Everyone is a realismfag at some level

>Eh, not really. They've seen a drop since their height in the 90s where everything tried to be super realism (Very poorly).
except people in the 90 had a very poor idea of how fighting works
That's why I think that with medieval-combat knowledge becoming more popular a demand for gritty and "more realistic" rpgs will grow.
Not really more gritty. You can have a gritty system that's completely unrealistic and a less gritty one that's more realistic

whelp.. format error. Let me try again
That's why I think that with medieval-combat knowledge becoming more popular a demand for gritty and "more realistic" rpgs will grow.

Not really more gritty. You can have a gritty system that's completely unrealistic and a less gritty one that's more realistic

>Eh, not really. They've seen a drop since their height in the 90s where everything tried to be super realism (Very poorly).

Except people in the 90 had a very poor idea of how fighting works

>commits sudoku

>That's why I think that with medieval-combat knowledge becoming more popular a demand for gritty and "more realistic" rpgs will grow.
You are right, it will grow as demand for certain types of rpgs rises a little every time new franchise starts off. As Souls games came people looking for Souls based rpgs. Demand will rise but it will rise very very little. And it will drop fast once people learn how unfun realistic combat is.

Also magic isn't about 'how much you know', quite the opposite, knowledge doesn't matter as much as inner strength which allows magic to be used. Think about eastern religions, you can hear a lot of things about cosmology and stuff people have to do to achieve enlightment or whatever goals they have but knowledge doesn't do sheisse until the person himself changed with this knowledge. Magic by nature is the opposite of technology, following exactly the same steps and same procedures will bear vastly different results for two people depending on their inner qualities (magic). Think about virtous hero defeating a hideous dragon where everyone else failed, it's the magic as well, the basis of this magic being virtue. Just had to let it out since I'm frustrated at how misrepresented magic is in modern fantasy.

>weapons durability
>realism
Pick one

Weapons lasted for generations with very little preventitive care. The idea of needed to service them past grinding off a few burrs during the length of time of a campaign let alone a game is absurd.

Weapon durability Issues with guns that have never been looked after is one thing. Melee weapons very much another.

>something completely made up is being misrepresented
Could you explain that a little bit more?

>except people in the 90 had a very poor idea of how fighting works

Yeah and that was when it was the most popular to attempt (If failed) realism. Recently we've seen the rise of more narrative and metamechanic-focused RPGs. I've not really seen any sign that realism is making any sort of surge.

It's just course correction from dungeonpunk and WOW aesthetics

learning about medieval combat is some useless nerd shit if ever I've heard of it

>something made up but codified over centuries of history is being misrepresented because people are trying to refer to the historical version and getting it wrong

It's an odd idea that knowing more would make realism more popular. I mean, more unrealisitic stuff has gotten much more popular at many times in history even when people had seen a lot more realistic fights. It's the origin of the term flynning, Errol Flynn making realistic swordfighting much more unpopular despite people being used to it.

>The idea of needed to service them past grinding off a few burrs during the length of time of a campaign let alone a game is absurd.
books.google.ro/books?id=BQ_qW5Sg6k4C&lpg=PA138&ots=QnLl0gD2aE&dq=broken swords during the indian mutiny&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false

>the historical version of throwing fireball at people
So like Greek fire? You are right, but you can't really bring siege machinery into the dungeon. The corridors are usually too narrow and the ceiling usually too low.
Or you meant actual historical magic? But that was made up too and existed in many many different forms. Anything from "healing" people using any number of medically inert plants to monks cheesing money from people by claiming that giving stuff to them will wash away bad spirits.

OP, you spoke but you didn't really say anything beyond tour speculation on trends.

Saying "everyone is a realism fag by some degree" is technically true, but what statement like that isnt? Everyone is a little selfish, or similar comments like that. It's technically true, but a meaningless platitude.

Personally I think that realism should take a backseat to the gameplay, and to game balance. I also think realism is less effective a measure of regulating fantasy worlds then the rules of fate and drama.

For example- You shouldn't make the Rouge player roll a difficult check to perform a backflip in the context of it not changing the game state. The orc misses his attack, so the Rogue says he backflip over it. Some DMs wouldn't allow this- on the pretense of it being "unrealistic". But the Rogue character has 18 Dex, has multiple levels, and it's a high fantasy adventure game. So why can't he?

>something completely made up is being misrepresented
Something completely made up but more or less consistent in its inner workings in many cultures is represented in completely different way nowadays.

And servicing would never have prevented that. Thats a forging issue.

Excuse the late reply forgot about the thread.

Tools break sometimes doesn’t mean game should make ever wrench and spanner glass.

