Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why is realism "lame"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CroBob" data-source="post: 6064723" data-attributes="member: 6683307"><p>You can <em>make</em> as many supplemental, or "house", rules as you desire. I mean, if people don't like when a game isn't realistic, citing that other games <em>are</em> realistic... if this is such a hitch for you, I don't understand why you stick to the less realistic one. Or does it wind up that it's not <em>really</em> that important?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around this complaint. I mean, you complain that it's unexplained, yet refuse to explain it yourself. Do you have the same problem with magical spells not being explained? Yes, we know how certain things work in real life... the fictional world is <em>not</em> real life. Falls and lava don't <em>have</em> to be as deadly as in real life, you simply want them to be. And that's fine, but if the rules state something works that way, either it does, regardless how or if it gets explained, or you're free to change it to how you desire it to be. Where's the problem?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not. I may even be debating the issue, but my point is certainly not that either of us, or that anyone, is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. I do find it kind of silly that someone's upset over the unbelievability of HPs. Yeah, they're unbelievable, but I don't see that as a weakness. It's simply a part of how the game works. The game isn't trying to duplicate real life, which is made patent through the existence of magic, gods, monsters, HPs, etc. Nothing in the game is realistic, and I have a hard time understanding why someone would have a problem with "mundane" people <em>also</em> being unrealistic. Basically, it seems like cherry picking to me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By pure coincidence, that's exactly the kind of game I'm working on right now. Still, I don't know if it'd suit all of your tastes, but those two aspects are there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It was the answer to a question about opinions, so I presumed it'd obviously be about my opinion. However, I have a habit of taking things in ways other people do not, so there's a good chance I didn't pay enough attention to how I worded my answers. If that's what happened, I am sorry.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't help but notice that the very second poster says something about how skipping over the parts that aren't fun would mean going from combat to combat... and I'm curious; If this sort of thought is why people have a problem with 4E, then it's <em>them</em> who are defining the fun part of the game to be fights. And, certainly, the fights are fun, but that's not the only fun part (to me). The idea to skip to the fun parts would include skipping the mundane parts such as walking down the road to the palace and waiting in the clerk's office, and skip right to the meeting with the king's adviser, which will likely involve no combat, yet will probably still be fun. If you find only combat to be fun, awesome, play as you will, but that doesn't mean the game created the definition of what you find fun, it's only advising to skip the parts that are irrelevant to your fun. I fail to see how that's bad advice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CroBob, post: 6064723, member: 6683307"] You can [I]make[/I] as many supplemental, or "house", rules as you desire. I mean, if people don't like when a game isn't realistic, citing that other games [I]are[/I] realistic... if this is such a hitch for you, I don't understand why you stick to the less realistic one. Or does it wind up that it's not [I]really[/I] that important? I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around this complaint. I mean, you complain that it's unexplained, yet refuse to explain it yourself. Do you have the same problem with magical spells not being explained? Yes, we know how certain things work in real life... the fictional world is [I]not[/I] real life. Falls and lava don't [I]have[/I] to be as deadly as in real life, you simply want them to be. And that's fine, but if the rules state something works that way, either it does, regardless how or if it gets explained, or you're free to change it to how you desire it to be. Where's the problem? It's not. I may even be debating the issue, but my point is certainly not that either of us, or that anyone, is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. I do find it kind of silly that someone's upset over the unbelievability of HPs. Yeah, they're unbelievable, but I don't see that as a weakness. It's simply a part of how the game works. The game isn't trying to duplicate real life, which is made patent through the existence of magic, gods, monsters, HPs, etc. Nothing in the game is realistic, and I have a hard time understanding why someone would have a problem with "mundane" people [I]also[/I] being unrealistic. Basically, it seems like cherry picking to me. By pure coincidence, that's exactly the kind of game I'm working on right now. Still, I don't know if it'd suit all of your tastes, but those two aspects are there. It was the answer to a question about opinions, so I presumed it'd obviously be about my opinion. However, I have a habit of taking things in ways other people do not, so there's a good chance I didn't pay enough attention to how I worded my answers. If that's what happened, I am sorry. I can't help but notice that the very second poster says something about how skipping over the parts that aren't fun would mean going from combat to combat... and I'm curious; If this sort of thought is why people have a problem with 4E, then it's [I]them[/I] who are defining the fun part of the game to be fights. And, certainly, the fights are fun, but that's not the only fun part (to me). The idea to skip to the fun parts would include skipping the mundane parts such as walking down the road to the palace and waiting in the clerk's office, and skip right to the meeting with the king's adviser, which will likely involve no combat, yet will probably still be fun. If you find only combat to be fun, awesome, play as you will, but that doesn't mean the game created the definition of what you find fun, it's only advising to skip the parts that are irrelevant to your fun. I fail to see how that's bad advice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why is realism "lame"?
Top