Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9040432" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Sure it is. Because I don't really know any games that instruct a GM to ignore what's already been established... to not limit potential outcomes to what is conceivable based on setting, genre, and what's already been established. In neither method is this consideration of plausibility absent. Both are works of fiction. Of course, but there are also continuing adventures. I assume your D&amp;D party doesn't sit around crocheting. They get into danger and go on missions and seek treasure and fight monsters and all that. As I said... they are not typical folks. Comparing two games, one where the ongoing events are related to the character and another where the ongoing events are more random in nature, and declaring one more realistic than the other is just silly. I'm saying that the basis of your argument seems to come from a very traditional model of play... where the DM has prepped everything ahead of time, and the players kind of have their characters wander about, and interact with &quot;what's there&quot; whenever they arrive in a new location. It's this model that makes related things seem less plausible. But in most of the games I'm thinking of... in Stonetop, Blades in the Dark, and Spire, all games I've played and/or run over the past couple of years... that's not the way that play goes. You don't prep everything ahead of time. The players go places and do things with specific needs and goals in mind. They're choosing what to do. So why wouldn't everything that happens be related to their needs? I'm not saying you have to drop what you do. Just saying I think that attributing it to an appeal to realism is misguided.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 9040432, member: 6785785"] Sure it is. Because I don't really know any games that instruct a GM to ignore what's already been established... to not limit potential outcomes to what is conceivable based on setting, genre, and what's already been established. In neither method is this consideration of plausibility absent. Both are works of fiction. Of course, but there are also continuing adventures. I assume your D&D party doesn't sit around crocheting. They get into danger and go on missions and seek treasure and fight monsters and all that. As I said... they are not typical folks. Comparing two games, one where the ongoing events are related to the character and another where the ongoing events are more random in nature, and declaring one more realistic than the other is just silly. I'm saying that the basis of your argument seems to come from a very traditional model of play... where the DM has prepped everything ahead of time, and the players kind of have their characters wander about, and interact with "what's there" whenever they arrive in a new location. It's this model that makes related things seem less plausible. But in most of the games I'm thinking of... in Stonetop, Blades in the Dark, and Spire, all games I've played and/or run over the past couple of years... that's not the way that play goes. You don't prep everything ahead of time. The players go places and do things with specific needs and goals in mind. They're choosing what to do. So why wouldn't everything that happens be related to their needs? I'm not saying you have to drop what you do. Just saying I think that attributing it to an appeal to realism is misguided. [/QUOTE]

Verification