Not at all consistent bro. There is no canon of magic

>Not at all consistent bro
There is important consistency which you pointed out yourself in other post. People were bullshitting others all over the world, in Europe, Asia, Africa and Americas. Everywhere people who knew how to do important things were hiding this knowledge, usually behind cover of inner qualities required for magic to work and unattainable by regular mortals. Be it divine heritage, favor of the gods, birth marks, contact with otherwordly entities, piety, royal blood or whatever else.

I'm interested to hear why do you think it's not at all consistent.

They never knew how to perform magic. It was bullshit all the way through.

And?

And since it was different bullshit, "magic", only being said different bullshit, was different. If you are saying that none of the forms of bullshit had fireballs, then you are right, but you would also be right in that some European "magician" had a completely different bullshit tradition around what he did than a Chinese "magician", or even one from the next village over.
So ya. The only difference is that in modern fantasy, magic works.

I like believable stories. People that debate fantasy versus realism completely miss the target. Nobody wants absurd shit that insults their intelligence. And if I want realism, then I'll go outside. Science fiction and fantasy should be in the middle. Believable, plausible stuff that doesn't break suspension of disbelief.

>The only difference is that in modern fantasy, magic works.
It works as technology and can be replicated by anyone which is complete opposite of what you would find in folklore and myths. It doesn't matter if magic exists in our world or not, in fantasy setting it's real.
>some European "magician" had a completely different bullshit tradition around what he did than a Chinese "magician", or even one from the next village over
user, could you describe these completely different traditions? It would bring some light to why you think they are inconsistent while modern fantasy somehow is consistent with them at the same time.

See the same thing with a lot of new GMs. When you ask them what tone or style their game is supposed to have they usually answer with "realistic" and "gritty". If you as then further they usually just want a game with consistent narrative that is a little edgy.

Four points here. First, no, many modern fantasy sources have magic be something that can't be reproduced by just anyone, that to do magic you need to be chosen or born to it in some way. This can be like Gandalf or Harry Potter, or it can be a test of magic that you are destined to fail or succeed in.
Second, many forms if actual technology and science can be seen as modern forms of magic. I mean, if I explain to a medieval age person how my computer works by having lightning flow through the metal inside it, there being little lightning floodgates opening and closing at the say so of more lightning, he would think I was talking about magic, not about semiconductors.
Third, many old magic traditions had magic as being replicatable by just anyone, provided he spent all those years at becoming "wise" (becoming good at bullshit).
Fourth, the things that "magicians" did that actually worked, such as actually curing some disease by using a certain plant, could actually be done by anyone as long as they knew about the plant.

Could YOU describe some magical traditions that were similar across the entire world?

>Third, many old magic traditions had magic as being replicatable by just anyone, provided he spent all those years at becoming "wise" (becoming good at bullshit).
Could you provide examples please?
>Fourth, the things that "magicians" did that actually worked, such as actually curing some disease by using a certain plant, could actually be done by anyone as long as they knew about the plant.
The thing is magic describes the world where it's not true. Exactly because successful users of such practices were bullshitting other people. Often they didn't fully understand the basics behind their success and/or they wanted to protect their secrets and ensure their well-being and power through secrecy. I can handle you the right medicine but if you are unable to use what's the point? In scientific mindset measure of ability would be knowledge based on tried and proven practice, in magical mindset it would be aptitude.

>Could YOU describe some magical traditions that were similar across the entire world?
I've already did that and described the most common similarity between them. Could you now answer my question?
>user, could you describe these completely different traditions? It would bring some light to why you think they are inconsistent while modern fantasy somehow is consistent with them at the same time.

Examples of magic being replicatable by anyone: almost all religious magic. You needed to study to become a priest of your religion, but for the bulk of religions that is something everyone at least in theory could do. Obviously exceptions did exist.
About the fourth point you are correct, but miss the point. What you are saying is that fantasy magicians should be able to cast fireballs and treat the casting as a science, as long as they don't tell people on the street how it's done. Which is exactly how much of modern fantasy deals with magic.
Your description of "similarity" is a description of differences. Piety vs. having royal blood? Huge difference there, piety is not decided by who your daddy is.
Your question is non sequitur. I don't claim that magic in modern fantasy is consistent with magic in the various traditions that it is derived from. What I am saying is that those traditions are not consistent with each other anyway.

How is a bunch of conartists conning people not consistent. Confidence tricksters the world over all use the exact same psychological tricks. It's entirely consistent.

They use the same tricks, but it's the depiction (that is, the specific excuses used) that we are discussing here. Those are of course all different.
There is also the fact that in fantasy, magic actually works. That would of course cause people to treat it differently, as in, there would be very serious efforts to codify it and to try to find out how it works. Magic would of course also be performed by others than only con men.

