Hey, guys, don't you think X is a stupid concept that makes no sense?

Exactly. It's just being aware of a genre and that the rules that govern its narrative and cliches are more significant than the laws of physics or any other principle you care to name. It's just a question of openly stating your priorities if you are going to be running a game and straight up telling your players 'No, I am not running a realistic game, so if you make a realism based complaint I am basically just going to ignore it.'

Realism doesn't matter, consistency does. If you world keeps playing to its own rules, and treats anything that breaks those rules as unique or recognizes that it's breaking the rules, it's usually good.

>mfw the vicious fighter/bomber craft lands to engage the heroic infantrymen with forward guns only

I always feel bad for the poor fucks who have to wear mascot costumes.

If the aircraft was sapient and independent, then you'd bet your ass it would chase down the heroic infantrymen. And you'd bet your ass its only weak spot would be exploited by the Squad Automagic Weapon.

You are both trash. Rules-lawyering, and "rule of cool" moron-tier faggotry, are two extremes of bullshit that aren't even diametrically opposed to each other given how much stupid shit happens within or because of RPG rules.

You are also retarded. Just because Marvel Universe movies fit the "tone" they are "going for" doesn't mean that those movies aren't a complete load of shit. Stop strawmanning everyone who doesn't like your rule-of-cool faggotry as a simulationist GURPS fellater, it just makes you look even more retarded.

>straight up telling your players 'No, I am not running a realistic game, so if you make a realism based complaint I am basically just going to ignore it.'
Sounds like a bullshit GM excuse for "I want things my way for an arbitrary reason."
There is no faster way to destroy player investment in the story.
t. GM for 12 years.

>t. doormat for 12 years

If you are good at GMing you actually get to control what type of campaign is run and thus you get a lot more control than you get as a player. I am anything but a doormat. I am the luckiest member of the group.

Have you ever considered that the fact that people enjoy something doesn't inherently make it good, but people are willing to tolerate objectively bad things because they enjoy parts of it?
You don't NEED to be realistic in a game system, and if people enjoy a system that doesn't try to be realistic, they don't have to use it for realistic games. Suspension of disbelief exists because if it doesn't, then certain ideas and approaches to a setting fail.
Example: Lightsabers are difficult if not preposterous from a design perspective, but who doesn't want a laser sword?

No one is complaining about laser swords.
Laser swords aren't lolrandom trash.
You take a setting that has laser swords seriously.
You can't take a setting with no consequences and over the top action shit seriously.

Mechanics allow for undecided outcome. If the heroes always win, is it really a win?

Rule of Cool is fun and allows players to experiment to the benefit of the story. If a game isn't fun, is it really worth playing?

Likewise, if every player accepts it, then it works.
Just accept that people have fun the objectively wrong way, and don't feel obliged to tell them that. Ignore them if you don't like it, and join in if you do.
If everyone behaved like this, we could get more discussion about topics we liked.

Writers thinking like you is how you get the latest StarWars movie.

What, you have players that aren't cool with that?

I make things my way for arbitrary reasons all the time. It's called 'Creating a setting'. I can freely define every aspect of it for any reason I like, and the only thing that matters is whether the players are enjoying it.

Except for all the people who really enjoy over the top action shit?

Enjoy doesn't mean take seriously.

So why is taking it seriously important?

I mean, Wuxia is over the top action stuff, and a lot of it is taken pretty fucking seriously.

>Hey, guys, don't you think X is a stupid concept that makes no sense?
>Well, it makes sense in its context, of course it seems stupid when contrasted with our reality
>REEEEEEEEEEEE! LOL RANDUMB SHIT EVERYTHING MUST FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL LOGIC!!!! #LOVESCIENCE xD

It isn't. But if you don't make an attempt to be taken seriously, don't expect to be taken seriously.
Could you elaborate?

I mean, what more is there to say? Wuxia cinema is a serious artform that happens to include gratuitously unrealistic swordfights with only the vaguest justification for why the various combatants can dance on the wind, run upon water, cut through ordinary men like wheat or in some cases call upon elemental power of flame, poison, metal or lightning. All of that stuff happens alongside serious dramatic storytelling and is treated as a natural part of the whole.

>a serious artform
By who?

The latest Star Wars movie failed to even meet the increasingly lax stadards of the Star Wars universe.
It didn't fail due to lack of realism, but because of lack of internal consistency both to the rest of Star Wars and its own logic.

This is why I don't allow "lolrandumb" anything in my setting, shit has to make sense. But I also let some shit fly, like Druid/Monks wildshaping and using Ki at the same time. Then if someone wants to pipe up and be a rules lawyer, I tell them that this game isnt RAW its RAI

they are also shittily written, shittily executed, and dont fit the themes of Star Wars in the slightest

rottentomatoes.com/m/crouching_tiger_hidden_dragon/
rottentomatoes.com/m/hero/

>because of lack of internal consistency both to the rest of Star Wars and its own logic.
That's exactly my point.
StarWars was never realistic, but at least attempts were made to be internally consistent.

>Critics loved it!
Critics will suck the dick of anything that seems remotely novel.

And now look at the audience scores

>rottentomatoes.com/m/die_hard
So? If an audience likes it that means they thought it was enjoyable, not that it was realistic or artistic.
Pretty much everyone likes Die Hard. That doesn't make Die Hard serious art.

it would help speed up this process if you stated exactly what kind of evidence you are looking for, otherwise people might get the impression you're just going to nitpick and nay-say anything that is given to you

Look at the lists of academy awards then

Any source crediting Wuxia as serious art form comparable to modern art-house films, or other forms of "high art".

>comparable to modern art-house films
I'm not sure what kind of standards you're going for with "comparable to the kind of film where a man drinks menstrual blood"

To be more general, what makes you think that people take wuxia movies more seriously than blockbuster action movies?

>A film like "Hero" demonstrates how the martial arts genre transcends action and violence and moves into poetry, ballet and philosophy. It is violent only incidentally. What matters is not the manner of death, but the manner of dying: In a society that takes a Zen approach to swordplay and death, one might win by losing. There is an ancient martial arts strategy in which one lures the opponent closer to throw him off balance, and yields to his thrusts in order to mislead him. This strategy works with words as well as swords. One might even defeat an opponent by dying -- not in the act of killing him, but as a move in a larger game.

rogerebert.com/reviews/hero-2004