Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4775233" data-attributes="member: 18280">Why?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />That depends upon what you mean by &quot;grounded in reality&quot;.&nbsp; If you mean &quot;Built upon a basis of reality with fantastic elements layered upon it&quot;, then yes.&nbsp; I would go so far as to say that this was a hallmark of D&amp;D up until 3e, and was still a strong element in 3e.&nbsp; I mean, D&amp;D devoted sections to the nomenclature of pole arms, and the type of clothing peasants might wear.3e took a step away from that by introducing &quot;mundane&quot; equipment that was either alchemical in nature, or relatively impossible or unlikely to be of use (the gnome hammer that impales your forearm when you swing it, for example, or all those endless spikes).&nbsp; These elements were (rightly, IMHO) criticized.&nbsp; 4e takes a huge leap in the same direction, and it shouldn't be surprising that those who didn't like these elements in 3e like them even less now that they are all-pervasive.If you mean &quot;realistic&quot;, then no.&nbsp; Even the 2e Historical References made use of fantastic elements.I don't think anyone here is arguing that D&amp;D is better without fantastic elements.&nbsp; Moreover, as language is generally used, &quot;grounded in reality&quot; means using reality as a baseline, not including only realistic elements.YMMV, though.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4775233, member: 18280"] Why? :confused: That depends upon what you mean by "grounded in reality". If you mean "Built upon a basis of reality with fantastic elements layered upon it", then yes. I would go so far as to say that this was a hallmark of D&D up until 3e, and was still a strong element in 3e. I mean, D&D devoted sections to the nomenclature of pole arms, and the type of clothing peasants might wear. 3e took a step away from that by introducing "mundane" equipment that was either alchemical in nature, or relatively impossible or unlikely to be of use (the gnome hammer that impales your forearm when you swing it, for example, or all those endless spikes). These elements were (rightly, IMHO) criticized. 4e takes a huge leap in the same direction, and it shouldn't be surprising that those who didn't like these elements in 3e like them even less now that they are all-pervasive. If you mean "realistic", then no. Even the 2e Historical References made use of fantastic elements. I don't think anyone here is arguing that D&D is better without fantastic elements. Moreover, as language is generally used, "grounded in reality" means using reality as a baseline, not including only realistic elements. YMMV, though. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification