Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25597877-20160407121111


 * Don't argue from the real world into game logic. Don't try to add major new ideas to the game world or modify existing key ideas. Maybe you actually fence, but that doesn't mean you can insist on rulings regarding sword play. Similarlly, maybe you're really a skilled archer; well, if the rules and the GM say a long bow can fire 100 feet and you disagree, well, your experience is irrelevant. Your GM cannot be expected to be an expert in every possible field. The only thing that the GM can be expected to be is an expert in the game. This is the great equalizer, the Universal Physics that everyone understands. Arguing based on your experience destroys any balance; the lone GM has to compensate for the speciality knowledge of a handful of players. Also, Arguing from reality is ultimately arguing by analogy, your insisting that the GM argue within your analogy, often in an area he may not know. Is it fair to ask a GM not familiar with cryptography about the possibility of using an uncrackable one-time-pad for communications? In addition, many games have world models that don't accurately map to the real world, but are internally balanced and consistant. Meddling with those variables can have surprising results. For example, while gunpowder may be realistic, many fantasy games combat systems are destroyed by the presence of firearms. You're putting the GM in an awkward position by asking him to fiddle with the world's reality. 