Gygax vs Realism

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I agree that 5e could be more streamlined, but no version of D&D is completely streamlined tbh. It is still the most streamlined official version of D&D.

(Also, I've never known anyone who actually buys the ability cards and shit like that).
My former GM was all about the liscenced bling. :sad:
 
There is nothing to prevent you running a great campaign in settings resembling the Hyborian age, middle earth, and any number of other settings using D+D, with minimal adaptations or just a couple of house rules of the sort every self respecting group will invent. The essential thing is to take responsibility for your own setting and populate it with people, creatures, magic and places that are appropriate to the mood you are trying to create. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you vomit the entire monster manual onto every urban random encounter table. In short, get out some blank sheets of paper and actually fulfill your role as a DM.

Bloody well this.

Of course, this has been Rob Kuntz' major discontent since about 1977, and his core complaint in "Dave Arneson's True Genius;" D&D has gone to a consumption model rather than a creative enhancement model. Yeah, modules and "official shit" have generated a lot of money, but for some of us, it's totally ruined the game.
 
I have AP all the time when it comes to setting design. "If I do this, I'm messing up the geology." "If I do that, it's not truly medieval." "Does this make economic sense?"

SCREECHING HALT.

I hate it.

The day I said, "Fuck this, I'm building a playground for a game and the Devil take "realism,"" D&D became fun again for me.
 
You could even go simpler... swords are illegal for anyone who is not an authority of the state... ie a soldier, guard, or similar.
So your character simply has no formal training with a sword but as a mage you are still valuable. So you were taught the basics of combat against trained people. Same goes with clergy. They have access to better weapons (hammers) but are not permitted swords due to law and or dogma.

You could, in theory, apply that logic to all class restrictions in world.


exactly, there's easy answers to all such questions, even if one doesn't apply real world logic. It could simply be a rationale of the implied setting, hence my Alignment example. This is why I consider "Because Game " a cop-out reply ; it's a failure of imagination more than anything.
 
I remember that Scarred Lands rationalised wizards and sorcerers without armour by just saying that arcane spellcasting generated a lot of heat.

(In a later book they even went into some detail about what was causing this to happen).
 
Or it's a failure of caring.

I don't WANT to waste my time explaining every little quirk of the rules in game-world logic. Because game, because magic users are powerful enough already, because Thoth Amon never used a sword, because swords are cool and I hate magic users. Why does the Bishop in chess only move diagonally?

Because it does. Now let's play the fucking game, or not.
 
I remember that Scarred Lands rationalised wizards and sorcerers without armour by just saying that arcane spellcasting generated a lot of heat.

(In a later book they even went into some detail about what was causing this to happen).
My response to that in my game system is that Wizards just don't need it. I give them damage mitigation on par with a warrior if they are on a melee track. So your Battlemage will have mage armour, and an interrupt mage shield they can call to their defense when attacked. (Active defenses) Armor requires a skill to use well and most mages don't bother because they have better for them alternatives.
That being said... since armour is skill based, there is no reason a mage couldn't pick it up if they really wanted to.
 
Or it's a failure of caring.

I don't WANT to waste my time explaining every little quirk of the rules in game-world logic. Because game, because magic users are powerful enough already, because Thoth Amon never used a sword, because swords are cool and I hate magic users. Why does the Bishop in chess only move diagonally?

Because it does. Now let's play the fucking game, or not.
You have a very different idea of playing these games than many on here it seems.
I respect your opinions on these matters, but it is also impossible to rationally argue opinions. I mean, you are absolutely right for you and the way you play, but you are also wrong for the way others play.
 
You are correct. But D&D original edition was written for us who think "because game" is good enough. Other people may well be happier playing a different game, and good for them, and I'm very glad they have other games to choose from.

As Jack Nicholson's Joker said, "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham, they'd be happier someplace else."

We have a plethora of game styles and systems to choose from. Hooray!
 
It's funny. I don't want magic users to use swords or armor because that's not how I conceive of them.

Yet when I talk about the things I do let magic users do, I get told I'm being too lenient. Like actually being able to get behind an enemy in combat.
 
You are correct. But D&D original edition was written for us who think "because game" is good enough. Other people may well be happier playing a different game, and good for them, and I'm very glad they have other games to choose from.

As Jack Nicholson's Joker said, "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham, they'd be happier someplace else."

We have a plethora of game styles and systems to choose from. Hooray!
Even if that is the case... why yell at clouds?
 
Or it's a failure of caring.

