NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5968870" data-attributes="member: 54877">Nope. It is partially to make a point about consistency and the nature of the double standard, but I knew when I wrote it that some people wouldn't have any trouble with it, at least as an option to consider. You even hit some of the background in the same reply:  People can reconcile the higher level fighter as mundane by putting appropriate limits on casters. Or they can reconcile not having those limits on casters by finding a way to give the higher level fighter something mythic. There are, of course, multiple ways to limits casters and multiple ways to give fighters something mythic. Some of these ways will be more acceptable than others, and this will vary by playstyle. Options here would be good. Most of what I have said in this topic is relevant to that point. Double standards like this exists because they are "polite fictions" that people tell themselves to make incompatible things somehow acceptable. That's why there is such resistance and double-speak and shifting grounds and pleas to "verisimilitude" as if "verismilitude" was some objective, set thing instead of a concept ... as if someone kept talking about "music is X," and it became apparent after awhile that the speaker meant "jazz" when they said "music". The only way a group of people can go around thinking "music" and "jazz" are synonyms is by creating one of those "polite fictions" in their society, and then treating it as somehow gauche or plebian or unsophisticated to question it. I'm not even opposed to such "polite fictions" in gaming groups or within slightly larger communities. They are a powerful, yet flexible tool for making a game run smoothly, especially when everyone at a given table is comfortable with it. Our group uses them that way, and for that reason. I am very much opposed to (often unconscious) assumptions of "polite fictions" in discussions of game design, because all they do is stagnate the discussions along already trod ground. Not least of all, they make it difficult to consciously nuture the polite fictions via the design. It's a bit like the problem of what happens when people start believing their own propaganda (though seldom as nasty in result, given the subject matter). Edit: I will cop to a certain amount of sarcasm in that post, though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification