Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 3570108" data-attributes="member: 7240">How does that follow? Some worlds have magic that is inexplicable. Some world have magic that is clearly systematic, explicable and predictable. Most D&D worlds fall into the latter category not the former. Otherwise, skills like Spellcraft and spells like Analyze Dweomer would not produce consistent and predictable results that describe magical effects in predictable and systematic terms.I'm getting the feeling you didn't actually read through my post because it begins with me agreeing with you that using "magic" as a handwave is poor GMing. So, given that you don't appear to have read my post or don't understand it and that you have failed to pick up on what I'm actually saying in any of my posts since the one responding to yours, I'll boil my argument down for you:We both value realism in our games equally. You define realism as bearing a strong resemblance to the world in which we live. I define realism as internal consistency.For you to characterize any world, no matter how internally consistent it is as unrealistic simply because it does not resemble the world in which we live bothers me.I'm not sure that I make that point anywhere in my post. The dispute I am having with you is not about the variety of worlds that exist in the universe in which we live. My dispute with you has to do with your assumption that all universes have either (a) almost exactly the same physical laws as this one or (b) no consistent physical laws at all. The worlds I design have (c) different but internally consistent physical laws that are different from our universe's. So, my problem with your sentence here has more to do with the fact that you assume world=planet; why would a fantasy world be a planet? Many fantasy worlds are on flat discs or rectangles.If life arose in D&D worlds by the same principles that govern it in the world in which we live, almost no creatures statted outside of the appendices of the Monser Manual could exist at all. So it is pretty clear that the processes by which life emerges in D&D worlds is different than the processes by which it emerges in our world.Most setting materials back this up by explaining how life on these worlds was created by gods.Why would the emergence of life be identical in a system in which carbon is not an element but earth is?Why not? In D&D it is consistent, systematic, predictable and governed by rules. That's all physics is: the rules by which the universe works. Now, if D&D magic were inconsistent, unpredictable and not rule-governed I would agree with you. But the RAW makes it pretty clear that this is not the case.This makes no sense. If you accept, as you just appear to have done, the Great Wheel cosmology, it is clear that the physics of the universe constitute a radical departure from the physics of our own system.So, how do the set of spell descriptions in the PHB and the set of item creation rules in the DMG fail to meet these criteria. Magic acts in a consistent, measurable and observable manner.By that logic, if a weak person tried to bend a thin metal bar and couldn't but a strong person tried to bend the same bar and could, the laws of physics would have been defied.I'm glad that works for you and your players. But to suggest that this model of understanding a D&D world has a stronger claim on "realism" than mine is what I really object to. It seems to me that your D&D world is full of constant hand-waves and internal inconsistencies every time magic is used, elementals appear, etc. I'm fine with you liking your worlds better than mine; to each his own. But to suggest that you have somehow discovered a more "realistic" way of understanding D&D is just not on.Well, it sounds to me like you prefer to spend your energy house-ruling your way around the conception of physics that works for you. Me, I'd rather spend my energy coming up with explanations that make sense of the rules that the game has. I'd rather not change the summoning spells, encounter tables and a myriad of other things just to shore up a conception of D&D physics that is clearly contradicted by the RAW (which specifically state that there are four elements, for instance). Now, I'm not telling you you are playing the game wrong. All I'm saying is that your style of play has no more claim to the mantle of "realism" than mine does.My point here is that your definition of believability/realism excludes a lot of people's settings and play dynamics. To suggest that my world is less believable than yours because I treat the RAW as the physics of the world whereas you treat the RAW as a mixture of lies, untruths and handwaves is just not on.My point is that there are a lot of people who care deeply about consistency, realism and believability just as much as (or perhaps more than) you do. The fact that our solutions to the problems of D&D physics are different than yours does not mean that we do not care about these values.</blockquote>

Verification