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

[Aldarc]

I didn't say that LotR is superficial. It's more profound than any FRPGing I've experienced. I said that its treatment of economics, social structures, human geography and the like is not realistic beyond a superficial veneer.

I agree. Middle Earth's purpose was not even to portray realistic societies. None of it was even meant to be a single world. That came later in the process. Its purpose was originally a vehicle for Tolkien's love of (constructed) languages and myths combined with a fanciful story for his kids that turned into a bigger project.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In Classic Traveller, it's all rather obscure how the economy works. I can say from experience that that doesn't matter.

Uhm. Not sure I agree if you're running a game with a strong merchanter bent.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'm not saying they're not described. I'm saying they are described, and what is described is unrealistic.

We are told how far apart the Shire, Bree, and Rivendell are. We're given a general impression of the geography in which they are located. We're given a general impression of their material standards of living. And in the case of Rivendell, we're given a general sense of how the Elves spend their time.

And the combination of those things were are told is unrealistic. The amount of use and consumption is unrealistic relative to the amount of production.

You're presuming the descriptions must be complete and comprehensive, and I don't see why that might be the case at all. The economics aren't relevant to the story so they wouldn't be featured beyond what is immediately visible. "You didn't include what isn't relevant so therefore it's unrealistic," is just not a justifiable line of reasoning.

Rivendell is the seat of power for elves in the region, right? I don't see a whole lot of corn being grown on the lawn of the White House, but that doesn't mean that Washington, D.C., is unrealistic or that there's no food around or that if you go there you should primarily meet farmers fresh from the fields or craftsmen. Furthermore, if someone was telling a tale where they visited the White House, they might express how busy the place was or how fantastic the meals were. You wouldn't not conclude that your storyteller was lying, would you? You'd know that a visit to anywhere wouldn't be comprehensive. That doesn't mean it's less realistic.

Even the map of middle earth is questionable, frankly. It is, after all, generally understood to be the map that Bilbo and Frodo made for their autobiographical accounts. Frodo in particular was interested in avoiding settlements, especially after the near miss at Bree. Do you think all these regions have names, but nobody lives there because there are no cities on the map? Or is it more believable that they just wouldn't be included because they weren't relevant. That's how stories about real events are told, isn't it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh, I could easily see that distinction being as simple as, "A dissociated mechanic isn't inherently flawed, but it may be a more questionable design. If it doesn't fit within the game world, and doesn't follow or reinforce the themes or genres the game or setting itself is attempting to express, then the mechanic's implementation is more questionable. It may break suspension of disbelief rather than reinforcing the narrative or encouraging role-play. You should examine the purpose the mechanic serves, and if there may not be better alternatives."

That is, it's not a red flag, but it could be a yellow one.

If the statements made gave the impression there was such thought going on I would be more willing to grant this. But, as I said, in the original "dissociated" mechanics post (which was the thing that got the term started to begin with), the author very clearly takes a strong stand against "dissociated" mechanics and makes it clear you can't use them while roleplaying, and that this is the reason why people respond badly to such mechanics.

He then responds with completely unrestrained joy at the Numenera GM intrusion mechanic. He even then characterizes people who might be opposed to it as "allergic" to it (rather contrasting with his own previous very strong criticism of such mechanics), and further states that such mechanics are purely optional, GMs don't have to use them. Which...literally applies to every single "dissociated" thing he complained about in 4e.

Also, "it may be a more questionable design" is kind of the problem. As a tool for game design analysis, it's completely unreliable; it doesn't identify things that definitely need work, nor can its absence be used to infer that a mechanic doesn't need work (since there are plenty of very bad mechanics that are still "associated.")

I do think it's a pretty common question about, "Hey, how come a battle master can only attempt to disarm four times without taking a nap?" Or even, "How come only the battle master can disarm four times when the rogue can sneak attack all day?" That doesn't make sense, and the real answer is: "Unlimited disarm would either be too good, nerfed into a waste of time, or de facto nerfed by everyone magically always having locked gauntlets and natural weapons. Limited disarm lets you be cool and powerful without the whole game turning into Disarming & Dropping." There could be a better mechanic for battle master, though. It might relate to how superiority dice are recovered, or disarm might have some other mechanic behind it.

