Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4292763" data-attributes="member: 2732">You're misinterpreting Gary's dislike of Tolkien.&nbsp; Gary was also a master of Vermisilitude.&nbsp; It's one thing I admired most about him, don't confuse his dislike of the Lord of the Rings with an assumption he hates detail.&nbsp; Gary gave incredible details to the logic of his campaign settings--he studied history and was a lot more studied than I think the average DM is.&nbsp; The pulp roots of D&amp;D are because Gary loved the stories of the &quot;old guard&quot;.One of the best books Gary wrote before he passed away was &quot;Living Fantasy&quot;.&nbsp; This explains how a quasi-European Middle Ages culture would be like in a world of fantasy and magic.&nbsp; It's a very good book and it goes into things like &quot;why firearms don't exist here&quot;, &quot;why isn't everybody helped by healing magic&quot;, the role Wizards would have in building society, etc.&nbsp; The better campaign worlds tend to go into this detail--I like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Empire of the Petal Throne, Jorune, etc, a lot better than some of these newer ones.&nbsp; They pay a lot of attention to detail.&nbsp; Gary stuff is about as detailed as Tolkien's stuff is--read the World of Greyhawk stuff to see that in action.&nbsp; In his later campaign worlds, he made sure to say that a lot of the creatures came from either special subterranean ecologies or from alternate worlds that then populated the existing campaign worlds (a Faerie-type world, other planes for elementals, etc).(Although to be fair, Gary had no problem with side-treks to Wonderland and would argue with people who said a Dragon was more &quot;realistic&quot; than a talking flower).&quot;Realism&quot; as I see it is applied critical thinking.When people create fantasy worlds, the better ones suspend disbelief and explain why things are different.&nbsp; The more knowledge people have, the more certain aspects of the world seem like BS unless explained.&nbsp; A fantasy game must have at least a little suspension of disbelief, BUT you also want to make it consistently logical.This kind of stuff is what critical thinking players think about.&nbsp; When I watched the last two LoTR movies, I was dismayed that these human lands had absolutely no farms!&nbsp; How did they get their food.&nbsp; These big &quot;isolated towns&quot; in the middle of vast wasteland don't make sense!&nbsp; That lack of detail actually took me out of the movie, making me less enjoy it.&nbsp; As pulpy and enjoyable the Indiana Jones films are--the one scene I hated was when Indy survived the nuke test by hiding in a old refrigerator--it was an &quot;oh, c'mon&quot; moment.So, getting back to D&amp;D, if players are concerned about &quot;realism&quot;, I think they are reacting to certain powers that might stretch the laws of real physics or break the critical thinking mode.&nbsp; The game is more meta-gaming rather than simulation-like in that &quot;healing surges&quot; seem more like dramatic &quot;second wind&quot; moments, and having 1hp minions.&nbsp; I always knew hit points was always meant to be &quot;abstract representations&quot;, at least in the case of the heroes.&nbsp; I think the best thing is to understand things like exploits (as opposed to spells) are more &quot;meta-game&quot; interpretations in some cases and aren't always meant to be &quot;special maneuvers&quot; akin to martial arts.&nbsp; However, I can also see players being a little disturbed by this, since in some cases it's harder to reconcile with what a realistic human being (or humanoid) might go through, and in many cases the meta-game logic trumps any sort of simulation-level realism they might expect.&nbsp; I'm not saying the new D&amp;D is bad, but I can understand players not liking some of the new rules such as minions and healing surges because of this heavy-handedness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 4292763, member: 2732"] You're misinterpreting Gary's dislike of Tolkien. Gary was also a master of Vermisilitude. It's one thing I admired most about him, don't confuse his dislike of the Lord of the Rings with an assumption he hates detail. Gary gave incredible details to the logic of his campaign settings--he studied history and was a lot more studied than I think the average DM is. The pulp roots of D&D are because Gary loved the stories of the "old guard". One of the best books Gary wrote before he passed away was "Living Fantasy". This explains how a quasi-European Middle Ages culture would be like in a world of fantasy and magic. It's a very good book and it goes into things like "why firearms don't exist here", "why isn't everybody helped by healing magic", the role Wizards would have in building society, etc. The better campaign worlds tend to go into this detail--I like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Empire of the Petal Throne, Jorune, etc, a lot better than some of these newer ones. They pay a lot of attention to detail. Gary stuff is about as detailed as Tolkien's stuff is--read the World of Greyhawk stuff to see that in action. In his later campaign worlds, he made sure to say that a lot of the creatures came from either special subterranean ecologies or from alternate worlds that then populated the existing campaign worlds (a Faerie-type world, other planes for elementals, etc). (Although to be fair, Gary had no problem with side-treks to Wonderland and would argue with people who said a Dragon was more "realistic" than a talking flower). "Realism" as I see it is applied critical thinking. When people create fantasy worlds, the better ones suspend disbelief and explain why things are different. The more knowledge people have, the more certain aspects of the world seem like BS unless explained. A fantasy game must have at least a little suspension of disbelief, BUT you also want to make it consistently logical. This kind of stuff is what critical thinking players think about. When I watched the last two LoTR movies, I was dismayed that these human lands had absolutely no farms! How did they get their food. These big "isolated towns" in the middle of vast wasteland don't make sense! That lack of detail actually took me out of the movie, making me less enjoy it. As pulpy and enjoyable the Indiana Jones films are--the one scene I hated was when Indy survived the nuke test by hiding in a old refrigerator--it was an "oh, c'mon" moment. So, getting back to D&D, if players are concerned about "realism", I think they are reacting to certain powers that might stretch the laws of real physics or break the critical thinking mode. The game is more meta-gaming rather than simulation-like in that "healing surges" seem more like dramatic "second wind" moments, and having 1hp minions. I always knew hit points was always meant to be "abstract representations", at least in the case of the heroes. I think the best thing is to understand things like exploits (as opposed to spells) are more "meta-game" interpretations in some cases and aren't always meant to be "special maneuvers" akin to martial arts. However, I can also see players being a little disturbed by this, since in some cases it's harder to reconcile with what a realistic human being (or humanoid) might go through, and in many cases the meta-game logic trumps any sort of simulation-level realism they might expect. I'm not saying the new D&D is bad, but I can understand players not liking some of the new rules such as minions and healing surges because of this heavy-handedness. [/QUOTE]

Verification