Maybe it's Magic, maybe it's Maybelline.

-

  "It's Magic / It's Fantasy"

Maybe it's the autism speaking, but when someone gives that kind of answer as an argument, it gets under our skin and pisses us right off. It's a conversation stopper, and gives absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.

It's also a lie.

Because, such discussions are usually about RAW (rules-as-written), and unless that answer is listed in RAW, it is not the default answer. If anything, it would be a house rule, maybe. And if it's a house rule, say so.  "At my table..." rather than simply, "it's magic."

You know what game setting exists where it is magic?  Exalted.  Because in Exalted, the world's physics and natural laws are governed by gods and spirits.  And if a god or spirit is not paying attention, the physics break down. You can literally have someone who's both alive, and dead, at the same time.  Or, gravity may suddenly, inexplicably, stop working, and someone might get flung into the sky.

In most other settings, though, this is not the case.  Otherwise:

"How do mirrors work?"  Magic.

"How do fish breathe underwater?"  Magic.

"How were my boots made?"  Magic.

"Why can my spouse give birth to children and I can't?"  Magic.

Or, you know what?  Maybe no.

If it is magic, something in the rules should say so, directly. Otherwise it's the GM's call, and if it's the GM's call, it's a house rule, and not RAW. And if it isn't RAW, then it has no place as an answer to shut down discussion. It isn't arguing in good faith, and it isn't productive in the slightest.  Adding 'at my table' is fine - because then the person reading it can give it some thought, or dismiss it if they're not looking for a house rule.

Saying 'you want realism in a Fantasy game?' is the exact same thing.  It's mocking the person who brings up the topic, it's shutting down the conversation, and it's trying to shut down actual thinking about something.

Fantasy is a Genre.  It isn't a ruleset.

Shadowrun is Fantasy.  But there are limits to what can be done within the setting. You're not making Spelljammer ships in Shadowrun. Blue Rose is Fantasy. You're not bringing in dragonkin warlocks as player characters in Blue Rose.

If you are, that's a house rule.  It isn't RAW.

Fantasy settings have rules, limitations, a paradigm which lays out what can and can't be done within the scope of that setting. And when someone brings up something about the setting or mechanics which don't make sense or say that's not realistic, the unsaid part is within the scope and context of the setting as it stands.

So, saying "you discussing realism in Fantasy?"  That's not helping anyone.  It's being a jerk. You're adding nothing to the conversation, and putting down someone who's trying to think critically about the rules and setting they're using.

And if you're not part of the solution, saying things like that make you part of the problem.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Setting and Balance and Elves, Oh My!

-
In which we discuss the history of AD&D through to Pathfinder and its impact on what one could play over time. In the early days of D&D, there was no rhyme or reason about how strong one thing might be against another. In the early days you could play a 'young' balor (demon) as part of the PC party. Later, with D&D, you could play were dragons, faeries, or other creatures of all sorts (BECM), and by the time AD&D came around there were half-ogres, drow, and a variety of other creatures of varying power. With 2nd edition AD&D, things became a bit more formalized. Level Adjustment was added to the mix, increasing the effective level of a character by their race. If you were strong enough, you were treated as one or two levels higher to determine how much XP you needed to level. This carried on into 3rd edition AD&D, which allowed players to play stronger characters at the cost of slower level growth. Then we get into Pathfinder. Here, level adjustment was ...
Read more

Renegade Studios

-
  A Review      I've had the luxury of picking up pretty much every one of the current e20 books by Renegade Studios -- including GI Joe, Transformers, Power Rangers, and My Little Pony. Because of the campaign I ran, I'll mainly focus on the first three, but you can expect that my comments would hold true for MLP as well. For this review I'll be using short form from time to time: GIJ: GI Joe, TF: Transformers: PR: Power Rangers, MLP: My Little Pony, and CRB for 'Core Rulebook'.     So where to begin.     Renegade Studios is using what they call the Essence 20 or 'e20' engine. Each of the game books uses the same engine, allowing for ease of play and of bringing one's characters from one setting to another (or fusing the settings together). Because of the order the books came out (I believe PR, TF, then GIJ) there are some slight bits of difference in the mechanics as Renegade got more comfortable with the engine and had a few more months or more...
Read more

🎵We can show you the world🎵

-
Image
World Building The short of it is simple: we love world building. We are fascinated by culture, religion, magic, and how this all intersects. What's the point of having a campaign if the characters aren't given the chance to immerse themselves in some aspect of the society they're in or reflect where they're from? We're really not that interested in lots of combat, or delving into dungeons, or world-shaking plots. We're really interested in looking at the cultures of the people around us, what the local faiths are and how they're reflected in the culture, and how these reflect the style of magic used by the local cultures. We're not interested in generic magic or generic faiths or in a culture which matches every other culture in every other fantasy game out there. If it's vanilla, something's missing. For an example? Well. We've a campaign world, Inspiritus . We've not had a chance to run things in that world in over 30 years, but we...
Read more