Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 6291551" data-attributes="member: 162"><p>That people manage to find ways to deal with it does not mean that it is not a problem at the system level. Mechanics have an impact on the implied setting; whether or not those are investigated by people playing in that implied setting is another question.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Simulationism is irrelevant because most people don't care, and it's not fun to think about, and if you do you're just being pretentious."</p><p></p><p>I care about internal consistency. As a DM, it is literally the <em>most important</em> thing for me - if you do not have it, everything else is pretty much pointless.</p><p></p><p>As a player, it frustrates me to no end when something lacks internal consistency, and is one of the most effective ways to ruin my suspension of disbelief. And once it's lost due to a lack of internal consistency, it is incredibly difficult to get back.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>...what is this, I don't even.</p><p></p><p>I rarely even visit this place anymore, and post on even rarer occasion. There's a reason for that.</p><p></p><p>So I don't really see the point you're trying to make, here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. It's easier to simply remove the offending element than think through the ramifications of it, especially when I don't particularly enjoy that element and the resulting ramifications it would have.</p><p></p><p>I don't want it in my setting. I also don't want probably a bunch of other things. Should I include them, too, simply because you can think of ways that including them would make the world - in your opinion - a more interesting place? It's not just what is in a setting that helps define it, but also what is <em>not</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. I'm not promoting OTW, here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Cool for you, I guess?</p><p></p><p>In my mind, simulationism benefits significantly from having high correlation to the real world. It's difficult to evoke wonder when everything is alien to the players. If you want something to feel mysterious, that requires it to be sufficiently scarce that it comes across that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And the lack of internal consistency bothers me. End of story.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>That... sigh. It sounds to me like you're conflating "simulationism" with "realism," which is not - and never has been - the case.</p><p></p><p>I don't care if the imagined setting looks like the real world, though it is a benefit, as I mentioned above. I want internal consistency. Those are not the same thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GnomeWorks, post: 6291551, member: 162"] That people manage to find ways to deal with it does not mean that it is not a problem at the system level. Mechanics have an impact on the implied setting; whether or not those are investigated by people playing in that implied setting is another question. "Simulationism is irrelevant because most people don't care, and it's not fun to think about, and if you do you're just being pretentious." I care about internal consistency. As a DM, it is literally the [i]most important[/i] thing for me - if you do not have it, everything else is pretty much pointless. As a player, it frustrates me to no end when something lacks internal consistency, and is one of the most effective ways to ruin my suspension of disbelief. And once it's lost due to a lack of internal consistency, it is incredibly difficult to get back. ...what is this, I don't even. I rarely even visit this place anymore, and post on even rarer occasion. There's a reason for that. So I don't really see the point you're trying to make, here. Yes. It's easier to simply remove the offending element than think through the ramifications of it, especially when I don't particularly enjoy that element and the resulting ramifications it would have. I don't want it in my setting. I also don't want probably a bunch of other things. Should I include them, too, simply because you can think of ways that including them would make the world - in your opinion - a more interesting place? It's not just what is in a setting that helps define it, but also what is [i]not[/i]. Sure. I'm not promoting OTW, here. Cool for you, I guess? In my mind, simulationism benefits significantly from having high correlation to the real world. It's difficult to evoke wonder when everything is alien to the players. If you want something to feel mysterious, that requires it to be sufficiently scarce that it comes across that way. And the lack of internal consistency bothers me. End of story. That... sigh. It sounds to me like you're conflating "simulationism" with "realism," which is not - and never has been - the case. I don't care if the imagined setting looks like the real world, though it is a benefit, as I mentioned above. I want internal consistency. Those are not the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting
Top