Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8456178" data-attributes="member: 7030755">Realism is also a genre, and if your table values realism, it's just important to know at what point is the suspension of disbelief broken.&nbsp; I don't think it's necessarily the point where what happens differs from, say, the physics of real world earth, because the sense of what counts as &quot;realistic&quot; is actually itself informed by genre and particular aesthetics.Historical Realism:&nbsp; You might be picky in wanting coins to weigh what they would've weighed in England circa 1100CE, but are you as picky on most of the economy being based on barter?&nbsp; Historical realism in fantasy worlds is always complicated because there is the question of what histories are being made available and why, and almost always our sense of what that history looked like is romanticized, skewed, or otherwise inaccurate in a bunch of ways.&nbsp; The point here might be to emphasize the &quot;grittiness&quot; of the world such that the monstrous and the magical truly appear as such.&nbsp; Speculative realism:&nbsp; 'Hard' science fiction falls into this category, but also worldbuilding that tries to think through the implications of magic (5e strikes me as not having thought through these implications, given that cantrips, 1st level spells, and common magic items could solve many real world problems while undoubtedly creating others).&nbsp; Science fiction games strike me as potentially problematic&nbsp; because there are going to be a variety of expectations regarding how 'real' the universe has to be (i.e. do you want to play science fiction or science fantasy?)It's easy for game mechanics to break suspension of disbelief because they are all to one degree or another artificial, but at the same time I do thing that some mechanics might seem more disassociated compared to others, even if that determination is made idiosyncratically (and whether or not that actually bothers anyone).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8456178, member: 7030755"] Realism is also a genre, and if your table values realism, it's just important to know at what point is the suspension of disbelief broken. I don't think it's [I]necessarily[/I] the point where what happens differs from, say, the physics of real world earth, because the sense of what counts as "realistic" is actually itself informed by genre and particular aesthetics. Historical Realism: You might be picky in wanting coins to weigh what they would've weighed in England circa 1100CE, but are you as picky on most of the economy being based on barter? Historical realism in fantasy worlds is always complicated because there is the question of what histories are being made available and why, and almost always our sense of what that history looked like is romanticized, skewed, or otherwise inaccurate in a bunch of ways. The point here might be to emphasize the "grittiness" of the world such that the monstrous and the magical truly appear as such. Speculative realism: 'Hard' science fiction falls into this category, but also worldbuilding that tries to think through the implications of magic (5e strikes me as not having thought through these implications, given that cantrips, 1st level spells, and common magic items could solve many real world problems while undoubtedly creating others). Science fiction games strike me as potentially problematic because there are going to be a variety of expectations regarding how 'real' the universe has to be (i.e. do you want to play science fiction or science fantasy?) It's easy for game mechanics to break suspension of disbelief because they are all to one degree or another artificial, but at the same time I do thing that some mechanics might seem more disassociated compared to others, even if that determination is made idiosyncratically (and whether or not that actually bothers anyone). [/QUOTE]

Verification