D&D General The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")

[MichaelSomething]

That to me is what is important, thefeel and visuals evoked by the game in our collective imagination, not the mechanical aspects of the game.

Roll D3 for a response:
1- Go play Powered by the Apocalypse and then say that again
2- Guess what, the Mechanics can affect the feel of the game!
3- FKR! FKR!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What an elegantly worded attack on the preferences of others this is.

Alternatively: An elegantly-worded attack on someone's attempt to present their preferences as absolute necessities.

Because that's exactly what it is. "I can't believe this, therefore no one should get to play this."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's just boiling something complicated down to something simple.

That is exactly what is asked for with regard to the very things "verisimilitude" is raised against, though. We wish to simplify out complex, tedious, not particularly story-productive elements like explaining the exact specific way that an unusual opportunity arose in the heat of battle that could be exploited, but which the enemy would be clever enough to watch for going forward. Or the specific musculoskeletal differences from human anatomy and geophysical/atmospheric/kinematic differences which allow an ordinary person on this fantasy world (which may very well be a flat plane and not a globe!) to leap 20 feet straight up or 40' straight forward with a good running start (noting that this is only ~10 feet further than the IRL men's world record). Or, as referenced above, the

That to me is what is important, thefeel and visuals evoked by the game in our collective imagination, not the mechanical aspects of the game.

If the mechanical aspects are irrelevant, why not make them functional, and attend to feel separately? The GM has far greater ability to determine what is appropriate feel and importance, than to determine what is mathematically viable, statistically sound, and structurally supportive of the mechanical goals of play. The former simply requires ordinary human reasoning. The latter requires playtest and analysis.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Different strokes dude. We're never going to agree here. I don't like what you like, and you don't like what I like.

The thing is I used to like what you claim to like. And even for what you claim to like D&D is and has always been a terrible game for doing it.

Back in the 90s there were basically no decent narrativist games. And largely because of it I was in the sim camp. I liked what you claim to like. This included GURPS and WFRP. It did not include the clearly and obviously artificial D&D with its video game healing, its complete lack of meaningful injury rules, its caster supremacy, its caste-based impermeable "class" system, and more.

And this is why I take exception at what you claim to like. I'd be perfectly fine if you liked D&D for what it was good at. But it has always, in every edition been the clarinetist of simulation RPGs, simultaneously sucking and blowing.

When I play modern or even old school D&D it's because it sucks like a hoover as a sim. And hoovers are useful. But asking for a hoover that sucks less and blows more is weird - especially when my sim RPGs are all metaphorically power tools, not hoovers.

I own more GURPS books than D&D books, and GURPs is hardcore sim. The game I've spent the third most on (after D&D and GURPS) is WFRP - again perfectly in line with what you claim to want, complete with injury rules, poor healing, and in control casters. I've moved away from them in my own gaming due to better narrative games and better computer games handling the sim side (but not enough that I haven't written and playtested my own WFRP retroclone on the 5e engine) but that doesn't mean I no longer see the appeal. I just refuse to accept a clarinetist as being a sim game on the grounds it sucks less and blows more than a hoover.

 

[Oofta]

That is exactly what is asked for with regard to the very things "verisimilitude" is raised against, though. We wish to simplify out complex, tedious, not particularly story-productive elements like explaining the exact specific way that an unusual opportunity arose in the heat of battle that could be exploited, but which the enemy would be clever enough to watch for going forward.

I'm assuming the "watch for in the future" is a reference to 4E's encounter abilities? Problem with that is that there was never a "correct opportunity", it was once per round. It didn't matter if the enemy entered the room after that supposed "opportunity" arose, you still couldn't use that power again.

If you say that an opportunity is something like someone entering the area you threaten starts to cast a spell and you've trained yourself to recognize that moment to instinctively strike? Like Mage Slayer? I don't have a problem with it. Some people just really hate spell casters.

