Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8041100" data-attributes="member: 6914290">This is an interesting perspective. I believe it assumes that PC mass is comparable, which is reasonable, but not explicit.That's basically my point. I don't have any issue with using real-world gravity as a practical expedient to avoid trying to calculate and then teach your players 'real' fantasy physics. But it does mean your world is less realistic (from a character perspective). Appreciate the thought process that went into it. I'm curious, did your players start to make connections for what was causing the differing weather?Sure, but this doesn't make Earth gravity any more likely to be the case, so much as it introduces another potential set of rules different from our own. And if we're saying that magic in the world can impact the physiology and capabilities of the creatures in the world, why not the PCs?And I have no issue with doing so. But it's a narrative shortcut. And it seems to me that narrative shortcuts are a perfect use case for gamist abstractions. Basically, if we concede that we're only using Earth based gravity because we don't know how to figure out and use a more appropriate system, there's no merit for using a system that is nearer or farther from the behavior of Earth gravity from the falling damage rules in the PHB. Making falls more or less deadly isn't making them any more or less realistic in relation to the fiction, just to the players' frame of reference (so it's sort of like forced metagaming).And that's not even addressing the differences between high level D&D PCs and us puny Earth humans... That makes sense. How does the player behavior change under that system? How often would players encounter things that could one-shot them? Or how often would they encounter things that were trivially easy? Basically what was the calibration process for how players calculated risks?</blockquote>

Verification