Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4740897" data-attributes="member: 61449">I am actually not saying anything about my preferred level of &quot;realism&quot; in any perticular game, much less ALL games. I am saying that &quot;realism&quot; is very much context dependent. We can't even all agree on what is &quot;real&quot; in the real world. Check into any religion debate. &quot;Realism&quot; is something that is dependent on genre, theme, tone, as well as group and individual tastes, and is basically set for each element in the game. This only happens as a process, and requires communication to create the &quot;necessary&quot; amount of &quot;realism&quot;. Complaining about whether a certain game is &quot;realistic&quot; enough means nothing without all of this context. The complaints about insufficient &quot;realism&quot; typically happen over a specific event in game. They are often a reaction to the DM not having the same assumptions about what &quot;real&quot; is in a fantasy game as they do. The ones that don't fit this mold are typically people who hate a specific game and just want to bash it and it's adherents, and usually takes the tone of &quot;Your unrealistic games are inferior to mine!&quot; The only rebuttal to the second is &quot;Quit playing this system and quit insulting me.&quot; The rebuttal to the second is &quot;Your objections are meaningless without the context to give them meaning. Your problems probably exist as a result of insuficient or failed communication.&quot; I am not trying to point out that there is no solution. I am not trying to point out that there is a perfect solution. I am pointing out where all of these debates go wrong. They go wrong because any complaint about the percieved lack of &quot;realism&quot; in any particular game should be structured in the form of &quot;This particular game is not realistic enough...&quot; with a long string of qualifiers, the most important of which will be &quot;...for me in this context.&quot; Anything less really has no meaning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PrecociousApprentice, post: 4740897, member: 61449"] I am actually not saying anything about my preferred level of "realism" in any perticular game, much less ALL games. I am saying that "realism" is very much context dependent. We can't even all agree on what is "real" in the real world. Check into any religion debate. "Realism" is something that is dependent on genre, theme, tone, as well as group and individual tastes, and is basically set for each element in the game. This only happens as a process, and requires communication to create the "necessary" amount of "realism". Complaining about whether a certain game is "realistic" enough means nothing without all of this context. The complaints about insufficient "realism" typically happen over a specific event in game. They are often a reaction to the DM not having the same assumptions about what "real" is in a fantasy game as they do. The ones that don't fit this mold are typically people who hate a specific game and just want to bash it and it's adherents, and usually takes the tone of "Your unrealistic games are inferior to mine!" The only rebuttal to the second is "Quit playing this system and quit insulting me." The rebuttal to the second is "Your objections are meaningless without the context to give them meaning. Your problems probably exist as a result of insuficient or failed communication." I am not trying to point out that there is no solution. I am not trying to point out that there is a perfect solution. I am pointing out where all of these debates go wrong. They go wrong because any complaint about the percieved lack of "realism" in any particular game should be structured in the form of "This particular game is not realistic enough..." with a long string of qualifiers, the most important of which will be "...for me in this context." Anything less really has no meaning. [/QUOTE]

Verification