Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 503025" data-attributes="member: 177">I think dividing between &quot;realism&quot; and &quot;verisimilitude&quot; is a decent idea in gaming.&nbsp; I don't pish-posh on realism.&nbsp; I think there must be a certain level of realism iin the game in order for the players to have a grasp on the world.&nbsp; If the world is too unrealistic, it ceases to be functional.My gripe is with quibbling points of realism.&nbsp; It isn't particularly rational to get a tizzy over how &quot;unrealistic&quot; a particular portion of the game is.&nbsp; Changing one part of the game won't significantly increase the level of &quot;realism&quot; if you leave many other glaringly unrealistic things in it.&nbsp; From my own experience, though, gripes about the level of restriction in the D&amp;D class system aren't so much about &quot;realism&quot; or &quot;verisimilitude&quot; as they are about tolerance of compromise.&nbsp; Yes, but then why pick a game that has such at it's root?&nbsp; Gamers, for some odd reason, tend to forget the old adage, &quot;Use the right tool for the job&quot;.&nbsp; We tend to try to make hammers into screwdrivers.&nbsp; We'd rather undertake a major reworking of a system than take a look to see if maybe there's a system that better fits our needs.I am not against house rules - add a little here, tweak a little there.&nbsp; I've done it many times.&nbsp; However, whenever you realize that in order to make the system do what you want you need to largely retool one of it's major underpinnings, it's perhaps time to look around for another system.&nbsp; Not because a game system is somehow holy and must remain pristine, but because it's just plain easier.&nbsp; There are lots of games out there.&nbsp; Why keep re-inventing the wheel?&nbsp; Why cobble together a system you know darn well you cannot playtest adequately, when someone has already created something along the lines of what you want?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 503025, member: 177"] I think dividing between "realism" and "verisimilitude" is a decent idea in gaming. I don't pish-posh on realism. I think there must be a certain level of realism iin the game in order for the players to have a grasp on the world. If the world is too unrealistic, it ceases to be functional. My gripe is with quibbling points of realism. It isn't particularly rational to get a tizzy over how "unrealistic" a particular portion of the game is. Changing one part of the game won't significantly increase the level of "realism" if you leave many other glaringly unrealistic things in it. From my own experience, though, gripes about the level of restriction in the D&D class system aren't so much about "realism" or "verisimilitude" as they are about tolerance of compromise. Yes, but then why pick a game that has such at it's root? Gamers, for some odd reason, tend to forget the old adage, "Use the right tool for the job". We tend to try to make hammers into screwdrivers. We'd rather undertake a major reworking of a system than take a look to see if maybe there's a system that better fits our needs. I am not against house rules - add a little here, tweak a little there. I've done it many times. However, whenever you realize that in order to make the system do what you want you need to largely retool one of it's major underpinnings, it's perhaps time to look around for another system. Not because a game system is somehow holy and must remain pristine, but because it's just plain easier. There are lots of games out there. Why keep re-inventing the wheel? Why cobble together a system you know darn well you cannot playtest adequately, when someone has already created something along the lines of what you want? [/QUOTE]

Verification