Key question, which I'll keep short to avoid my usual logorrhea: Why doesn't it make sense? If it were magical, would it then make sense?

Similarly, there's questions like, "How come Cure Wounds heals me completely at level 1, but not at level 10? Why does my stamina and ability to avoid damage make healing magic less effective?" That's a question that 4e solved with a better mechanic: healing surge value. There are others, though: "How come I can only long rest once a day?" "Why does a short rest take an hour?" "Why is my ability to fight the same at max hp as it is at 1 hp?" Most if not all of those questions have inspired other discussions or alternative rules.

And, sometimes, such discussions are interesting and worthwhile. Unfortunately, I find that far too often people take these and do exactly as the Alexandrian did, turning them into "X is bad for objective reasons," rather than "let's have a chat about this and what implications it might have."

 

[Bacon Bits]

If the statements made gave the impression there was such thought going on I would be more willing to grant this. But, as I said, in the original "dissociated" mechanics post (which was the thing that got the term started to begin with), the author very clearly takes a strong stand against "dissociated" mechanics and makes it clear you can't use them while roleplaying, and that this is the reason why people respond badly to such mechanics.

He then responds with completely unrestrained joy at the Numenera GM intrusion mechanic. He even then characterizes people who might be opposed to it as "allergic" to it (rather contrasting with his own previous very strong criticism of such mechanics), and further states that such mechanics are purely optional, GMs don't have to use them. Which...literally applies to every single "dissociated" thing he complained about in 4e.

Yeah, and? Most theories start out naive and develop nuance over time. Finding out that your initial claims were overbroad or simplistic seems... bog standard, actually.

Do I think that this theory is particularly better than just saying, "Eh, this mechanic breaks my suspension of disbelief," which is a subjective measure, and then discussing why for that mechanic? No, not particularly. That is the real underlying theory when you boil it down. Still, it may be possible to develop a framework around it, and develop more descriptive terms than "suspension of disbelief" or "verisimilitude" which people tend to dismiss out-of-hand.

Also, "it may be a more questionable design" is kind of the problem. As a tool for game design analysis, it's completely unreliable; it doesn't identify things that definitely need work, nor can its absence be used to infer that a mechanic doesn't need work (since there are plenty of very bad mechanics that are still "associated.")

I don't think it's useful or practical to only use tools that are reliable. Perfect tools are nice, but perfect tools are not common. Heuristics exist because unreliable tools are extremely useful and often more potent than the alternatives because they better fit the real world.

Code smell is something that comes up quite a bit with programming, for example. The presence of certain patterns doesn't mean that code is poor, but it does suggest where code might be poor or might have issues in the future. It's called code smell precisely because it's an imprecise and even sometimes wholly subjective measure largely based on experience.

Key question, which I'll keep short to avoid my usual logorrhea: Why doesn't it make sense? If it were magical, would it then make sense?

Well, that's the whole problem with magic, isn't it? Narratively it can always make sense because magic can do anything it wants to. That doesn't mean that fighter doesn't need to make sense, though. If anything, it suggests only that wizard (or magic) need a harder system to work within to define it's limits. Given the open-ended nature of the game world in TTRPGs (as opposed to board games or CRPGs) I don't really think that's practical. Although some open-ended magic systems do exist, they're more pain than they're worth, IMX.

On a wider angle, no, I don't think Vancian casting like 5e particularly makes much sense. Why is how far you can fly in a given day limited by how many goblins you've killed in your life? You don't even have to have killed them with magic! Historically, the magic system felt unknowably incomprehensible. "Wait, I memorize it, and then when I cast it, it's gone from my memory? How does that work?" It was bizarre and arcane, so it kind of made sense, but it was also before TTRPG game design took off. Magic still works that way, but it basically still doesn't make sense. I've definitely read posts by people playing CRPGs using D&D rules for the first time getting confused why magic works like it does. I don't think making a computer game based on tabletop rules does it any favors. It's all the weight of the tabletop system, and now you've got to invent conveyance for all of it.