>almost all religious magic
Are you serious right now? You can study to become a Christian priest and perform miracles? Really?
>What you are saying is that fantasy magicians should be able to cast fireballs and treat the casting as a science
This is not what I'm saying. These people from the streets won't be able to use magic even if mage tells them how he does it (shares his knowledge). Magic relies on internal condition and ability. Knowledge itself doesn't matter as much as how this knowledge transforms the student. Hence it relies on personal experience.
>Your description of "similarity" is a description of differences. Piety vs. having royal blood? Huge difference there, piety is not decided by who your daddy is.
They are the same thing. You either have this aptitude or not, source of aptitude can vary between religions and myths but it's always relies on aptitude as I described and comes from external powerful source. Knowledge of magical arts without aptitude is useless as king without divine favor would meet strife and misfortune.
>Your question is non sequitur. I don't claim that magic in modern fantasy is consistent with magic in the various traditions that it is derived from.
If it's not misrepresented then it should be consistent with the source material. Which raises question how can it be consistent with material which internally inconsistent according to you. If it's modern representation is inconsistent with the source material then it's in fact misrepresented.
> What I am saying is that those traditions are not consistent with each other anyway.
Which again bring us to my question to your claim.
>some European "magician" had a completely different bullshit tradition around what he did than a Chinese "magician", or even one from the next village over
>user, could you describe these completely different traditions?

This scene really isn't as insane as it might seem at first glance. Since a Star Destroyer's thrusters are all fixed on the back they act as a pivot point when the Hammerhead slams into it, which could give it enough leverage to push the larger craft off course.

The real trick is justifying why the hammerhead didn't bust apart on impact, but maybe they're made for that. I dunno.

>The real trick is justifying why the hammerhead didn't bust apart on impact, but maybe they're made for that. I dunno.
This and how it created enough force to slice one destroyer with another like butter with hot knife but didn't get any damage in the process

At that point the leaning drestroyer's engines would be working against it unless they had the wherewithal to shut them down, so the lower ship is being hit by the combined thrust of the leaning ship's engines.

Still dunno about the actual cruiser though. They don't bust apart on impact because they don't actually gun it until they're stuck in a corner, but that's a lot of pressure to put on a ship frame.

>Second, many forms if actual technology and science can be seen as modern forms of magic. I mean, if I explain to a medieval age person how my computer works by having lightning flow through the metal inside it, there being little lightning floodgates opening and closing at the say so of more lightning, he would think I was talking about magic, not about semiconductors.
If I were going to try to explain a computer to a person from the Middle Ages, I would start with an abacus, and then ask them to imagine an abacus with an enormous number of tiny beads moving very, very quickly. With more time, I’d probably talk about representing information as bits, and binary, and things like adders and shift registers and so on. The electricity-and-semiconductors part isn’t that important, in a way; you could get an idea of what a computer is without necessarily knowing any solid-state physics.

More broadly, though, there are huge differences between contemporary technology and magic, and I think you could trace them back to modern notions of systematized knowledge, mostly famously embodied in the scientific method. A good magician never reveals his tricks, but a good scientist is obligated to do so.

>You can study to become a Christian priest and perform miracles? Really?
Yes, really... Through I meant almost all religious magic in almost all religions, not just Christianity.
> Magic relies on internal condition and ability.
Magic doens't actually rely on anything at all, since magic actually doens't exist. If you are saying "but it works inside the fantasy world", then yes, but then you have to accept the way it works inside that world.
>They are the same thing. You either have this aptitude or not
Not at all. Of course you cannot obtain royal blood if you aren't born to it (unless you actually take over the kingdom, I guess...), but you can certainly become pious over the course of your life. As for the second part of that...
> it's always relies on aptitude as I described and comes from external powerful source
And again no, there are many traditions where magical power comes from the magician himself.
>If it's not misrepresented then it should be consistent with the source material.
It literally can't be. Pick up the Kalevala and the bible. Surely you can find descriptions of magical acts within those two books (it doesn't matter if one thinks that the events actually happened or not, they are descriptions of magic nevertheless). They are, however, wildly different in many ways. The source works aren't consistent with each other, so there is no consistency for modern works to approach.
>user, could you describe these completely different traditions?
Fine. The European one had spirits tell him that this and this plant is good for curing this and this ailment. He worked for several decades with this, occasionally actually curing someone. The Chinese guy meanwhile was a Buddhist-like monk, who claimed that giving up all mortal desires would be the way to escape the constant cycle of rebirth. He never cured anyone, and worked by telling people that giving him stuff would clean them from bad karma.
Same tricks? In a way. Same tradition? No.

>The electricity-and-semiconductors part isn’t that important, in a way; you could get an idea of what a computer is without necessarily knowing any solid-state physics.
It is hugely important as that is what makes all the difference between a computer and an abacus. That is beside the point though, but it's also what makes it difficult to understand compared to an abacus. And that is the point.

