum")? Likely someone in Japan decided it was cool and now we're stuck with swords the size of volvos.

Edit: Added smiley to show I'm not really being terribly serious with this response for the benefit of the humor impaired.