Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Do YOU nod to "realism"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5763283" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>I think it is limited awareness of the range <strong>and</strong> depth of a lot of subjective feelings, across gamers. Look, nothing against Karin's Dad or me, but I bet if we tried to play <strong>any</strong> game together, we'd be at each others' throats within 2 hours. I've read enough of these posts to understand that his idea of what is "realistic" and mine simply aren't compatible at the same table. But I think there is a tendency to conflate the overall drift and focus of a game with some its particulars. And in fairness, with feelings, you can't always completely control that.</p><p> </p><p>For example, do I think that there are serious problems with the 3E skill system, that interfere with my ability to accept the game world as somehow consistent or sensible? Why, yes, I do. However, as a first cut for 3E, it really isn't <strong>that</strong> bad. I made it work and had a lot of fun with it for a 3 year campaign. Sure, sometimes that was in spite of the skill system, but it wasn't so awful that we couldn't live with it and move on. I wasted some time trying to tweak it to my tastes, but that was my own fault, and didn't damage play at the table one whit. So I have criticisms of the system, but I'm not emotionally invested in being an "anti 3E skill system" guy.</p><p> </p><p>OTOH, take things like double-bladed swords, weapon weights in general, and the 3E crafting system. My objections to them are two part. I have thoughtful reasons for disliking them, and those can be discussed and argued. But I also have an emotional reaction against them which I can explain, and you might understand, but you can't talk me out of. </p><p> </p><p>Every system has things that provoke those kind of dual reactions, and people aren't always aware that the reactions are dual. And a lot of times, it doesn't really matter. You don't like something, whether critically or emotionally. So you don't use it, and that's that.</p><p> </p><p>Where 4E was different was that it is really in your face on the changes. That makes it harder for people to ignore elements that they dislike. This is more than merely the 4E "bad marketing" of telling people that a lot of stuff would be "fixed"--though that is part of it. Dropping all pretense of simulation, including some deliberate and central metagaming mechanics, reining in magic while expanding mundane means--all of these combine to make it suddenly hard to ignore. <strong>It was brutally honest about what it was doing.</strong></p><p> </p><p>It doesn't bother me, and I get along better with 4E than 3E/3.5/PF, in part because I like brutal honesty in my game materials. Some people don't like that kind of brutal honesty at all. And others don't mind it, but the changes are just to big to ignore. And still others really have no concept whatsoever how D&D is played at other tables, and this narrows the range of their acceptance. They can't possibly imagine how feature X or rule Y could be catering to anything involving "good roleplaying". When it was just hit points or Armor making you harder to hit, they could survive on the occasional drive by slam, and then go back to ignoring it. </p><p> </p><p>"Come and Get It" to them is like you suddenly saw a pair of monkeys in tuxedos. There probably is a good reason (or chain of reasons) for it, and it probably involves someone's idea of "fun", but chances are you aren't going to understand it, possibly not even after an explanation. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5763283, member: 54877"] I think it is limited awareness of the range [B]and[/B] depth of a lot of subjective feelings, across gamers. Look, nothing against Karin's Dad or me, but I bet if we tried to play [B]any[/B] game together, we'd be at each others' throats within 2 hours. I've read enough of these posts to understand that his idea of what is "realistic" and mine simply aren't compatible at the same table. But I think there is a tendency to conflate the overall drift and focus of a game with some its particulars. And in fairness, with feelings, you can't always completely control that. For example, do I think that there are serious problems with the 3E skill system, that interfere with my ability to accept the game world as somehow consistent or sensible? Why, yes, I do. However, as a first cut for 3E, it really isn't [B]that[/B] bad. I made it work and had a lot of fun with it for a 3 year campaign. Sure, sometimes that was in spite of the skill system, but it wasn't so awful that we couldn't live with it and move on. I wasted some time trying to tweak it to my tastes, but that was my own fault, and didn't damage play at the table one whit. So I have criticisms of the system, but I'm not emotionally invested in being an "anti 3E skill system" guy. OTOH, take things like double-bladed swords, weapon weights in general, and the 3E crafting system. My objections to them are two part. I have thoughtful reasons for disliking them, and those can be discussed and argued. But I also have an emotional reaction against them which I can explain, and you might understand, but you can't talk me out of. Every system has things that provoke those kind of dual reactions, and people aren't always aware that the reactions are dual. And a lot of times, it doesn't really matter. You don't like something, whether critically or emotionally. So you don't use it, and that's that. Where 4E was different was that it is really in your face on the changes. That makes it harder for people to ignore elements that they dislike. This is more than merely the 4E "bad marketing" of telling people that a lot of stuff would be "fixed"--though that is part of it. Dropping all pretense of simulation, including some deliberate and central metagaming mechanics, reining in magic while expanding mundane means--all of these combine to make it suddenly hard to ignore. [B]It was brutally honest about what it was doing.[/B] It doesn't bother me, and I get along better with 4E than 3E/3.5/PF, in part because I like brutal honesty in my game materials. Some people don't like that kind of brutal honesty at all. And others don't mind it, but the changes are just to big to ignore. And still others really have no concept whatsoever how D&D is played at other tables, and this narrows the range of their acceptance. They can't possibly imagine how feature X or rule Y could be catering to anything involving "good roleplaying". When it was just hit points or Armor making you harder to hit, they could survive on the occasional drive by slam, and then go back to ignoring it. "Come and Get It" to them is like you suddenly saw a pair of monkeys in tuxedos. There probably is a good reason (or chain of reasons) for it, and it probably involves someone's idea of "fun", but chances are you aren't going to understand it, possibly not even after an explanation. :p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Do YOU nod to "realism"?
Top