Or the specific musculoskeletal differences from human anatomy and geophysical/atmospheric/kinematic differences which allow an ordinary person on this fantasy world (which may very well be a flat plane and not a globe!) to leap 20 feet straight up or 40' straight forward with a good running start (noting that this is only ~10 feet further than the IRL men's world record). Or, as referenced above, the

The ability to jump is simplified math that's easy to determine based on a single stat. You're correlating game simplification with physical reality of the game world. I don't make that correlation, I accept a bit of heroism + oversimplification as just being something to make the game fun and easy. I don't want a scientifically accurate chart to calculate this stuff, I prefer just glancing at a single number.

If the mechanical aspects are irrelevant, why not make them functional, and attend to feel separately? The GM has far greater ability to determine what is appropriate feel and importance, than to determine what is mathematically viable, statistically sound, and structurally supportive of the mechanical goals of play. The former simply requires ordinary human reasoning. The latter requires playtest and analysis.

Good thing they've done those playtests and listened to the feedback of what most people want out of character classes as part of their analysis. I don't find a couple of classes particularly appealing, I'll never play a warlock for example. But other than that? I've enjoyed every class I've ever played. The classes exist to let people play a character that fills a specific role.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Good thing they've done those playtests and listened to the feedback of what most people want out of character classes as part of their analysis. I don't find a couple of classes particularly appealing, I'll never play a warlock for example. But other than that? I've enjoyed every class I've ever played. The classes exist to let people play a character that fills a specific role.

Then isn't this the best argument I could possibly provide for why there should be a Warlord?

It's not for you. But it's more popular than several things that are in 5e (as shown by actual polls conducted by WotC!) And it's something a significant number of people would find extremely appealing. As has been shown over and over and over again.

Or is there some other reason why that would be unacceptable?

 

[Oofta]

Then isn't this the best argument I could possibly provide for why there should be a Warlord?

It's not for you. But it's more popular than several things that are in 5e (as shown by actual polls conducted by WotC!) And it's something a significant number of people would find extremely appealing. As has been shown over and over and over again.

Or is there some other reason why that would be unacceptable?

If you want to discuss warlords go to one of the dedicated threads. No reason to drag the dead horse's carcass over here.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh 2e thief. If there was ever a class designed to be hamstrung at every opportunity, it was that one.I'm 90% certain that the only way to play one effectively was to multi-class.

Actually, 15% +5% Dex +10% Half-Elf -10% kit penalty certain.

 

[TwoSix]

The thing is I used to like what you claim to like. And even for what you claim to like D&D is and has always been a terrible game for doing it.

Back in the 90s there were basically no decent narrativist games. And largely because of it I was in the sim camp. I liked what you claim to like. This included GURPS and WFRP. It did not include the clearly and obviously artificial D&D with its video game healing, its complete lack of meaningful injury rules, its caster supremacy, its caste-based impermeable "class" system, and more.

And this is why I take exception at what you claim to like. I'd be perfectly fine if you liked D&D for what it was good at. But it has always, in every edition been the clarinetist of simulation RPGs, simultaneously sucking and blowing.

When I play modern or even old school D&D it's because it sucks like a hoover as a sim. And hoovers are useful. But asking for a hoover that sucks less and blows more is weird - especially when my sim RPGs are all metaphorically power tools, not hoovers.

I own more GURPS books than D&D books, and GURPs is hardcore sim. The game I've spent the third most on (after D&D and GURPS) is WFRP - again perfectly in line with what you claim to want, complete with injury rules, poor healing, and in control casters. I've moved away from them in my own gaming due to better narrative games and better computer games handling the sim side (but not enough that I haven't written and playtested my own WFRP retroclone on the 5e engine) but that doesn't mean I no longer see the appeal. I just refuse to accept a clarinetist as being a sim game on the grounds it sucks less and blows more than a hoover.

Not gonna lie, I had to go take a cold shower and lie down for a few minutes after this post.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Roll D3 for a response:
1- Go play Powered by the Apocalypse and then say that again
2- Guess what, the Mechanics can affect the feel of the game!
3- FKR! FKR!

I rolled 2 a long time ago, and then lost the die.