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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5756571" data-attributes="member: 27160">Actually, it's "above the natural", which is kind of the problem - an assumed superiority. But this word, and this view, is something of an anachronism as regards myth and legend, in any case. It - and most of the prescriptions you place on the worlds of D&D - are heavily predicated on a world view of scientific materialism. "Martial" can only mean "what is natural and possible according to science (or, worse, "common sense") if we assume a basic correctness for the scientific world view. This may be only reasonable for the real world, where the vast preponderance of evidence suggests that this is in fact so, but for a world where "magic" (or, better said, "arcane feats") are in the realm of proven fact, it seems far less tenable.Our medieval forbears, it seems, would not have found the idea of "living dead" with minds in the least implausible, at least in Europe/Christendom. Their image of the living dead seems to have sprung from the Bible, which said that, on Judgement Day, everyone would rise from the grave - presumably with much the same faculties that they had in life. To be sure, if some individuals had arisen before Judgement Day it was a sure sign that something had gone seriously wrong - but that need not mean that the risen should be in any other state than would be normal and "natural" for the risen to be in...Insisting on a basically scientific materialist world view has a certain logic - and certain merits - in a world where the players of the game are, generally, raised on the scientific materialist world-view. On the other hand, insisting that a mythic and/or legendary world conform to a scientific materialist world view contains in itself a degree of illogic, and generates certain problems.This is one way to formulate game rules, sure. If you want to prioritise anything but "immersion" and Simulationist, explorative play, however, it is a strictly inferior one for several reasons.Where I think this approach really comes unravelled with D&D, however, is that D&D has, as core "tropes", levels, hit points and xp. If these elements of the rules really do describe real phenomenae in the game world, it is, in my experience, extraoriinarily difficult to get the game world to make any sense in an "internal consistency" way.  It just doesn't "fit"; people can't be people any more when they can wipe out armies and yet are not rulers. Rulers cannot rule in any "normal" way when unchecked peons may develop into superheroes. In short, I think "simulationist", "explorative" or "world-based" play is a chimaera in a classic D&D world setting.Clearly, this doesn't prevent some folk pursuing such play - all I can say is "good luck with that".</blockquote>

Verification