Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7837440" data-attributes="member: 177">I explicitly said it was a joke.&nbsp; Do you need that in huge font and blinking text?I know that.&nbsp; I'm noting that the fantasy genre has room for people all along the spectrum, and that we should note that this argument then isn't really so much about adjudicating the rules, as it is noting the desired genre assumptions, which are not right or wrong.When someone says, &quot;How would you adjudicate this?&quot; there are two basic approaches:&nbsp; 1) &quot;I wouldn't, and here's why...&quot;, and 2) &quot;You could handle it this way...&quot;&nbsp; #1 is kind of limiting - once you've said why you wouldn't... you're kind of done.&nbsp; Nobody is saying that you have to throw out everything.&nbsp; Please don't overstate the point, and then argue against it.&nbsp; I am saying that, when you have chosen a rule-set that openly and explicitly breaks from &quot;realism&quot; all over the place, that defense of a choice because of &quot;realism&quot; is rhetorically weak. The rules-choice has already ceded that realism must hold everywhere- the point that we are being inconsistent with realism is not fallacious.&nbsp; If it doesn't hold everywhere, you then have to tell me where it does hold, and if you want players to buy in, you may have to justify why the choice was made that way in each case you come across.&nbsp; This is exhausting, so I am suggesting something better.As a matter for practical play, to make fantasy or most sci-fi work, we need to pick and choose where realism holds.&nbsp; If the GM does not have an overarching theme or purpose to the choices, the results are apt to be self-contradictory, and will almost certainly seem arbitrary.&nbsp; For our players, &quot;because the GM feels like it&quot; is a poor basis for understanding what they can and cannot accomplish.&nbsp; The rules of the world in which they play become opaque.But, if you have an overarching theme or purpose, you can use that as your reasoning for the choice, and in the process give the players far more information about what they can expect to be able to do or not do.This is where genre comes in.&nbsp; &quot;I am aiming for a game that is more 'Lord of the Rings' and less 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' in its action&quot; communicates more to everyone than, &quot;realism!&quot; in the face of dragons and such. Moreover, such a statement leaves argument down at the level of whether the rules you have chosen support that style well, and whether a particular interpretation of the rules serves that thematic choice.&nbsp; &nbsp; Folks can't fairly argue that you are wrong to want to play LotR-style in general.&nbsp; And you can't fairly argue that they shouldn't have CT/HD either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7837440, member: 177"] I explicitly said it was a joke. Do you need that in huge font and blinking text? I know that. I'm noting that the fantasy genre has room for people all along the spectrum, and that we should note that this argument then isn't really so much about adjudicating the rules, as it is noting the desired genre assumptions, which are not right or wrong. When someone says, "How would you adjudicate this?" there are two basic approaches: 1) "I wouldn't, and here's why...", and 2) "You could handle it this way..." #1 is kind of limiting - once you've said why you wouldn't... you're kind of done. Nobody is saying that you have to throw out everything. Please don't overstate the point, and then argue against it. I am saying that, when you have chosen a rule-set that openly and explicitly breaks from "realism" all over the place, that defense of a choice because of "realism" is rhetorically weak. The rules-choice has already ceded that realism must hold everywhere- the point that we are being inconsistent with realism is [I]not[/I] fallacious. If it doesn't hold everywhere, you then have to tell me where it does hold, and if you want players to buy in, you may have to justify [I]why[/I] the choice was made that way in each case you come across. This is exhausting, so I am suggesting something better. As a matter for practical play, to make fantasy or most sci-fi work, we need to pick and choose where realism holds. If the GM does not have an overarching theme or purpose to the choices, the results are apt to be self-contradictory, and will almost certainly seem arbitrary. For our players, "because the GM feels like it" is a poor basis for understanding what they can and cannot accomplish. The rules of the world in which they play become opaque. But, if you have an overarching theme or purpose, you can use [I]that[/I] as your reasoning for the choice, and in the process give the players far more information about what they can expect to be able to do or not do. This is where genre comes in. "I am aiming for a game that is more 'Lord of the Rings' and less 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' in its action" communicates more to everyone than, "realism!" in the face of dragons and such. Moreover, such a statement leaves argument down at the level of whether the rules you have chosen support that style well, and whether a particular interpretation of the rules serves that thematic choice. Folks can't fairly argue that you are wrong to want to play LotR-style in general. And you can't fairly argue that they shouldn't have CT/HD either. [/QUOTE]

Verification