Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8239543" data-attributes="member: 85555">These conversations always jump the shark because a point about something is made, away from the initial claim or in defense of it, and we start talking about that. This simply started with a rejection of the label &quot;discovering what is in the GM's notes&quot; and then became a kind of playstyle debate. I think that is because things keep getting shifted to one of two extremes (real world physics or completely hand wavy, game physics). I think we've had this part of this conversation many times, where my side usually takes the position that the aim is to create a believable world, your side asserts that's impossible because of real world physics, we say the bar isn't that high, and then there is confusion (because it seems to be assumed we are no longer really striving for realness). I've used the term believability many times here to express what I am talking about. No one is arguing that the GM ought be a physics engine. That would basically be impossible. But the GM can be logical, emulate the kinds of things that we see in the real world, and make sure there is a kind of cause and effect with minimal loss of&nbsp; continuity. If you need think of it as multiple tiers or as a spectrum: totally unrealistic cartoony worlds--pure genre emulating worlds--grounded believable worlds--worlds heavily grounded in science*--unattainable physics engine worlds. Another way to think of it is &quot;what franchise are we in?&quot;. *Where the GM takes great pains to reflect as much real world stuff in his or her tables, in the mechanics etc (one version of this would be RPGs that are very heavy on simulating real life, and/or GMs who include things like plate tectonics, wind currents, climate maps, etc in their world building, and use as much real world data in getting the probability of their tables right.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8239543, member: 85555"] These conversations always jump the shark because a point about something is made, away from the initial claim or in defense of it, and we start talking about that. This simply started with a rejection of the label "discovering what is in the GM's notes" and then became a kind of playstyle debate. I think that is because things keep getting shifted to one of two extremes (real world physics or completely hand wavy, game physics). I think we've had this part of this conversation many times, where my side usually takes the position that the aim is to create a believable world, your side asserts that's impossible because of real world physics, we say the bar isn't that high, and then there is confusion (because it seems to be assumed we are no longer really striving for realness). I've used the term believability many times here to express what I am talking about. No one is arguing that the GM ought be a physics engine. That would basically be impossible. But the GM can be logical, emulate the kinds of things that we see in the real world, and make sure there is a kind of cause and effect with minimal loss of continuity. If you need think of it as multiple tiers or as a spectrum: totally unrealistic cartoony worlds--pure genre emulating worlds--grounded believable worlds--worlds heavily grounded in science*--unattainable physics engine worlds. Another way to think of it is "what franchise are we in?". *Where the GM takes great pains to reflect as much real world stuff in his or her tables, in the mechanics etc (one version of this would be RPGs that are very heavy on simulating real life, and/or GMs who include things like plate tectonics, wind currents, climate maps, etc in their world building, and use as much real world data in getting the probability of their tables right. [/QUOTE]

Verification