Why is realism "lame"?

[Umbran]

If D&D doesn't work the way they want, is it unreasonable is it for them to expect the game to change to match what they want?

I'm sittin', watching a production of Shakespeare's "Macbeth". I realize I'm not in the mood for tragedy. Is it reasonable to expect the show to turn into a buddy-comedy?

Well, yes and no. If I'm in the comfort of my own home, I can make side commentary and snark and joke with my friends and turn the experience of watching Macbeth into something more comedic. This is like house-ruling the show. And maybe it'll work for me and maybe it won't, but it is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

But is it reasonable to expect someone to rewrite the play for me? That's less reasonable, but possible. Is it reasonable to expect Shakespeare himself to rewrite it? Well, no, for obvious reasons. Is it reasonable to expect all future productions of the play to be my preferred buddy-comedy version? Also no.

 

[Elf Witch]

If D&D doesn't work the way they want, is it unreasonable is it for them to expect the game to change to match what they want? Especially when there are a whole range of other games doing things more "realistically", that would match their claim. I mean, I understand billd91's point that it's the only game in town for a lot of people, but it doesn't have to stay that way. It was for me, till I made the effort to change it. Helped by having players who didn't really know what else was available, and when I showed them more jumped at it with both feet.

If it is unreasonable to expect the game to change then why do we have dozens of threads talking about what peopled would like to see changed in the next edition?

I was not suggesting a change of the basic rules but a supplement of rules to allow you to make the game more realistic and little more gritty. Something like that I would spend my very limited gaming budget on.

The issue with changing systems is very simple most of the people I game with are busy adults who don't want to learn a new system or spend the money on a new system. That is a major thing I am running into. Right now my money is beyond tight I simply can't afford to spend much on a new system. Then there is the idea of getting my players to not only buy but take the time to learn a new system. They know the systems are out there most of them used to jump at a chance to try a new system until their lives became so busy and having to schedule gaming around work, marriage, children, sick parents.

I also like a lot of what DnD has in it I own two bookshelves full of D20 and would like a chance to use them. My very first 3.0 game about halfway through the DM introduced a different way to handle armor using the grim and gritty rules it added a lot to the game in making it a little more realistic feeling. It didn't change the entire rules and I don't think it was unreasonable for the person who designed it to want a more gritty game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm sittin', watching a production of Shakespeare's "Macbeth". I realize I'm not in the mood for tragedy. Is it reasonable to expect the show to turn into a buddy-comedy?

I think a better analogy would be "I'm sitting watching a production of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. I realise I'm not in the mood for tragedy. Is it reasonable to want a version that's a smutty black comedy instead?" D&D claims to do a lot of things - especially if we look at the 2e settings like Birthright and Planescape.

And is it reasonable to expect there to be a good mass-produced future production of Romeo and Juliet that's a smutty black comedy rather than a tragedy?

 

[Umbran]

D&D claims to do a lot of things - especially if we look at the 2e settings like Birthright and Planescape.

I don't think it the game actually claims all that much, at least explicitly. I think that's more the people who play it who make the claims.

And is it reasonable to expect there to be a good mass-produced future production of Romeo and Juliet that's a smutty black comedy rather than a tragedy?

Good *and* mass-produced? You see the problem there? "Good" is generally a very personal thing, while "mass-produced" generally isn't. While it does happen, on occasion, *expecting* it is another thing entirely.

 

[Janx]

And is it reasonable to expect there to be a good mass-produced future production of Romeo and Juliet that's a smutty black comedy rather than a tragedy?

Sound and Fury does a pretty dirty version of Romeo and Juliet 2.0

Though now they've mixed it with Hamlet and Juliet.

Testacles and the Sack of Rome is also funny.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sound and Fury does a pretty dirty version of Romeo and Juliet 2.0

The reason I used the example I did is that Romeo and Juliet is a black comedy about two early teenagers falling for each other and doing ridiculous and melodramatic things. It's been drifted IMO unjustifiably based on the text so that it's normally performed as a romance - but see Romeo's odes to Rosalynd at the start, or just about any of the Nurse's lines.

I don't think it the game actually claims all that much, at least explicitly. I think that's more the people who play it who make the claims.

If a setting says it does something...

 

[Umbran]

The reason I used the example I did is that Romeo and Juliet is a black comedy about two early teenagers falling for each other and doing ridiculous and melodramatic things. It's been drifted IMO unjustifiably based on the text so that it's normally performed as a romance - but see Romeo's odes to Rosalynd at the start, or just about any of the Nurse's lines.