And, sometimes, such discussions are interesting and worthwhile. Unfortunately, I find that far too often people take these and do exactly as the Alexandrian did, turning them into "X is bad for objective reasons," rather than "let's have a chat about this and what implications it might have."

I find that it's better to assume that, absent the literal presence of some deductive or inductive proof or citation of the same, any claim of "objectivity" is merely a rhetorical device to express the conviction of the author's beliefs rather than any soundness of the reasoning. That's a safe assumption in virtually all scenarios. Very, very few things are ever objectively anything at all, especially when it comes to something as foundationally subjective as game theory in TTRPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't say that LotR is superficial. It's more profound than any FRPGing I've experienced.

On this, I agree.

I said that its treatment of economics, social structures, human geography and the like is not realistic beyond a superficial veneer.

Is that treatment realistic enough to allow you-the-reader to easily believe the various peoples in the setting can exist as they do and can have done so for long enough to establish the history as presented in the novels? To wit, could the Hobbits have believably lived in the Shire for the hundreds of years it seems they have? Sure. Could the Elves have believably lived in Rivendell for lo these many centuries? Sure, and remember they control some forest lands around that valley and could be sourcing food from there. And so on.

If yes to the italicized question, then job done.

The same is true of an RPG setting: is the treatment realistic enough to allow you-the-player to easily believe it can sustain itself as presented? If yes, then job done; but getting to "yes" can in fact take a lot of thought and effort.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not saying they're not described. I'm saying they are described, and what is described is unrealistic.

We are told how far apart the Shire, Bree, and Rivendell are. We're given a general impression of the geography in which they are located. We're given a general impression of their material standards of living. And in the case of Rivendell, we're given a general sense of how the Elves spend their time.

And the combination of those things were are told is unrealistic. The amount of use and consumption is unrealistic relative to the amount of production.

Thing is, in the novels we only get decsriptions of those bits of the setting the protagonists encounter.

Even so, the Shire lands (and those around) are shown as fertile enough to feed whoever lives there and have some left over for export...and we do know the Hobbits export pipeweed. We don't see the smithies and the breweries and the tailors etc. because they're not met in the story, but we do see the weapons and ales and clothes they produce - they have to come from somewhere and are left to reasonably assume those more industrial elements are present, if unseen. We also know there's more to Bree than just the Prancing Pony thus some of those industrial producers could easily be there or somewhere nearby.

The difference, however, between this and an RPG setting is that while a novel author knows what setting elements the protagonists/story are going to interact with and thus only has to design those, an RPG setting has to be able to handle the unpredictable whims of all those who play in it. In practice this means the RPG setting has to be considerably more robust in its design such that if-when the players have their PCs interact with an unexpected setting element the DM can (ideally!) seamlessly handle that interaction.

 

[Lanefan]

An ogre is 10 feet tall and is a muscular half ton in weight. It swings a small tree fashioned into a spiked club. If that ogre had hit the PC solidly, the PC would be crippled or dead.

Or about to land in Iowa.

Ogres do play golf, don't'cha know.

 

[Lanefan]

Eh, I could easily see that distinction being as simple as, "A dissociated mechanic isn't inherently flawed, but it may be a more questionable design. If it doesn't fit within the game world, and doesn't follow or reinforce the themes or genres the game or setting itself is attempting to express, then the mechanic's implementation is more questionable. It may break suspension of disbelief rather than reinforcing the narrative or encouraging role-play. You should examine the purpose the mechanic serves, and if there may not be better alternatives."

That is, it's not a red flag, but it could be a yellow one.

A yellow flag is even worse than a red one.

At sea, a square yellow flag being flown by a ship means "Ship under quarantine. Do not approach."

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed. While dissociated mechanics are a thing, trying to attach “good” and “bad” labels becomes problematic.

Perhaps instead the labels might want to be "necessary" and "unnecessary", given as some of these mechanics are rather necessary for a game to be and remain playable while others are unnecessary and can - without diminishing anything else about the game - be amended so as to have greater degrees of "association" or excised entirely.