D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

I mean, when you look at the rest of the galaxy, Earth starts to look pretty implausible.

Astronomers are 99.7% certain that they found life on a planet 124 light years from us. I expect the earth isn't nearly as unique and/or unplausible as us humans like to think that it is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Astronomers are 99.7% certain that they found life on a planet 124 light years from us. I expect the earth isn't nearly as unique and/or unplausible as us humans like to think that it is.

Not weighing in but I can't help but think of this scene watching this part of the discussion

 

[TwoSix]

Astronomers are 99.7% certain that they found life on a planet 124 light years from us. I expect the earth isn't nearly as unique and/or unplausible as us humans like to think that it is.

Wake me up if/when it's actually sapient. Or at least diverse and multicellular (or alien equivalent).

 

[dave2008]

I'm just extraordinarily frustrated with the constant accusations, the unending litanies of requirements, the "no you're just wrong and I won't explain why", etc., etc., etc.

I, and others who share (at least some of) my positions, have jumped through hoop after hoop after hoop. We have explained in painstaking detail. And what do we get for it? Diddly-squat. We have to explain; the other side explicitly refuses to explain. We have to justify. The other side explicitly refuses to justify--unless it resorts to "justifications" which almost instantaneously crumble as soon as the slightest touch of discussion hits them, like the whole "it takes my agency away to tell me what my character thinks or feels, like if a failed roll causes my character to feel fear", only for that standard to be completely outright contradicted and that contradiction to be claimed as some kind of victory.

Maybe the solution for you is not justify or provide detailed explanations? It seems to really bother you, so why are you doing it?

 

[robertsconley]

Of course the strange thing is that a real living world doesn't run on the logic of what is plausible! So we may, and I do, abstract our campaign worlds based on what we deem plausible, that is ultimately a very narrow range of what is plausible or possible.

I’d argue that the real world follows internal logic; we don’t always see it in real time. So-called “Black Swan” events appear implausible only because we overlooked or dismissed relevant factors. Once those are known, the chain of events often makes sense in hindsight. While there are often disputes over “what happened,” those debates are constrained by what is known about the event. They’re helpful because they highlight different viewpoints that can be repurposed when developing plausible outcomes.

I’ve participated in alternate history discussions where analyzing what-ifs and assessing their plausibility is central to the exercise. While I found those discussions fun for their own sake, they also sharpened my ability to identify plausible outcomes by surfacing factors that strictly historical analysis might overlook.

And unlike real history, we don’t need to be accurate; we need to be consistent. That makes the task easier than it might first appear.

 

[dave2008]

How do you think I feel?

It's really hard to have a conversation with someone when we have the following exchange seventeen times:

Person A: "I don't really understand what you meant by the terms X and Y. Could you explain in a different way?"
Person B: "No, I can't. That's it."

That is very unfair IMO. You are very good at explain things in a lot of detail. That is not a skill everyone has or has the time to engage in. So I think it is a bit unfair to expect back what you give. My suggestion: give less and then you may less disappointed in the discussion as you get back what you give. I have to remind my partner of this (a very giving person) frequently.

So, when someone says: "No, I can't. That's it." That may be a very literal response to being unable to describe a given topic in more detail. Heck, I know I have hit that wall in discussions with you. I simply don't have your rhetorical talent and can't honestly imagine myself providing an answer that satisfies you, even when I try my best. Your demands can be outside the scope of my ability, desire, time, etc.

 

[dave2008]

I’d argue that the real world follows internal logic; we don’t always see it in real time. So-called “Black Swan” events appear implausible only because we overlooked or dismissed relevant factors. Once those are known, the chain of events often makes sense in hindsight. While there are often disputes over “what happened,” those debates are constrained by what is known about the event. They’re helpful because they highlight different viewpoints that can be repurposed when developing plausible outcomes.

I’ve participated in alternate history discussions where analyzing what-ifs and assessing their plausibility is central to the exercise. While I found those discussions fun for their own sake, they also sharpened my ability to identify plausible outcomes by surfacing factors that strictly historical analysis might overlook.

And unlike real history, we don’t need to be accurate; we need to be consistent. That makes the task easier than it might first appear.

IMO, it depends on what you mean by internal logic. We know for a fact that people, and to some extent animals, do not always (and sometimes rarely) act based on what is logically the best choice for them. You then multiple those illogical choices across the millions of lifeforms (particularly sentient ones) and, IMO, it really breaks the idea of "internal logic."

Also, I find it the height a hubris that a single person (the DM) could reasonably determine what is "internally logical" in a campaign world let alone the vastness of the Multiverse.

Now, I do want to be clear that I do pretty much the exact same thing that you (and @Micah Sweet) do. The only difference, if there is one, is that I acknowledge it is not the world's internal logic but the logic, parameters, constraints, freedoms, etc. that I, the DM, construct. And that does not mean it is anything close to a RL world (even if that is my intent). It just makes sense to me and my players and that is all I am asking for.

 

[dave2008]

By contrast, I do understand terms like "a persistent world" (a term widely used in video game design) or...

I don't know the meaning of that term (I don't play or design video games), care to explain?

"illusionism" (the practice of deceiving players into thinking they have agency over the direction(s) the game moves in, when the truth is they are riding on rails concealed from them) or

I didn't know the meaning of this term until you just explained it!

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMO, it depends on what you mean by internal logic. We know for a fact that people, and to some extent animals, do not always (and sometimes rarely) act based on what is logically the best choice for them. You then multiple those illogical choices across the millions of lifeforms (particularly sentient ones) and, IMO, it really breaks the idea of "internal logic."

Also, I find it the height a hubris that a single person (the DM) could reasonably determine what is "internally logical" in a campaign world let alone the vastness of the Multiverse.

Now, I do want to be clear that I do pretty much the exact same thing that you (and @Micah Sweet) do. The only difference, if there is one, is that I acknowledge it is not the world's internal logic but the logic, parameters, constraints, freedoms, etc. that I, the DM, construct. And that does not mean it is anything close to a RL world (even if that is my intent). It just makes sense to me and my players and that is all I am asking for.

I would like events to proceed in a plausible fashion (subject to my and my players conception of what is plausible, of course) all the time. That doesn't mean always the most plausible option, just one that could occur based on available data. I am also open to being questioned (my wife does this all the time in our games), and am willing to change my mind if I hear a good argument.

 

[dave2008]

Not one person I have asked about what "realism" means, for example, has even TRIED to answer. They've said either:

I'm jumping in late so I don't know if you are correct on this or not. I have noticed some people discussing plausibility. So, IMO, it seems like some people are discussing this,...because that is the bedrock of what realism means to me.

So my definition is something like...
Fantasy RPG Realism: What is broadly plausible in a given situation based on the fantasy physics and assumptions of the campaign world (setting).