Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8396385" data-attributes="member: 7032025">I completely agree, which is why I agree for a consistent world, which can only be done through rulings, not rules, as the rules for a really open TTRPG cannot be both finite and consistent without infringing on the openness. See the introduction of the SAC, which I completely agree with: &quot;Many unexpected things can happen in a D&amp;D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&amp;D.&quot;I think we agree, which is why a player trying his best to dig for technical explanations is violating this principle, because it's attacking the world from the rules perspective.Note that it's a bit the same with real world physicists (I've done quite a bit myself but deliberately leave it at the door when playing), because it's clear that there is no way that a D&amp;D world can be consistently explained in terms of real physics. You have to let it go and handwave it like it's done even in the best fiction, look at Sanderson and the Stormlight Archives, there are strange physics involved, but it never goes down to the root of how it works and interacts, it's just used as really nice consistent backgroundIn particular, I resist any attempt at defining air as mosty O2-N2 compound, air is the stuff from the elemental plane of air. Looking at chemical compositions is really the way to madness in D&amp;D, and leads to parodies only, like the silly elementals in OotS...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8396385, member: 7032025"] I completely agree, which is why I agree for a consistent world, which can only be done through rulings, not rules, as the rules for a really open TTRPG cannot be both finite and consistent without infringing on the openness. See the introduction of the SAC, which I completely agree with: "Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D." I think we agree, which is why a player trying his best to dig for technical explanations is violating this principle, because it's attacking the world from the rules perspective. Note that it's a bit the same with real world physicists (I've done quite a bit myself but deliberately leave it at the door when playing), because it's clear that there is no way that a D&D world can be consistently explained in terms of real physics. You have to let it go and handwave it like it's done even in the best fiction, look at Sanderson and the Stormlight Archives, there are strange physics involved, but it never goes down to the root of how it works and interacts, it's just used as really nice consistent background In particular, I resist any attempt at defining air as mosty O2-N2 compound, air is the stuff from the elemental plane of air. Looking at chemical compositions is really the way to madness in D&D, and leads to parodies only, like the silly elementals in OotS... [/QUOTE]

Verification