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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 4742198" data-attributes="member: 8835">The bulk of the "that's not realistic" arguments I see in games come from one side arguing against something that happened in the game, or somebody trying to screw the other side with "realisim".  In both cases, it's trying to manipulate the rules and game events to a favorable outcome.In a game with a good GM, a scene with lava will be introduced with description and clues as to what's dangerous, and what's not.If there's a bridge, the implication is the party will cross it (and it's safe, or it's a trap).If it's too hot, the PC will be told about searing heat, before he gets too close to actually take damage.If there's dangerous gases, the PC will be told that the air is hard to breathe, and gets worse the close he gets to the lava.In a game with a bad GM, the GM will say nothing like this.  He's waiting for the PC to get within range of the lava to announce heat damage.  The PC has no common sense "this is too hot" warnings before he gets too close.On the player side, it's the same thing.  If the orcs start crossing the bridge, they'll bring up that the orcs should die from the heat and gasses because they saw a show on National Geographic about it.  Never mind that they wouldn't bring that up, if the PCs were needing to cross that bridge.It's a known characteristic, that if you try to accurately simulate reality, the game rules become complex and numerous.  This slows down game play, and reduces fun.  People bring up realisim, specifically to attack what's happening in game, to try to gain an advantage.</blockquote>

Verification