Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Crazy Jerome]

I think of this issue as one of immersiveness -- not in Monte's slightly strange use of the term, but in the sense of asking how much of the player's time is spent thinking about what is happening inside the fiction as opposed to thinking about the rules mechanics. The more the players have to step "outside the game", either to justify the mechanics or simply to select their next action, the less the players are thinking about the fiction itself.

Of course, this isn't the same thing as realism, but it comes from a similar motivation. The primary issue with a realism failure is that it yanks the players out of the fiction -- either because the mechanic is too complicated or because the results/process is unbelievable.

The inherent problem here though is that "immersiveness" and "hit points" only go together as a learned skill. That is, "hit points" themselves are anti-immersive. But immersiveness is not mere simulation, but rather overcoming the need to step outside the rules. But it also depends upon a rule that can "fade into the background"--which presumes a certain limit on handling times or the type of mechanics.

Rolling d20+mod vs DC is counter to immersion. Rolling percentage dice on a roll under versus threshold is also counter to immersion. If you naturally think more in percentages (regardless of how "accurate" your thoughts are), then the second system, all else being equal, will be more immersive to you--and likely, feel more "realistic" as a bonus. OTOH, if you get sufficient practice with the d20+mod vs DC option and not the percentage version, the way the former fades into the background will gradually overcome this natural preference.

So I think the game is going to step between the players and the simulation, from an immersive standpoint. The question becomes about payoff down the road. If hit points can fade into the background and thus become a mechanic that intrudes not at all, then those first few times when they stepped in between the players and the simulation is a good deal. And compared to a lot of mechanical options for recording wounds, the evidence is that they can for many people. For other people, not so much.

Moreover, in practice some substantial subset of players are going to get that "realism failure," one way or the other, from a given mechanic. Even simple mechanics can be too complicated for some. And any mechanic that tries to model both process and result is bound to be overly complicated--and likely fail at both to boot--again, at least for some people. It is not an achievable goal to make mechanics that will seldom have such failures in a single, small group--let alone the wider audience of the game.

 

[VincentRVenturella]

I am very surprised that no one has discussed how this can affect the various elements (i.e. characters) within the game, because the effects are great.

When I wrote The Legacy of Heroes, it was obvious to me, the real spectrum undergirding most fantasy literature is a spectrum between Talent/Skill (Fighters) and Magic (Wizards and to a lesser degree clerics).

As you increase the nods to realism (or whatever we would like to call it), the more we try to feel like we are mechanically approximating the real world within the construct of the game - the more the left end of the spectrum suffers.

Consider several examples in this very thread, people discussed the fact that certain things would feel unrealistic, and they were all very physical, martial tasks.

Why? The answer is simple, Magic (as I would define it) is quite simply the ability to violate the physical laws of the universe. Can a person fly? the world says no - magic says yes. Can a person be on fire and survive? World says unlikely, magic says no problem. You see where this is going.

When you increase your realism (getting to something like 2E) you naturally weaken fighters, rogues and other such archtypes, because barring very high levels, they basically have to act like (very) skilled people.

As an example, one of the most famous Samurai duelists, Miyamoto Musashi, fought perhaps 50 real deadly duels in his lifetime, and took part in something like 20-30 battles as a combatant. He is one of the greatest weapon masters who have ever lived, and his combat experience probably equates to a 5th-10th level character depending on edition. My point is, we are already drifting from reality with D&D, so I agree with the "nod"

The more realistic you get however, the Wizard (the other end of the spectrum) is not affected at all. You can put in complicated casting systems, ritual components, casting times and all sorts of other crap, but those aren't "realism" those are fabricated constraints to hold back the guy whose training is effectively in the "Break Reality" skill. There is no magic, hence there is no Realism to be had with casting magic.

My point is simply, choices of realism do not affect all game elements equally. Simply asking the question and talking in broad terms about a few high level mechanics does not betray the greater complexity and how differently some parts of the game may be changed while others are nearly unaffected.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The more realistic you get however, the Wizard (the other end of the spectrum) is not affected at all. You can put in complicated casting systems, ritual components, casting times and all sorts of other crap, but those aren't "realism" those are fabricated constraints to hold back the guy whose training is effectively in the "Break Reality" skill. There is no magic, hence there is no Realism to be had with casting magic.

It is precisely the "breaking reality" aspect of magic that makes it magical. That is kind of magic's job in the game world.

