Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5453190" data-attributes="member: 1165">
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> 
 
Not hard at all. At least in Canada, everyone knows enough about basic middle ages stuff they can join. (The stuff they know might not be accurate, but that's another story.) DMs need to have a higher level of knowledge though. 
 
 
 
Typically yes, but you either learn the rules for it (often inaccurate too) or ignore them. Only if simulationist DMs start pushing realistic rules (in-game or house rules) do problems occur. 
 
 
 
No. The rules generally cover conflict, combat and social alike. It doesn't matter how the Diplomacy skill works, it rarely covers interactions between nobles and commoners, in the sense that there are no special mechanics. (DMs usually just ignore this anyway, not coming up with house rules that generally just serve to screw over the PCs.) 
 
 
 
I started with 2e, but the games we were in were so goofy there was nothing realistic to trip over. 
 
 
 
I can't help but recall the various debates on guns in DnD. That's an example of simulationism causing serious problems. Most players &quot;know&quot; there were no guns in the Middle Ages (inaccurate) and even many DMs who know better want to stick to tried and true tropes. Most simulationist DMs &quot;know&quot; it takes two to three rounds to reload a gun (perhaps that's accurate, but it's not fun!). Many simulationist DMs know how often guns jam, how much smoke they emit, how inaccurate they are, have some vague idea of how much damage they deal, etc, most of which cause problems with fun, balance, complexity or all of the above. 
 
Of course, it is possible to be too unrealistic. For instance, if a gaming company invented a class that represented 1/7th of the people of a culture and insisted they were all ambidextrous, or made them follow an unrealistic code of honor, etc.</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 5453190, member: 1165"] [LIST] Not hard at all. At least in Canada, everyone knows enough about basic middle ages stuff they can join. (The stuff they know might not be accurate, but that's another story.) DMs need to have a higher level of knowledge though. Typically yes, but you either learn the rules for it (often inaccurate too) or ignore them. Only if simulationist DMs start pushing realistic rules (in-game or house rules) do problems occur. No. The rules generally cover conflict, combat and social alike. It doesn't matter how the Diplomacy skill works, it rarely covers interactions between nobles and commoners, in the sense that there are no special mechanics. (DMs usually just ignore this anyway, not coming up with house rules that generally just serve to screw over the PCs.) I started with 2e, but the games we were in were so goofy there was nothing realistic to trip over. I can't help but recall the various debates on guns in DnD. That's an example of simulationism causing serious problems. Most players "know" there were no guns in the Middle Ages (inaccurate) and even many DMs who know better want to stick to tried and true tropes. Most simulationist DMs "know" it takes two to three rounds to reload a gun (perhaps that's accurate, but it's not fun!). Many simulationist DMs know how often guns jam, how much smoke they emit, how inaccurate they are, have some vague idea of how much damage they deal, etc, most of which cause problems with fun, balance, complexity or all of the above. Of course, it [i]is[/i] possible to be too unrealistic. For instance, if a gaming company invented a class that represented 1/7th of the people of a culture and insisted they were all ambidextrous, or made them follow an unrealistic code of honor, etc.[/list] [/QUOTE]

Verification