If it's not real then why call for "realism"?

[JRRNeiklot]

I admitingly don't know the first two, as they're from the same series.

Vancian wizards? Come on, that practically just counts as "D&D wizard," but ok.

I'd argue D&D wizards count as Vancian.

Atlantes isn't a D&D wizard. He never learned magic. He is a pagan sorcerer and illusionist who uses an artifact to trap others in a castle. He doesn't have a spell book and a pouch full of guano.

Pre 3e, wizards and sorcerors were pretty much interchangeable. In fact, a name level magic user WAS a sorceror.

The sorcerer in Aladdin? You mean the man who uses trickery and charisma to get Aladdin to do his bidding, not magic? The one who never did any actual magic other then sealing a cave? That's incredibly far from D&D magic.

Admittedly, I haven't read Aladdin in 35 years or so, so I may be misremembering, but I recall him being very wizard like. The cave was likely the source of the knock spell.

D&D wizards are their own self contained thing. So yes, again, fighters who accomplish the impossible? Those are more in line with myth and legend then wizards who fly around, turn invisible, turn into a hydra, and then throw fireballs.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not really disagreeing here.

 

[ourchair]

I assume that when somebody uses the term "realism" in regards to an RPG, they are referring to one of two aspects:

1) playing in a game where everything is internally consistent and rational. The world works mostly just like ours, except there's magic, and all but medieval technology hasn't been invented yet. Every thing makes sense (if the player had all the facts/barring mysteries).

2) they are talking about a game being treated gritty, and less heroic. Where simulation rules for fatigue are applied, and a higher lethality from wounds.

What bothers me is when people conflate the two together, not as an affront to the idea of playing a fantasy game itself, but rather, by having certain expectations of what the world was supposed to be and basically presupposing the intent of its creators and designers.

For example, I hate it when people expect ALL villains to be 'sympathetic and complex' as if that somehow automatically makes the villain BETTER, when more often than not it needlessly complicates what the villain is contributing to the story. (But that's a whole 'nother discussion altogether)

I believe realism has a place in games, but the act of playing the game itself, the narrative components that drive the adventures should be shorn of a thousand undramatic details.

 

[WayneLigon]

And really, how are wizards exempt from this? Name a normal, mortal human wizard that wasn't D&D related. Name one.

Golden Age and Silver Age comics are rife with them. Decades before D&D existed, you had Dr Fate*, Zatarra, Sargon, Ibis, and others who were normal, mortal guys who studied magic from books. They sometimes utilize spell components, or devices - magical items are all over the place. They blow stuff up with fireballs, fly, shoot lightning from their eyes, turn people into trees, animate objects, etc etc.

Dr. Strange of course follows the classic D&D path of seeking knowledge, studying under a master, delving into ancient tomes, bolstering his powers through acquisition of magic items, takes his own apprentice, etc.

* In the original comics, Dr Fate was not an avatar of higher beings - he was an explorer's kid who studied under the wizard Nabu.

 

[Bluenose]

Ged from Earthsea, bad guys in Conan, some of the characters in the Belgariad, the Time of the Dark (Hambly) just to name some other obvious ones.

Circe and Medea (and Medea's father) from greek myth; Koschei the Undying from Russia; a rather large selection of enchantresses from various King Arthur tales; most of the evil side from Faerie Queen; several in de Camp's various Noveria tales. Arguably someone like the Emperor Ming in Flash Gordon would be another example. They're not that difficult to find, although a lot aren't really very D&D like. I actually find clerics a lot harder to identify.

 

[Mournblade94]

That's an extremely interesting point. You're right, I think that's how most people view the world the rpg, typically D&D, is set in. Whatever is not magic obeys the laws of physics of our world. This becomes extremely problematic for game balance if some PCs are magical, therefore not bound by these laws, and some are.

Magic gives the GM a get out of jail free card to do whatever is necessary to have his plots work. Something doesn't make sense? Just add magic. Magic can do anything.

So you get worlds where the 'adventure areas' are very different from the world of towns and cities and farmland and so forth - the 'normal world'. The adventure zones are full of magic, as are the PCs themselves. The normal world otoh works the way it does in our world's past, more or less.

I am much more of a realism advocate in sci fi then fantasy. I prefer my sci fi closer to what is feasible. Star Wars I consider fantasy in a space setting. When Lucas attempts to explain the force scientifically I find it jarring. I don't want to know how the things work in Star Wars, I just accept it as a near magical world.

I read comics, I love sci fi, but I HATE the show FRINGE. The simple reason is because it does not come close to getting BASIC science right. It is Jarring to me because the science is not speculative, it is just wrong. Star Trek, does not jar me as much because it is mostly speculative.

When they do things like put BAR CODES on DNA in Star Trek, I find it just silly.

Fantasy I will pretty much accept just about any crazy thing. I still like basic rules of physics to apply... but I like magic to break them.