Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deadguy" data-source="post: 915522" data-attributes="member: 2480">I agree with Mark that we should separate 'gritty' or 'realistic' from 'high' or 'low' fantasy/magic. A campaign loaded with magic can still be made to feel gritty if the opponent's tactics and tools are made to complement the PCs' abilities. Likewise, in any fantasy setting, what we really mean by 'realistic' is 'verisimilitude', a feeling that the consequences of actions flow naturally from events, even if those events and those consequences are fantastical in the extreme.Hence this question really does come down to a matter of group style. The same stories can be told in most any style, even if the situations and events must be couched differently. I know - I've been doing that for years, telling the sorts of stories that I enjoy DM'ing in a wide variety of systems and settings. I've seen 'unrealistic' romps in original Cyberpunk (i.e. where there were no consequences week-to-week for PC actions), and 'realistic' play in the Council of Wyrms with everyone playing powerful dragons.However, to get back to Dragonblade's specific point, there is indeed nothing inferior to a setting that decides to use plenty of magic, and no special moral virtue in playing D&D where getting food each day is a real challenge. They are different games, for different crowds, and great fun can be had by all. But there does sometimes seem to be a sort of snobbery involved, where people boast at how little magic their setting involves, and how their PCs, after two years of play, are now second level and still fear being attacked by wildfowl, as though that sort of DM was somehow 'cleverer'. The genius of the DM is in adapting to the setting and still managing to run the games he desires, rather than in trimming all settings to feel similar.</blockquote>

Verification