Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 4739192" data-attributes="member: 29398">Some semblance of realism-mirroring is necessary (in, as others have mentioned, a non-genre system) if only so as not to have to design one's game-world physics, chemistry, and biology from the Big Bang on down in order to explain how things work as they do.&nbsp; So, we assume basics such as gravity; moons orbiting planets orbiting stars etc.; that solids and liquids and gases generally behave as they do in reality; that water freezes at 0 (32) and boils at 100 (212); that life exists, functions, and reproduces much as in reality; and so on.Then, we overlay whatever amount of non-reality required to achieve the game we're looking to play: living gods; magic as a 5th force of physics that can be manipulated by some lifeforms and in rare instances can manipulate itself; non-invention of gunpowder or any other industrial-revolution stuff; fantastic lifeforms; the alternate planes and how they affect the game world, etc.The questions (and for some, problems) arise when we try to explain the non-real overlays in terms relating to reality, as I do with magic above.&nbsp; Should we bother?&nbsp; I say yes, as far as possible, as it adds to internal consistency and by extension to &quot;believability&quot;; here defined as &quot;a situation where things make enough sense to the players in and out of character such that they do not find themselves asking on a meta-game level how and why something works the way it does&quot;.Lan-&quot;nothing's really real&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 4739192, member: 29398"] Some semblance of realism-mirroring is necessary (in, as others have mentioned, a non-genre system) if only so as not to have to design one's game-world physics, chemistry, and biology from the Big Bang on down in order to explain how things work as they do. So, we assume basics such as gravity; moons orbiting planets orbiting stars etc.; that solids and liquids and gases generally behave as they do in reality; that water freezes at 0 (32) and boils at 100 (212); that life exists, functions, and reproduces much as in reality; and so on. Then, we overlay whatever amount of non-reality required to achieve the game we're looking to play: living gods; magic as a 5th force of physics that can be manipulated by some lifeforms and in rare instances can manipulate itself; non-invention of gunpowder or any other industrial-revolution stuff; fantastic lifeforms; the alternate planes and how they affect the game world, etc. The questions (and for some, problems) arise when we try to explain the non-real overlays in terms relating to reality, as I do with magic above. Should we bother? I say yes, as far as possible, as it adds to internal consistency and by extension to "believability"; here defined as "a situation where things make enough sense to the players in and out of character such that they do not find themselves asking on a meta-game level how and why something works the way it does". Lan-"nothing's really real"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification