Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9542312" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Nope. It's not something I have any interest in doing. I'm just saying that it CAN be done.No idea! It seems like a pretty unwise choice to me. But just because it is unwise does not mean it is not something a person could choose to do. Hence, it is literally possible, but it is practically extremely unlikely because it is extremely unwise for various reasons.The whole point of the example was to show someone else (Micah) more or less what was very graciously admitted above: verisimilitude is a currency, which should not be spent frivolously, and one of the places where it is pretty much objectively a non-frivolous expense is improving pacing by cutting out many things that are realistic but terribly uninteresting.Further, you're using examples far afield from what I said. I used a much more specific point than just any downtime whatsoever. I was specifically referring to the unrealistic choice of having it be the case that all rumors, leads, strange reports, etc. turn out to be worthwhile to investigate, e.g. there is a near or total absence of "dud" adventure hooks. This is not the same as taking a microscope to every part of the characters' lives; instead, it is a world that is (very!) unrealistically jam-packed with actually interesting events. The characters would still be doing things to investigate the leads, they just rarely/never do stuff to investigate only to learn that it was a total waste of time to have done so. In the real world, lots of time gets spent following up on duds of all sorts: bad/flawed military intel, false police reports, academic cul-de-sacs, promising drug candidates that have unacceptable side-effects, scientists following reasonable hypotheses that produce null results, etc. It is very much a narrative conceit to have nearly all (or even truly all) of the places that the party goes looking actually contain something worthy of the time spent.It literally is though, in the formal sense of the term; it is strictly true that it is possible to do. You literally can do it. It would be almost completely awful! Very few people would want to do it! But you absolutely CAN do it. Nothing is preventing you from doing so. You keep citing how it would be bad or dull or plodding to do it, various ways of saying "that's a very very bad idea", as though that somehow makes it not physically possible to do. Giving reasons why it would be unwise to do it, that there would be negative effects if you did do it, is not at all the same as showing that it cannot be done. Indeed, I would say it is conceding that it can be done. If there are negative consequences for doing a thing, then by definition, the thing must be doable.</blockquote>

Verification