A few lines here and there do not a comedy make. Romeo's odes may be funny, but they're there to show how young and naive he is which is required to understand his reactions later - and that humor is largely washed away by Mercutio's death. It is played as a romance (a tragedy, actually) rather than a comedy because there's nothing at all funny about the ending.

If a setting says it does something...

Well, for one thing, a setting is not the game as a whole. And, for another, at least one of those settings (Planescape) seems to me to have enough fans that it must be basically living up to its claims.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A few lines here and there do not a comedy make. Romeo's odes may be funny, but they're there to show how young and naive he is which is required to understand his reactions later - and that humor is largely washed away by Mercutio's death.

It is played as a romance (a tragedy, actually) rather than a comedy because there's nothing at all funny about the ending.

Really? The ending is very black, I'll grant. But if you've a dark sense of humour, the ending is hilarious, complete with lashings of irony and some warped symmetry. Of course I'd probably walk out of a performance that played the ending as a comedy (and I walked out of the Shrew when it was played straight) - but that's a different matter from the comedy not being there throughout the play.

Well, for one thing, a setting is not the game as a whole. And, for another, at least one of those settings (Planescape) seems to me to have enough fans that it must be basically living up to its claims.

I disagree. Planescape works despite rather than because of the system. (I'm one of the fans).

 

[CroBob]

Since I am one of the people who like a bit more realism in my game world let me try and explain what I mean by that. I love fantasy and magic you can have all kinds of fantastic things with out breaking the suspension of disbelief. I can believe in dragons and gods and magic what makes me go ugg is having a mundane character fall from terminal velocity and live and not by a miracle but simply because of hit points. Or facing an army with the kingdoms best archers but because of the rules the party of four can just stand there and stick their tongues out because they are higher level than the army.

You know there have been people in real life who have walked away from falls at terminal velocity with scratches and bruises, though more often, if they live, they have broken bones and such. There have also been real life war heroes who, even though they sustained a large volume of injuries, continued fighting on against superior numbers, through luck, skill, and grit. The heroes of games are these people, in their world. How are they "mundane" after surviving so much and saving kingdoms etc? What's mundane about that, and why would you want high fantasy to be "mundane"?

I also have an issue with a someone who has been adventuring for three months game time is now high enough level to be the biggest bad ass in the kingdom.

Why? We're not talking about average Joe, here, we're talking a talented, stubborn, tough SoB, who started out with that talent, toughness, and stubbornness, and adventured near constantly for months... it doesn't seem like he might become something more than the average warrior?

Even when using fantastic things there has to be some kind of logic and rules on how this magic works. It has to have an internal consistency.

Few games lack internal consistency. As long as you follow the rules of the game the same way in every applicable situation, then the game is necessarily internally consistent. It's only not if the person running the game fails to make it so. It seems to me like you want it to be consistent with your picture of reality, hence saying you want it "realistic". A thing can be completely internally consistent while being absolutely nothing like what you'd find in reality... for example, the existence of magic and dragons. No, people who want "realism" are not asking for internal consistency, they're asking for external consistency, consistency with the real world. Which role playing games are historically bad at, and which would make the game boring in my opinion.

This is the kind of realism I like in my RPGs either that or a reason other than metagame why a fighter can fall from terminal velocity and live every time or fall in lava and have enough hit points to be rescued before being I don't know killed instantly.

The reason is that he's a freaking hero! He doesn't succumb to the injuries or deaths of lesser men, or else he'd constantly have broken bones, internal bleeding, months and months of recovery time, physical therapy, and all of that instead of these "Hit Point" things which are akin to nothing you'd find in reality, and are completely, utterly, mechanistic in nature. I like a little grit now and again myself, but I don't want my grit to be anything like in real life, or else my characters would lose limbs in explosions, suffer soft tissue damage, get infections, etc. Again, realism isn't fun.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The reason is that he's a freaking hero! He doesn't succumb to the injuries or deaths of lesser men, or else he'd constantly have broken bones, internal bleeding, months and months of recovery time, physical therapy, and all of that instead of these "Hit Point" things which are akin to nothing you'd find in reality, and are completely, utterly, mechanistic in nature. I like a little grit now and again myself, but I don't want my grit to be anything like in real life, or else my characters would lose limbs in explosions, suffer soft tissue damage, get infections, etc. Again, realism isn't fun.

But not everyone wants this kind of over the top heroism in an rpg. For some players grit that is a bit more like real life is fun. I think for most people who play D&D it is expected that the game not be terribly realistic, but elf witch seems to be saying she has come to realize she wants a much more down to earth fantasy system. Nothing wrong with her wanting a system where the odds of surviving certain situations, the time it takes to develop skills, etc is a bit more realistic. There are plenty of RPGs out there that make this sort of thing a priority.