D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

[pemerton]

But it is that to what, even 99.9% of the people on earth today ? And it was that to absolutely 100% of people in the medieval times.

Of course. But then why would we say that D&D incorporates scientific laws, or physics, if what we actually mean is that it incorporates common-sense phenomena?

 

[Mordhau]

"Tell me,” the great twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked a friend, “why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?” His friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going around the Earth.” Wittgenstein responded, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

 

[pemerton]

To anyone who really wants to go down the rabbithole of "dissociated" mechanics, I recommend this old thread: In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

As to the claim that so-called "dissociated" mechanics are at odds with inhabiting and playing one's character, I reiterate the following post from that thread:

What had happened was that a cultists had hit the paladin of the Raven Queen with a Baleful Polymorph, turning the paladin into a frog until the end of the cultist's next turn. The players at the table didn't know how long this would last, although one (not the player of the paladin) was pretty confident that it wouldn't be that long, because the game doesn't have save-or-die.

Anyway, the end of the cultist's next turn duly came around, and I told the player of the paladin that he turned back to his normal form. He then took his turn, and made some threat or admonition against the cultist. The cultist responded with something to the effect of "You can't beat me - I turned you into a frog, after all!" The paladin's player had his PC retort "Ah, but the Raven Queen turned me back."

There we have an example of a player taking narrative control on the back of an NPC's mechanic that the player knew nothing of until encountering it in the course of actual play. And at least for me, as a GM, that is the player of the paladin playing his role. And driving the story forward. On the back of a so-called "dissociated" mechanic.

In other words, the claim about the relationship between "dissociated" mechanics and inhabitation of character is an empirical one. Justin Alexander can of course speak for himself, but he has no basis on which to generalise his imaginative capacities and limitations to other RPGers.

 

[pemerton]

"Tell me,” the great twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked a friend, “why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?” His friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going around the Earth.” Wittgenstein responded, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

Thorough-going Wittgensteinianism is not really reconcilable with scientific realism. As your quote at least hints at, Wittgenstein remained committed to a type of verificationism.

 

[Mordhau]

Thorough-going Wittgensteinianism is not really reconcilable with scientific realism. As your quote at least hints at, Wittgenstein remained committed to a type of verificationism.

You seem to be responding to an argument but I have no idea what the argument it that I'm supposed to have made.

 

[pemerton]

You seem to be responding to an argument but I have no idea what the argument it that I'm supposed to have made.

You posted Wittgenstein on the observation of celestial motion in the context of a discussion as to whether or not gravity (or more generally, science) is part of D&D.

I responded to your quote of Wittgenstein. I don't think Wittgensteinian ways of thinking offer any comfort to those who think that because D&D incorporates common-sense phenomena, it incorporates science/physical law.

 

[Mordhau]

You posted Wittgenstein on the observation of celestial motion in the context of a discussion as to whether or not gravity (or more generally, science) is part of D&D.

I responded to your quote of Wittgenstein. I don't think Wittgensteinian ways of thinking offer any comfort to those who think that because D&D incorporates common-sense phenomena, it incorporates science/physical law.

Can't really see why it would.

If I was going to draw anything out of it, it would be that the same observable phenomena can have multiple valid interpretations until we really get down into the nitty gritty. Just like Newtonian physics can be in a sense wrong, but also in a practical sense right.

 

[pemerton]

Can't really see why it would.

In which case we appear to be ad idem.

 

[Lyxen]

Of course. But then why would we say that D&D incorporates scientific laws, or physics, if what we actually mean is that it incorporates common-sense phenomena?

Indeed, why would we say that "D&D incorporates scientific laws, or physics" ? I would not say it. I am a scientific by nature and by training, but I much prefer my fantasy worlds to be really fantastic. Maybe it's the influence of Ars Magica and similar games, in which paradigms are completely different, but I find them absolutely great when gaming, they free the DM and the players imagination, because without breaking the way the fantasy worlds work day-to-day, they remove constraints about the potential magical working of the world, and they prevent some annoying players from making silly pseudo-scientific arguments - which are always invalid anyway, since there is no scientific basis for magic.

So no, it's certainly not an objective for me to say that "D&D incorporates scientific laws, or physics", although I agree that most games incorporate the usual real-world way of working for common phenomena as it's much easier to play in these worlds.

 

[pemerton]

Indeed, why would we say that "D&D incorporates scientific laws, or physics" ? I would not say it.

I was responding to those posters who did say it: @Maxperson, @Lanefan, @p_johnston (at least in relation to gravity), and maybe @Oofta (though I'm not 100% sure what Oofta includes in the "macro level").