Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9697099" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Well sure, I get that, but a lot of posts in this thread are made by people who want to make rulings based on &quot;realism&quot; (or verisimilitude, at the very least).&nbsp; But when you produce counterpoints like lockpicking videos on YouTube or real life examples of how &quot;one and done&quot; checks are kind of ridiculous, then suddenly &quot;it's a game, it has to have stakes!&quot;.When your counterpoints are based in the rules, they reject the rules for being unrealistic.When your counterpoints are based in reality, well &quot;it's a game, not real life&quot;.&nbsp; Kind of a double standard.-I mean, I once, long ago, had an argument with a DM about falling damage (especially how he felt that &quot;terminal velocity&quot; shouldn't exist...).&nbsp; The 2e PHB was actually kind enough to mention that people can survive falls from insane heights, and a little research on the internet put names to these events, from crippling (Vesna Vulovic's 6.31 mile drop) to Davide Capello falling 100 feet in a bridge collapse nearly unscathed (save for some occasional back and shoulder pain).We went round and round about this for a bit, until he finally admitted he didn't care what was possible or probably in real life- he wanted falling to be scary in his games.Ironically, a few weeks later, we managed to immobilize his big dragon boss while it was mid-air chasing our skyship.&nbsp; &quot;Well, scratch one dragon.&quot;&nbsp; I said, referring to his falling damage rules.&quot;What?&nbsp; He's got enough hit points to survive that easily!&quot;&nbsp; He replied.&quot;Oh yeah?&nbsp; How much damage would I take if I jumped off our ship right now?&quot;He sputtered for a bit then lamely replied, &quot;That's different. You're a player!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9697099, member: 6877472"] Well sure, I get that, but a lot of posts in this thread are made by people who want to make rulings based on "realism" (or verisimilitude, at the very least). But when you produce counterpoints like lockpicking videos on YouTube or real life examples of how "one and done" checks are kind of ridiculous, then suddenly "it's a game, it has to have stakes!". When your counterpoints are based in the rules, they reject the rules for being unrealistic. When your counterpoints are based in reality, well "it's a game, not real life". Kind of a double standard. - I mean, I once, long ago, had an argument with a DM about falling damage (especially how he felt that "terminal velocity" shouldn't exist...). The 2e PHB was actually kind enough to mention that people [B]can[/B] survive falls from insane heights, and a little research on the internet put names to these events, from crippling (Vesna Vulovic's 6.31 mile drop) to Davide Capello falling 100 feet in a bridge collapse nearly unscathed (save for some occasional back and shoulder pain). We went round and round about this for a bit, until he finally admitted he didn't care what was possible or probably in real life- he wanted falling to be scary in his games. Ironically, a few weeks later, we managed to immobilize his big dragon boss while it was mid-air chasing our skyship. "Well, scratch one dragon." I said, referring to his falling damage rules. "What? He's got enough hit points to survive that easily!" He replied. "Oh yeah? How much damage would I take if I jumped off our ship right now?" He sputtered for a bit then lamely replied, "That's different. You're a [I]player[/I]!" [/QUOTE]

Verification