Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9045581">\I don't think it was special pleading at all. Part of my post was agreeing with Hawkeye that D&D is not at all a historical game. But that doesn't mean you can't also inject some historical realism into fantasy setting. In particular this notion of the villain. Yes, it is perfectly valid to run it as a contrivance. Like I said I have no issue with contrivances, which is why I mentioned Chang Cheh mode. But sometimes I want to run things more historically realistic, and in those kinds of campaigns, I am not going to have a villain exist as a contrivance. Villains have to emerge and survive, over time, letting the dice fall where they may. Yes there is an element of contrivance (the character is still designed to be a bad guy and uses villain tropes). But you can clearly see a difference between a campaign with characters who WILL be the villain regardless of what the PCs do or where the dice fall, and where there are clear set pieces designed and dropped into play, versus more naturalistic approaches where things can emerge but don't have to. I don't think this is particularly controversial either. It is a style of play that some people like but may don't because a lot of people want those set pieces (finding them thrilling). I don't know this seems like we are just reframing things then. If you are taking a simulationist approach to play then that is what matters, even if you using genre tropes. I don't think the presence of genre elements mean the game can't follow a certain realism logic. Game of Thrones kind of does this, where it flows a bit more like history than a standard fantasy novel. I think these kinds of campaigns strive for that.Also I think the key here is they aren't post hoc explanations. One of the overriding principles of play here is you don't introduce something and then explain how and why after. It has to happen for a reason that makes sense. There are exceptions (for example random encounters). But if I have Bronze Master attack the party in an ambush, I don't post hoc explain how he got there and why, it all flows from a series of actions. I would also say even in genre fiction, you have those that are more plausible and realistic and those that are more over the top and riddled with obvious contrivances. If a plot makes logical sense, flowing from the actions the characters have taken and doesn't feel forced, we don't usually describe it as contrived. That is a label we use for plots designed to make the movie happen. And in some cases, like Commando, which I think is a marvelous film, we are fine with those contrivances because we are there to watch action and don't want a big long explanation for why everything is happening and why characters are making the choices they are making. How is this not special pleading but my post is? I am not saying you can't do these things in other approaches. I clarified for Hawkeye my position on that in a previous post, and I mentioned games like Hillfolk where I found you could still have a game grounded in the kind of realisms we are talking about, even though the priority was drama (because a lot of dramas are very realistic: in the miniseries I Claudius, the characters are all largely grounded int he same reality we are with the exception of some light conceits to roman religion). My point was just there is a difference between campaigns with heavy handed set pieces (again nothing wrong with those) and campaigns that deliberately avoid that stuff so it can feel more naturalistic.</blockquote>

Verification