Geas

Hi,

to all of those reading this, please take the following statements with a grain of salt.

So, I hear, of late, over and over again, this 'isn't that unrealistic? Isn't this or that more realistic' while discussion features or ideas.

GEAS is a fantasy themed mud where giant lizards hack at small children sized men with enormous axes, while a group of pointed eared undernourished tall humanoids haul lightningbolts across the place. Ain't much realism in that.

I can understand why people do wish things to be 'logical' in some way, like you can follow why things happen or why the one is possible and the other is not. But GEAS is not a simulation of reality nor of ancient human times, so please let us keep that in mind while we discuss things.

Sometime's realism is wanted and sometimes it's just plain harmful. Also, it's a game. Keep that in mind too.

Thank you

In my oppion we should not ask if it is 'realistic', but it is 'logical'?
This is sometimes a big diffrence. The world of Geas follows in some points other law of nature as the real World (Magic exists!).
So we should ask, if it fits to the other things? Follow it the the same principals?

Well, the question of realism in these discussions can also be understood to mean "is it an accurate depiction of how things would be given the known parametres of the world of Geas?"

Byspel, tshaharks suddenly beginning to locomote through the air by flatulence would be unrealistic, as it matches exceedingly little of the Geaslore.

Given how Geas is full of invisible NPCs, handling "masses" in a better way would be more geasistic. I mean realistic.

If the word "realistic" did not allow for this change in application, then the whole realm of alternate realism fiction should be more aptly renamed duplicate realism, or differing unrealism.

Also, since Geas claims have a medieval-themed fantasy setting, bringing up medieval parallels seems very fitting.

I'd say "justifiable" rather than "logical". So long as there is some reason for something to be happening, then that's fine. A inn full of custard tended by sentient vacuum cleaners would need a heft amount of justification (beyond "The builder wiz ate some funny mushrooms that day")

I'd agree with Turian and Zehren that logical/accurate would be the better descriptors of what is sought after when people say realism.

I believe the problem Glorfindel references is based on the concept of a realism in context with modern societal constrcuts or medeival ideas. The mud is a different world so what is "realistic" there is in context with itself and the fantasy world not with this world.

Logical is a different story, there are heaps of illogical things in the fantasy setting, that is why you have drawn almost an entire new perspective framework for the idea of conceptual realism within the mud.

This does not equal realism within our current world though there may be parallels. Many times whether it is an argument for a weapon or armour the argument is well really it is like this..realistically the weapon would do this, or the armour would be like this (just an example), but that is an untrue comparison with a world that is not in the same perspective framework.

My only frustration with realism is when it leads to inconsistencies in roleplay where people pick and choose between realistic and not so based on their ooc wants to participate.

Otherwise, I like a bit of in between. Some things go overboard in realism

ceinna wrote:My only frustration with realism is when it leads to inconsistencies in roleplay where people pick and choose between realistic and not so based on their ooc wants to participate.

Otherwise, I like a bit of in between. Some things go overboard in realism

And that there is the problem. "Realism" is great if it allows one's character to "win." Despite playing in a game full of dwarves, elves, halflings and the like, we're still saddled with the inconsistencies of human nature. C'est la vie.

Rudolpho wrote:

ceinna wrote:My only frustration with realism is when it leads to inconsistencies in roleplay where people pick and choose between realistic and not so based on their ooc wants to participate.

Otherwise, I like a bit of in between. Some things go overboard in realism

And that there is the problem. "Realism" is great if it allows one's character to "win." Despite playing in a game full of dwarves, elves, halflings and the like, we're still saddled with the inconsistencies of human nature. C'est la vie.

I've been on the losing side of realism and still had fun. But I see regularly how people not just here but other muds as well, pick and choose their moments based on what they want to play oocly or join in on

ceinna wrote:My only frustration with realism is when it leads to inconsistencies in roleplay where people pick and choose between realistic and not so based on their ooc wants to participate.

I'm sad to say I was not able to understand what you tried to express - perhaps you could elaborate for me?

When someone uses ooc knowledge to affect the roleplay at times when it is convenient for them to be less realistic or more so based on activities they want to participate in. I love some of the threads of roleplay and even I am guilty of this where I would push aside realism in one part of my role-play to participate in other parts of the mud which just seemed more fun. Without calling out specifics I am not sure how much I cam elaborate.

Well it's hard to be in character 100% of the time. Some of yourself is going to bleed through and generally people like to have fun.