I don't WANT to waste my time explaining every little quirk of the rules in game-world logic. Because game, because magic users are powerful enough already, because Thoth Amon never used a sword, because swords are cool and I hate magic users. Why does the Bishop in chess only move diagonally?

Because it does. Now let's play the fucking game, or not.

Which is why you've never needed to move on from playing OD&D.

That's great, the game meets your incredibly low standards and thus you have fun.

But it's completely besides the point.
 
Or it's a failure of caring.

I don't WANT to waste my time explaining every little quirk of the rules in game-world logic. Because game, because magic users are powerful enough already, because Thoth Amon never used a sword, because swords are cool and I hate magic users. Why does the Bishop in chess only move diagonally?

Because it does. Now let's play the fucking game, or not.

Honestly we like completely different games but I'm actually with you on this. I think "because it works better for the game" is a perfectly good reason for why something is designed the way it is in... a game.
 
Honestly we like completely different games but I'm actually with you on this. I think "because it works better for the game" is a perfectly good reason for why something is designed the way it is in... a game.

The problem is that "it works bertter for the game" is an entirely subjective statement, insofar as the examples diwscussed.

A magic user not being able to use a sword works better for the game how? Because most answers seem to be "because it's how I concieve of that literary archetype". Which is a perfectly fine, utterly subjective, opinion that has nothing to do with game design.
 
"Because it makes the game play the way I want it to play" has everything to do with game design.

After writing my first draft of "We Made Up Some Shit We Thought Would Be Fun," I realized that OD&D makes complete, perfect sense if you look at the rules as "Gary Gygax wanted a game that played like this."

Which is, at least at first, what he always said.
 
I'm a formal gamer. I always wear a tux and black tie when I game. Even when online gaming I wear a tie with my best underwear and socks (and nothing else except for a monocle :shock: ).

Sir, that is only semiformal. Formal gaming is dinner jacket and white tie.
 
TristramEvans TristramEvans To be honest, I kind of agree with you on that point, but it has more to do with the fact that I don't like D&D hard classes anyway :tongue:. That is why I don't play OD&D, and honestly am not fond of D&D at all, even though I do play in a 5e game. I was talking about in a more general overall sense of game design.

I don't think everything has to be able to be explained by some in universe thing. Sometimes the conceit that, well we are playing a game and the game runs closer to what was intended if you do it this way is a good reason for a rule.

And of course, GMs can change those rules if they want to. No problem with that.
 
Even if that is the case... why yell at clouds?

Because I'm frustrated at being told I'm "doing it wrong" or "only playing the game out of nostalgia" or getting incredibly frustrated at people in my games not listening to me.
 
That's great, the game meets your incredibly low standards and thus you have fun.


Bite my dick and suck the juice out.

I do not have "incredibly low standards," I just have different standards from yours.

It's shitweasels like you and your fucking bad attitude that make me sick. Go fuck yourself in the face with razor blades dipped in shit until you die horribly screaming in pain.
 
Because I'm frustrated at being told I'm "doing it wrong" or "only playing the game out of nostalgia" or getting incredibly frustrated at people in my games not listening to me.

I don't think a single person here holds those opinions at all.

I am completely opposed to most of those criticisms on a fundamental level, and even if I had no inter4est in the same games as you, or have a completely different idea of what's fun, I would stand by your side in opposition to any of those statements, which I think are complete bullshit.
 
Because I'm frustrated at being told I'm "doing it wrong" or "only playing the game out of nostalgia" or getting incredibly frustrated at people in my games not listening to me.
Okay, but it kind of comes across as telling us that we are doing it wrong too.
I feel ya, we are all gamers (most of us aging as well) with our own experiences. I made a post about feeling left behind for the exact same sentiment. It really comes down to us adapting or finding a group where we don't have to.
 
I do not have "incredibly low standards," I just have different standards from yours.

It's shitweasels like you and your fucking bad attitude that make me sick. Go fuck yourself in the face with razor blades dipped in shit until you die horribly screaming in pain.


lol,

Aren't you a little old for a tantrum?

Yes Gronan, you said you don't care about the things being discussed. That you don't care about explanations for the game reality. That is by definition, lower standards than the people you are responding to. You don't need to take it personally, it wasn't a dig/
 
Okay, but it kind of comes across as telling us that we are doing it wrong too.

I would appreciate pointing that out to me so I can amend it. There are many games, and that's good. If you don't like one game, play another.
 
lol,

Aren't you a little old for a tantrum?

Yes Gronan, you said you don't care about the things being discussed. That you don't carre about explanations for the gqame reality. That is by definition, lower standards than the people you are responding to. You don't need to take it personally, it wasn't a dig/

You have lower standards than me because you're more interested in intellectual masturbation than playing the game.

