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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 4082003" data-attributes="member: 1465">Thanks for the interesting thread.The dispute between realism and gamism is really unsolvable. It's a bit like an argument between two political or religious ideology: the two parties have some fundamentally different assumptions that won't make them meet.I liked D&D since the start as a rule system, but I cannot play with a ruleset that completely defies some element of realism, at least the one which I have on my mind. It's hard to explain, but I know it when I see it!I'll make an example. If I play in a game where they tell me that your characters resurrect automatically every time they die (like in a computer game) albeit with some fastidious penalties, I would hate such game.If I play in a game where the PCs go to Ysgard, the "afterlife of warriors", where auto-resurrect happens, but that's because those people are already dead and this is how afterlife works... then I'd love an adventure or two in such a place!But eventually someone will have to tell me how does "everyday life" in Ysgard works, and I expect that to be very different from real life (although it could be just fighting over and over). If someone wanted to fit the auto-resurrect idea into a normal world (even with magic), trying to keep the life unaffected by it, then it simply wouldn't cut it for me.It's not that I don't like playing abstract games. It's just that for me to play a roleplay game means to play a game where you "transpose" yourself into a character and pretend to be there, in the middle of the adventure, yourself.And to do that, I expect the rules to serve the adventures and the setting, and not the adventures and the setting to serve the rules.</blockquote>

Verification