How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Manbearcat]

I (and I'm pretty sure no one else) am not arguing "you can't have realism when fantastical elements exist." So that needs to be shut down immediately. That is not what I'm saying nor what I've ever said on this subject. My issue is the claim of (in effect) "immersion for me but not for thee" and then that indexes "because realism." But the reality is, its not "because realism." Its someone's particular, idiosyncratic "a la carte version of D&D realism" and that is what it always is. 100 % it is always that.

Its idiosyncratic to a particular user:

* What they choose to ignore that is unrealistic.

* What they choose to avert thine eyes from that is unrealistic.

* What they choose to explain away (and how they choose to do so) with either novel or enculturated post-hoc justifications when something is unrealistic.

and (very importantly)...

* What they just don't know (about how stuff works) and/or how and when they sub in genre logic for stuff they just don't know is unrealistic.


Realism in D&D is a la carte, its personal, its idiosyncratic, users might be oblivious to it (or they might have internalized something that is unrealistic). And because that is what it is, no one here gets to claim "your D&D is not immersive because it doesn't hew to my particular, idiosyncratic a la carte D&D realism which is more realistic (piss right off)." And boy have people claimed that hard for a long, long, long time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then I'd suggest pulling out "But I'm concerned about realism" when people, some of whom are personally knowledgeable in specific areas that have bearing suggest that being overly conservative in some of these cases here is not realistic, is more than a little off.

This sounds very much like a person trying to score rhetorical points. I never said my sense of immersion was objective, but I also don't have to agree with what someone else thinks is realistic. That said, make an argument for your case, and I'll listen.

 

[Maxperson]

I (and I'm pretty sure no one else) is arguing "you can't have realism when fantastical elements exist." So that needs to be shut down immediately. That is not what I'm saying nor what I've ever said on this subject. My issue is the claim of (in effect) "immersion for me but not for thee" and then that indexes "because realism." But the reality is, its not "because realism." Its someone's particular, idiosyncratic "a la carte version of D&D realism" and that is what it always is. 100 % it is always that.

In other threads I've had @pemerton respond to my arguments that there is a lot of realism in D&D with, "But there are dragons and magic!" as a counter to my claim. And he's not the other one who has tried to counter the idea that D&D has realism with fantasy elements that exist in the game.

I wasn't suggesting that you have done it. And no one has done it in this thread that I can recall. What I was doing was explaining why I have been forced to create the category of fantasy realism and why I brought it into this thread. I've found that people are less prone to try and use dragons and magic as some sort of counter if I explain the game in terms of realism and fantasy realism.

Realism in D&D is a la carte, its personal, its idiosyncratic, users might be oblivious to it (or they might have internalized something that is unrealistic). And because that is what it is, no one here gets to claim "your D&D is not immersive because it doesn't hew to my particular, idiosyncratic a la carte D&D realism which is more realistic (piss right off)." And boy have people claimed that hard for a long, long, long time.

I don't agree that realism is personal. That humans are in D&D is realism. That's a fact that exists outside of any sort of personal preference. That those humans have two arms, two legs and a head is more realism. That they need to eat and breathe is even more realism. These are all facts independent of personal preference.

Where personal preference comes in is where you draw the line. Healing damage is realistic. Full overnight healing is not realistic enough for me, so I have to change the rule in 5e so that it doesn't happen that way, making it more realistic. Other people don't care about it being more realistic and are fine with it as is. We draw the line of preference with how realistic we want healing to be in different places.

Immersion is personal, but in my experience the more realistic the game is, the more players in my game become immersed. Take that for what you will. That's my experience.

 

[Reynard]

When we are role-playing characters in a RPG setting, we have to treat everything the character experiences as something normal. Even when we don't think of it as normal in our reality.

I don't think so. There are mechanics to consider, and those mechanics may or may not represent the reality the PCs experience. They may be simply abstract shortcuts (and in fact probably are) and if that is the case, some translation between the two is necessary. One of the reasons that i do not care much about immersion in RPGs is because it is essentially impossible -- there will inevitably be a moment in any given session (probably many moments) where you have to stop thinking like an elf and start thinking like someone playing a game. That's a good thing, IMO. I like games. But it is inherently immersion breaking.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In other threads I've had @pemerton respond to my arguments that there is a lot of realism in D&D with, "But there are dragons and magic!" as a counter to my claim. And he's not the other one who has tried to counter the idea that D&D has realism with fantasy elements that exist in the game.

I wasn't suggesting that you have done it. And no one has done it in this thread that I can recall. What I was doing was explaining why I have been forced to create the category of fantasy realism and why I brought it into this thread. I've found that people are less prone to try and use dragons and magic as some sort of counter if I explain the game in terms of realism and fantasy realism.

I don't agree that realism is personal. That humans are in D&D is realism. That's a fact that exists outside of any sort of personal preference. That those humans have two arms, two legs and a head is more realism. That they need to eat and breathe is even more realism. These are all facts independent of personal preference.

Where personal preference comes in is where you draw the line. Healing damage is realistic. Full overnight healing is not realistic enough for me, so I have to change the rule in 5e so that it doesn't happen that way, making it more realistic. Other people don't care about it being more realistic and are fine with it as is. We draw the line of preference with how realistic we want healing in different places.

Immersion is personal, but in my experience the more realistic the game is, the more players in my game become immersed. Take that for what you will. That's my experience.

