Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cbas_10" data-source="post: 4017527" data-attributes="member: 55767">I'm not sure if I really fit within the &quot;Simulationist&quot; group, or if a third group exists: Storytellers.In essence, if some random rule exists that works or does not work with other rules....I'm not here to call out its realism or its importance as a game balance and game play factor.&nbsp; I want to be able to explain it in the sense of a story.From my perspective....I am not running a D&amp;D adventure that has a common theme that becomes a chronicle.&nbsp; Instead, I have a storyline in mind that just happens to be told and interacted with by the players in the medium of the D&amp;D rules.Fire-breathing dragons that defy physics via thier mass, wingspan, and aerodynamics.....who cares?&nbsp; This is fantasy....it is a story....Dragons are magical creatures that fly by the use of thier wings assisted by some sort of magic that neither needs to be detailed, nor really matters.&nbsp; The point is that they almost could fly on their own, but have that little bit of fantasy edge in the form of magic. It is not realistic, but relatively sensible.&nbsp; But Rings that don't function until some arbitrary point in a person's life after they have performed a number of travels, fended off a number of creatures, and successfully socially interacted with enough people?&nbsp; I'm open to suggestions of explinations.....but until then....I'm not pulling the rings argument to the fore to debate rings.&nbsp; I'm just demonstrating where I am coming from, and WotC happened to provide perfect ammunition for my &quot;Too gamist is not always best for the story&quot; stance.To be fair, 3.x has an aspect that I wholly dropped/changed because it made little or no sense to me in the sense of telling a story: charging XP for spellcasting or item creation.&nbsp; Instead, the &quot;Power Component&quot; optional rule is a standard requirement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cbas_10, post: 4017527, member: 55767"] I'm not sure if I really fit within the "Simulationist" group, or if a third group exists: Storytellers. In essence, if some random rule exists that works or does not work with other rules....I'm not here to call out its realism or its importance as a game balance and game play factor. I want to be able to explain it in the sense of a story. From my perspective....I am not running a D&D adventure that has a common theme that becomes a chronicle. Instead, I have a storyline in mind that just happens to be told and interacted with by the players in the medium of the D&D rules. Fire-breathing dragons that defy physics via thier mass, wingspan, and aerodynamics.....who cares? This is fantasy....it is a story....Dragons are magical creatures that fly by the use of thier wings assisted by some sort of magic that neither needs to be detailed, nor really matters. The point is that they [i]almost[/i] could fly on their own, but have that little bit of fantasy edge in the form of magic. It is not realistic, but relatively sensible. But Rings that don't function until some arbitrary point in a person's life after they have performed a number of travels, fended off a number of creatures, and successfully socially interacted with enough people? I'm open to suggestions of explinations.....but until then.... I'm not pulling the rings argument to the fore to debate rings. I'm just demonstrating where I am coming from, and WotC happened to provide perfect ammunition for my "Too gamist is not always best for the [i]story[/i]" stance. To be fair, 3.x has an aspect that I wholly dropped/changed because it made little or no sense to me in the sense of telling a story: charging XP for spellcasting or item creation. Instead, the "Power Component" optional rule is a standard requirement. [/QUOTE]

Verification