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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5763489" data-attributes="member: 22779">However, all you're doing is dumping the work of making something "realistic" onto the game designer rather than with the individual group.  And, as has been amply demonstrated, what I or you might find "realistic" could be completely different.  Thus, by defining a baseline "realism" in the rules, you turn off anyone who disagrees with your view of realism.OTOH, no one comes to the game a blank slate.  Most gamers are going to have at least a basic knowledge of genre conceits based on fiction - dragons are big and scary, getting hit with a sword hurts, wizards do magic.  That sort of thing.  There's more than enough genre fiction out there in a multitude of forms that it's a pretty easy assumption to make.So, why not start with a mechanical framework (page 42) that tells you what the ballpark should look like relative to a given level?  Then the players can determine what they feel is realistic.  If a fireball does X damage, that will get established at the table.  It might do different damage next time, depending on the narrative that's going on - after all, fireball's actually DO do different damage based on die roll and level right now.  The group will determine what is consistent.  The downside of this is that this kind of game really, really doesn't appeal to a casual gamer.  It requires that the players be invested in making sure that the game is fun, rather than playing on autopilot and relying on the mechanics.I could maybe see a basic version of the P42 D&D being much more structured - say up to about 5th level where you establish pretty strong thematic elements in the characters and the world around them.  Once everyone is on the same page, then you open things up to our putative Page 42 D&D and let the players take a much greater level of control over the game.</blockquote>

Verification