Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7175643" data-attributes="member: 4937">Of course reality is relevant to a fantasy game.&nbsp;&nbsp; Every RPG I've ever played, in every single genera, has a metarule that is so basic to who the game is expected to be played that it doesn't even need to be stated, and generally is so obvious that the designer never even thinks to state it.&nbsp; And that metarule is that wherever the rules are silent, arbitration/resolution of proposition/action works as it would in reality.&nbsp;&nbsp; So even fantasy games are heavily informed by reality.Beyond that, I've been playing RPGs a long time, and while current design has largely moved away from this, from the late 70's to the early 90's, the strongest focus of game design was toward making them more and more realistic.&nbsp; Realism was fetishized as a design concept, on the grounds that it was believed that most problems that a game had and most table conflicts were the result of rules improperly resolving situations because they were not realistic enough.&nbsp; Thus, designers dutifully tried to make systematic resolution even in fantasy games as 'realistic' as possible.&nbsp; At their heart, almost all RPGs began as grand programs to simulate whole worlds coherently and realistically.&nbsp; This includes D&amp;D.&nbsp; I suggest you read, &quot;Playing at the World&quot; by Jon Peterson.Beyond that, suggesting that strength caps are not necessary because they are not realistic neatly dodges the complaints of both sides of this debate.&nbsp; That is to say, D&amp;D is already casually realistic even without strength caps, because women can in reality achieve strengths above 18.&nbsp; But perhaps even more to the point, you are now being totally disingenuous.&nbsp; What you are quoting was in response to this question: &quot;Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?&quot;&nbsp; You are the one that brought reality in to the discussion.&nbsp; You must have thought reality was relevant when you asked the question.&nbsp; It is of course a valid response to the question, &quot;Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?&quot;, to respond, &quot;Well, actually, they are that strong.&nbsp; Or at least, strong enough.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7175643, member: 4937"] Of course reality is relevant to a fantasy game. Every RPG I've ever played, in every single genera, has a metarule that is so basic to who the game is expected to be played that it doesn't even need to be stated, and generally is so obvious that the designer never even thinks to state it. And that metarule is that wherever the rules are silent, arbitration/resolution of proposition/action works as it would in reality. So even fantasy games are heavily informed by reality. Beyond that, I've been playing RPGs a long time, and while current design has largely moved away from this, from the late 70's to the early 90's, the strongest focus of game design was toward making them more and more realistic. Realism was fetishized as a design concept, on the grounds that it was believed that most problems that a game had and most table conflicts were the result of rules improperly resolving situations because they were not realistic enough. Thus, designers dutifully tried to make systematic resolution even in fantasy games as 'realistic' as possible. At their heart, almost all RPGs began as grand programs to simulate whole worlds coherently and realistically. This includes D&D. I suggest you read, "Playing at the World" by Jon Peterson. Beyond that, suggesting that strength caps are not necessary because they are not realistic neatly dodges the complaints of both sides of this debate. That is to say, D&D is already casually realistic even without strength caps, because women can in reality achieve strengths above 18. But perhaps even more to the point, you are now being totally disingenuous. What you are quoting was in response to this question: "Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?" You are the one that brought reality in to the discussion. You must have thought reality was relevant when you asked the question. It is of course a valid response to the question, "Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?", to respond, "Well, actually, they are that strong. Or at least, strong enough." [/QUOTE]

Verification