> A good magician never reveals his tricks, but a good scientist is obligated to do so.
Yes. But a wizard in a fantasy setting is not necessarily obliged to do so. There are many many fantasy settings, even those that have magical universities and so on, where magic is still treated as being "dangerous for the unenlightened" etc. Which is exactly the excuse many actual magicians used to avoid revealing their bullshit to people.

>It is hugely important as that is what makes all the difference between a computer and an abacus.
No? The earliest computers were all mechanical. We use electrical components today to miniaturize the same processes the first mechanical calculators started with.

Well, what I meant was that we use semiconductors to automate the process, and an abacus is manually worked. Yes sure, automation could be done mechanically as well, and that may be easier to explain, but you're still missing the point.

Wrong. People care about believability.
Realism can be believable (when something in real life is too absurd, or when people ate too used to false/exagerated fictional depictions, the audience might think reality is unrealistic. See Fire and Ice. It's rotoscoped [aka painted over pics/videos of people doing stuff] yet a common criticism at the time was that it was unrealistic [probably because normal animation has exagerated moviments and expressions to empathise stuff. Another example is God of War, where tests with historical greek clothing designs were deemed "not greek enough" by the people testing the game. Also, when Dragon Age hired a french voice actress to dub a character with french accent people said the accent sounded fake because it was different of the usual [and fake] french accents you see in most media).

You didn't notice but I already covered what you said, you just used another term to take the argument into a middle-ground.

"Everyone is a realismfag at some level" is horoscope/internet-personality-test tier "specific phrases that aren't" applied to media.
Also, I doubt video game/movie aesthetics have anything to do with how much people know about stuff.
Like, if your game is a big hit there will be others like it, but that's because people copy popular things.

there's nothing wrong with being a realismfag
there's nothing wrong with liking things unrealistic
there's nothing wrong with thinking unrealistic things are realistic
there's nothing wrong with gently correcting the above
there's nothing wrong with continuing to use the unrealistic thing after you know it's unrealistic

there is something wrong with being the mouth-breathing semi-biped in every thread who tells everybody that the naked chick's armor is unrealistic as if we didn't already fucking know.

we fucking know

It's laughable. All Disney had to do was add another three hammerhead ships. That’s all they needed to make that ridiculous scene believable.

>You can study to become a Christian priest and perform miracles? Really?
>Yes, really
C'mon, user
>Magic doens't actually rely on anything at all, since magic actually doens't exist
We are talking about worlds of fiction where magic is real and should be inspired by the source material of our world which is myths and folklore. It does exist there.
>Not at all. Of course you cannot obtain royal blood if you aren't born to it (unless you actually take over the kingdom, I guess...), but you can certainly become pious over the course of your life.
If you prove to be successful ruler you by proxy will be declared lost descendant of ancient royal house or something like that. See Mandate of Heaven.
>but you can certainly become pious over the course of your life
Which is again the exact same source of magic as others, internal quality which grants you magic. How it can be acquired differs depending on myths but it's all here.
>And again no, there are many traditions where magical power comes from the magician himself.
Go on and provide examples, I'm still curious to hear detailed description of their principal differencies
>Surely you can find descriptions of magical acts within those two books. They are, however, wildly different in many ways.
How are they different again?
>The European one had spirits tell him that this and this plant is good for curing this and this ailment. He worked for several decades with this, occasionally actually curing someone.
No, user. Give me examples from real world myths and traditions, not your completely imaginary examples and speculations.
>The Chinese guy meanwhile was a Buddhist-like monk, who claimed that giving up all mortal desires would be the way to escape the constant cycle of rebirth
What acts of magic did this Chinese (not really, you describe some guy vaguely eastern monk) guy perform?

>Yeah, I know dude, but magic falls into "how much you know", because we don't know shit about how it works, it's supposed to not make sense. But go on and create a enemy wizard make him cast Fireball into your players and make the fire cut off some of their limbs. No fire damage just slicing DMG. See how well they'll react to this situation.
>People mostly know how fire works, and they'll have a need for it to make sense.

>implying i can't shape my fireball into a blade of fire i swing from my sword

It's like you're unimaginative.

It's not a middle ground, because that implies there is some sort of slidding scale between "realism" and "fantasy".
And there is no such a thing.

>Medieval setting
>FUCK SHIT ASS FUCKING SHIT FUCK
Am I the only one who hates this? I know the words have been around forever, but it just feels too modern for that sort of setting.

>FUCK
Sard.
>SHIT
Turd.
>ASS
Arse.

There you go.

Villain
Catamite
Fornicate thou
Harlot
Devil's spawn

It's how you use them.

you can swim in plate armor, it's just difficult.

if you fall off a ship, yeah you're probably gonna go under before help can get to you. But falling into a river wouldn't be a death sentence