There, isn't this fun?

And no, it's not "by definition lower standards." It may be lower standards for in game verisimilitude, but that's not the only criterion to judge a game by.

Continue to tell me I have "lower standards" for having different standards, and I will continue to tell you to suck the shit out of my asshole in big lumps.
 
Yeah, I'm just gonna sit back and eat the complimentary pretzels now... you know, the ones made by all of our twisted words.

New Pub menu item... I'm making a list.

I also now have two requests from Gronan to add Tossed Salad to the list. :tongue:
 
Yeah, I'm just gonna sit back and eat the complimentary pretzels now... you know, the ones made by all of our twisted words.

New Pub menu item... I'm making a list.

I worked in a pretzel shop for like half a year once, and if it wasn't for the poor pay, I'd still want to do it for a living. Soft Pretzels are amazing. Especially with honey mustard sauce. (The only good benefit of working there is we got all the pretzels we could eat while on shift. I was the only thin person who worked there (unfortunately I did not keep my teenage metabolism, I am no longer thin >_>)).

Seriously though. Rolling out pretzels is one of the most zen experiences I've ever had. I could do it for hours and just be happy.
 
I don't think Gronan has lower standards, he has DIFFERENT standards.

And one of the dangers in not making the difference is clear is then you get things like people using literary critical theory to prove that their favorite edition of elfgame is "objectively" better. And at that point, the choices are to either make a sprint for the treeline, or station archers outside the exits and set the roof on fire.
 
You have lower standards than me because you're more interested in intellectual masturbation than playing the game.

There, isn't this fun?

You entered into this topic/conversation about realism, and decided to advocate for not caring about the subject of the thread.

This is the equivalent of joining a conversation about the best way to cook a hamburger and shouting over and over "who cares? Just order fast food. I eat McDonalds and I'm fine with that."

You don't get to advocate for lower standards and then throw a fit when someone calls a spade a spade. And trying to alter the context is just a strawman argument.

Literally no one here has told you that you're way of having fun is wrong. The irony is that you are whinging about that, even though it's not happening here, while simultaneously telling everyone else their way of having fun is wrong.

In other words, pull your head out of your ass and sniff in some self awareness.
 
I worked in a pretzel shop for like half a year once, and if it wasn't for the poor pay, I'd still want to do it for a living. Soft Pretzels are amazing. Especially with honey mustard sauce. (The only good benefit of working there is we got all the pretzels we could eat while on shift. I was the only thin person who worked there (unfortunately I did not keep my teenage metabolism, I am no longer thin >_>)).

Seriously though. Rolling out pretzels is one of the most zen experiences I've ever had. I could do it for hours and just be happy.

I loved working in a bookstore. Sadly, not only was the pay shit, but I took most of my pay home in books. Well, that part wasn't sad.
 
You entered into this topic/conversation about realism, and decided to advocate for not caring about the subject of the thread.

No, that is not in fact the case. The subject is "GYGAX vs Realism." Not "realism in RPGs," but rather "Gary Gygax was wrong for not liking realism."

Arseholes to that, says I. OD&D was never written with realism in mind, and trying to condemn it for not being something it was never intended to be is, to quote Gary, "fatuous and jejune."

Plenty of RPGs care about realism. D&D just ain't one of them.

In other words, pull your head out of your ass and sniff in some self awareness.

Right back atcha, Cupcake.
 
I don't think Gronan has lower standards, he has DIFFERENT standards.

If this was a different thread, or the topic was just "playstyles", then you'd be correct. When the topic of the thread is one thing, then in context, yes, his standards for this topic (specifically "realism" ) are lower. This seems self-evident to me, to the point that him objecting to it as a statement, only works if he ignores the subject.
 
No, that is not in fact the case. The subject is "GYGAX vs Realism." Not "realism in RPGs," but rather "Gary Gygax was wrong for not liking realism."

Funnily, I can quote exactly statements in posts in this thread that prove that assertion wrong.

But I shouldn't have to.

You should have higher standards in reading comprehension, cupcake.
 
I just reread the first post in this thread.

Yeah, I stick by my assertions in Post 354. The first post is entirely "Herp Derp gygax ar dum".
 
Why does the Bishop in chess only move diagonally?

Religious fanaticism, obviously; step on a crack different colored square, break your mother's back.

The bishop was originally an elephant, and could only move two squares diagonally; but it could jump over pieces, which would be an amazing feat for an elephant. That I have no explanation for.

But I still like chess.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top