Yeah, it's like shutting down a seriously-minded gaming discussion by playing the "pretending to be an elf" card. It feels rude to me.

 

[Manbearcat]

In other threads I've had @pemerton respond to my arguments that there is a lot of realism in D&D with, "But there are dragons and magic!" as a counter to my claim. And he's not the other one who has tried to counter the idea that D&D has realism with fantasy elements that exist in the game.

I wasn't suggesting that you have done it. And no one has done it in this thread that I can recall. What I was doing was explaining why I have been forced to create the category of fantasy realism and why I brought it into this thread. I've found that people are less prone to try and use dragons and magic as some sort of counter if I explain the game in terms of realism and fantasy realism.

I don't agree that realism is personal. That humans are in D&D is realism. That's a fact that exists outside of any sort of personal preference. That those humans have two arms, two legs and a head is more realism. That they need to eat and breathe is even more realism. These are all facts independent of personal preference.

Where personal preference comes in is where you draw the line. Healing damage is realistic. Full overnight healing is not realistic enough for me, so I have to change the rule in 5e so that it doesn't happen that way, making it more realistic. Other people don't care about it being more realistic and are fine with it as is. We draw the line of preference with how realistic we want healing in different places.

Immersion is personal, but in my experience the more realistic the game is, the more players in my game become immersed. Take that for what you will. That's my experience.

Its the composite that I was referring to (which folds in the four component parts I alluded to in my scheme above). Its not any atomized, constituent part (like humans are bipedal with x, y, z characteristics) of that composite.

Its the whole thing together that generates basically the equivalent of a D&D Realism Rorschach Test (D&DRRT). Any given user's D&DRRT is going to deviate in varying ways from another user's D&DRRT and the inflection points/crux/"will die on that hill" embedded in that D&DRRT will also likely deviate. A population distribution will emerge from these collections of D&DRRT, but, to be honest...I wouldn't particularly trust that distribution because of some deep internalizations about what constitutes realism and/or "how things work" that are either flat wrong or, again, have subbed in enculturated paradigms in recursive hand-wavery and aren't even aware of it (around biology, around martial arts, around various aspects of physical prowess).

TLDR: People's composites (their D&DRRT) are user-particular, idiosyncratic, and a la carte.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We have wildly different experiences. As I said, starting from 1983 to present, with DMs who with 1 exception did not provide numbers, all by maybe 1 of the DMs who did not provide numbers did not do so for control reasons. You can bring out all the advice you want to, but it won't change the fact that neither I nor the DMs I played with used it. It was common for DMs of that era to ignore rules and advice.

I'm not talking about not sharing the numbers... that's just one element of it. I'm talking about the idea that all information must flow from the DM, and should be doled out only when "appropriate". This is a pretty common take on more trad minded games, and is a sentiment that has been expressed often in this very thread, and countless others.

If I can answer a runed circle of protection, a runed circle of entrapment, a runed circle of summoning or a runed circle of ritual sacrifice, and whichever one I choose is the right answer, then I had multiple right answers to pick from. That the others get excluded after I pick one of the answers doesn't change that I originally had multiple right answers to the question to pick from. There were in fact multiple right answers to the question.

You're right! It wasn't that difficult.

This is nonsensical. It can be only one of those things. There is only one correct answer.

Yeah, it's like shutting down a seriously-minded gaming discussion by playing the "pretending to be an elf" card. It feels rude to me.

Just call it jargon! Then you can feel comfortable about dismissing it!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think so. There are mechanics to consider, and those mechanics may or may not represent the reality the PCs experience. They may be simply abstract shortcuts (and in fact probably are) and if that is the case, some translation between the two is necessary. One of the reasons that i do not care much about immersion in RPGs is because it is essentially impossible -- there will inevitably be a moment in any given session (probably many moments) where you have to stop thinking like an elf and start thinking like someone playing a game. That's a good thing, IMO. I like games. But it is inherently immersion breaking.

My preference is for those moments to be relatively few and brief.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not talking about not sharing the numbers... that's just one element of it. I'm talking about the idea that all information must flow from the DM, and should be doled out only when "appropriate". This is a pretty common take on more trad minded games, and is a sentiment that has been expressed often in this very thread, and countless others.



This is nonsensical. It can be only one of those things. There is only one correct answer.



Just call it jargon! Then you can feel comfortable about dismissing it!

I'm allowed to say what terms I'm uncomfortable with using, and how they make me feel. It doesn't shut down discussion like the "elfgame" crack.

Also not personal, unlike your comment just now.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm allowed to say what terms I'm uncomfortable with using, and how they make me feel. It doesn't shut down discussion like the "elfgame" crack.

Also not personal, unlike your comment just now.

Stop. The jargon schtick is totally about shutting things down. Or blocking specific views or ideas from being contributed or considered.

And no one actually used the "elfgame" crack in this thread. What's being said is the idea that when it comes to D&D, one person's idea of what's "realistic" is no greater than another's, even when they differ.

For example, the idea that a person can't intuit how well defended someone is from attack by observing them is "unrealistic" is just as personal as "no way can this group of human warriors actually stand toe to toe with this dragon, let alone slay it" and similar sentiments.

We all pick and choose what "makes sense" or "seems realistic" and we absolutely turn a blind eye to plenty of things that are totally unrealistic. So "it's more realistic" isn't really an argument anyone should be making to support their preferences about D&D.

No one is saying this to hurt your feelings anymore than you intend to hurt anyone's feelings when you state your opinion on the matter.