The game is not a story. The story is people talking about the game afterwards - which we do. To my mind it breaks down to: it's my setup and world; it's their game, tactical choices, and characters - we all get a story ( afterwards ).
I would argue that "preservation of fun vs. pseudo-realism" is totally a false dichotomy. If you can't create a game that is satisfying and rewarding for you and your Players, within the confines of creating a pseudo-realistic world, then you're not trying hard enough. Whether you want to be so constrained, that's a totally different story - but you don't have to violate pseudo-realism to create a satisfying and rewarding game for your Players.
Personally, as a DM - and as a Player - as soon as the game descends into implausibility it loses all the "fun" for me. I'm not here for a game of Munchkin or to play Funhouse Dungeons. You might be - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - it just means we probably shouldn't be at the same gaming table.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
fair enough, i do believe that it should be at least pseudo-realistic, but you shouldn't worry too too much about it typically, but if you want to play that way, who am i to invalidate your game?
Nothing in the pseudo-medieval setting of D&D is plausible if magic actually exists and can do what D&D magic is capable of. Continual Light means no more darkness, it will replace torches, lanterns, streetlights, etc. Cure Wounds means that any non instantly fatal injury to any normal person can be instantly cured. Cure disease exists. The dead can be restored to life, no more assassinations as a permanent means to regime change. Speak with Dead allows murder victims to name their killers. That is just a few simple spells. Think what a Decanter of Endless Water could do...
The changes to the laws of physics that would allow a dragon or pegasus to fly would also allow a man to fly by tying a cloak to his wrists and ankles and flapping his arms. The changes to physiology to allow a giant spider to actually breathe would allow a man to breathe water with equal facility to air due to the increased oxygen exchange efficiency of his lungs. Bone would be unbreakable if a spider's exoskeleton can support the weight of a giant spider.
A dungeon full of puzzle rooms seems eminently logical and almost mundane for such a world. And what are the monsters in that dungeon eating, how are they managing sanitation, and how are they getting fresh air to breathe? How is the entire Underdark ecosystem actually functioning? It utterly falls apart. if you look at real cave environments. Either tat or you have extremely specific and selective reality alteration taking place. the laws of physics are suspended, but only for this one special creature, not for every creature.
Sorry, plausibility goes out the window when you start playing D&D. The best you can expect is adherence to genre conventions, this gives a form of verisimilitude.
There is absolutely nothing plausible about a centaur. It is a complete anatomical and physiological impossibility. The same goes for a winged horse that flies, or a giant, flying, talking, fire-breathing lizard. How are any of these plausible? I want to see the anatomy of the wing articulation of a pegasus. I want to see how a centaur eats enough to survive, not to mention how does its respiratory system work to provide it with enough gas exchange.
I ave great fun playing D&D, but I have to completely ignore plausibility for huge portions of the game. As soon as I start to think about plausibility the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. I fall back on genre convention instead. "It works this way because that is the way it works in High Fantasy. Don't worry about why or how." I have to do that because the how and why fall apart too quickly if you start pulling threads.
My defense of classic dungeon crawls is that they provide simple, escapist fun.
Did you just say my fun is wrong? :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The game is not a story. The story is people talking about the game afterwards - which we do. To my mind it breaks down to: it's my setup and world; it's their game, tactical choices, and characters - we all get a story ( afterwards ).
I would argue that "preservation of fun vs. pseudo-realism" is totally a false dichotomy. If you can't create a game that is satisfying and rewarding for you and your Players, within the confines of creating a pseudo-realistic world, then you're not trying hard enough. Whether you want to be so constrained, that's a totally different story - but you don't have to violate pseudo-realism to create a satisfying and rewarding game for your Players.
Personally, as a DM - and as a Player - as soon as the game descends into implausibility it loses all the "fun" for me. I'm not here for a game of Munchkin or to play Funhouse Dungeons. You might be - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - it just means we probably shouldn't be at the same gaming table.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
fair enough, i do believe that it should be at least pseudo-realistic, but you shouldn't worry too too much about it typically, but if you want to play that way, who am i to invalidate your game?
I did NOT eat those hikers.
nope
I did NOT eat those hikers.
Nothing in the pseudo-medieval setting of D&D is plausible if magic actually exists and can do what D&D magic is capable of. Continual Light means no more darkness, it will replace torches, lanterns, streetlights, etc. Cure Wounds means that any non instantly fatal injury to any normal person can be instantly cured. Cure disease exists. The dead can be restored to life, no more assassinations as a permanent means to regime change. Speak with Dead allows murder victims to name their killers. That is just a few simple spells. Think what a Decanter of Endless Water could do...
The changes to the laws of physics that would allow a dragon or pegasus to fly would also allow a man to fly by tying a cloak to his wrists and ankles and flapping his arms. The changes to physiology to allow a giant spider to actually breathe would allow a man to breathe water with equal facility to air due to the increased oxygen exchange efficiency of his lungs. Bone would be unbreakable if a spider's exoskeleton can support the weight of a giant spider.
A dungeon full of puzzle rooms seems eminently logical and almost mundane for such a world. And what are the monsters in that dungeon eating, how are they managing sanitation, and how are they getting fresh air to breathe? How is the entire Underdark ecosystem actually functioning? It utterly falls apart. if you look at real cave environments. Either tat or you have extremely specific and selective reality alteration taking place. the laws of physics are suspended, but only for this one special creature, not for every creature.
Sorry, plausibility goes out the window when you start playing D&D. The best you can expect is adherence to genre conventions, this gives a form of verisimilitude.
There is absolutely nothing plausible about a centaur. It is a complete anatomical and physiological impossibility. The same goes for a winged horse that flies, or a giant, flying, talking, fire-breathing lizard. How are any of these plausible? I want to see the anatomy of the wing articulation of a pegasus. I want to see how a centaur eats enough to survive, not to mention how does its respiratory system work to provide it with enough gas exchange.
I ave great fun playing D&D, but I have to completely ignore plausibility for huge portions of the game. As soon as I start to think about plausibility the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. I fall back on genre convention instead. "It works this way because that is the way it works in High Fantasy. Don't worry about why or how." I have to do that because the how and why fall apart too quickly if you start pulling threads.
My defense of classic dungeon crawls is that they provide simple, escapist fun.