 

[KidSnide]

The inherent problem here though is that "immersiveness" and "hit points" only go together as a learned skill. That is, "hit points" themselves are anti-immersive. But immersiveness is not mere simulation, but rather overcoming the need to step outside the rules. But it also depends upon a rule that can "fade into the background"--which presumes a certain limit on handling times or the type of mechanics.

Rolling d20+mod vs DC is counter to immersion. Rolling percentage dice on a roll under versus threshold is also counter to immersion. If you naturally think more in percentages (regardless of how "accurate" your thoughts are), then the second system, all else being equal, will be more immersive to you--and likely, feel more "realistic" as a bonus. OTOH, if you get sufficient practice with the d20+mod vs DC option and not the percentage version, the way the former fades into the background will gradually overcome this natural preference.

I disagree. Yes, hit points and the d20 vs. DC system can sometimes produce results that are sufficiently counter-intuitive that they pull players outside the system (e.g. massive falling damage).

But these rules have the considerable merit of being very simple. Because they are so simple, they can be used very quickly and the players don't have to emerge from the fiction to apply them. Not only does that leave more time to think about the fiction, but it also leaves less time for the player to think about how unrealistic the system is. A more complicated, more realistic system might seem less realistic because it encourages the players to think more about its imperfections.

I think that the non-immersive qualities of 4e come more from its many thought-demanding mechanical decision points, than to the fact that there are fewer nods to simulationism.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think that the non-immersive qualities of 4e come more from its many thought-demanding mechanical decision points, than to the fact that there are fewer nods to simulationism.

Then I'm not sure we are on the same page on the question, let alone the answer. What is a thought-demanding mechanical decision point in 4E that has this characteristic? Presumably, you don't mean things like, "the results are roughly what a fantasy character could achieve; now narrate how that happened." That isn't mechanical, though it does demand a certain way of thinking about the process.

And in any case, I was hardly confining my comments to 4E. The history of people complaining about being drawn out of immersion by hit points or armor as AC is long and distinguished.

I do agree that the simplicity of hit points is their main virtue for immersion. To the extent that people enjoy them as an immersion mechanic, this is a big part of it. But you may have overlooked my point that this is learned behavior. Any new mechanic is anti-immersion for a gamer used to something else. If you want to control for that aspect, you must control for that by seeing how competing mechanics work with new players.

 

[P1NBACK]

Had you just posted that, Umbran probably wouldn't have said anything. But since you started your post taking a potshot at Monte, insinuating (at least from what I gathered from it) that he's been blind to the last 10 years of roleplaying games and thus shouldn't be commenting on it at all... that's why Umbran said what he did.

You can't insinuate that Monte's a moron and expect other people not to call you on it. And if you didn't mean to imply that... then you probably might want to go back and review your comments and see why some of us got that take from you.

I love this website. Only here will you run to the defense of someone by attacking someone else without even really asking them what they meant in the first place.

If you weren't sure what I meant, then why not ask me to clarify?

And, yes, I do believe Monte has missed 10+ years of game design theory based on his recent articles here. Seriously, his brainstorming is reflective of the most rudimentary theory discussions found, I don't know, maybe on ENWorld.

Seriously: he's a public figure writing on behalf of the biggest RPG ever.

I think it's acceptable to criticize the guy. It's not like I'm taking potshots at anything about him personally. I think Monte's a swell guy. I follow him on Google+ and check in on his thoughts regularly.

I just don't think he's bringing anything new to the table for D&D, and it's mostly just rehash of the same old arguments of "realism" and "simulation". Wtf?

Monte, if you have concerns about this and want feedback, read up on the 1000s of threads where every RPG forum ever has had the same debate. There's nothing new here.

~ para removed. If you want to make a point, use grandma- friendly language please ~

Hell, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s post written up in probably 10 minutes this morning earlier in this thread was more thought-provoking than all of Monte's "Legends and Lore" articles combined.

If that's hurtful to your D&D Celebrity fandom, apologies all around.

But, I don't think calling someone out for having an opinion about the matter is really conducive to conversation. I just think it's defensive and argumentative. Goes nowhere.

Party on!

 

[Balesir]

A long list of weapons with slightly different damage expressions and otherwise modest differences is precisely a "nod". It is only "realistic" to someone that hasn't thought much about it, read about it, or has but doesn't much care. In a rough and ready way, it is correct in some sense (being on the business end of a sword is often likely to be slightly worse if the blade is heavier and longer) but skimpy on nuance (things that determine whether or not you end up on the business end in the first place, and what kind of strike was delivered, and in what conditions).

In fact, even the "heavier and longer blade will damage more" trope is very largely false - the longer swords were used in a totally different way, mainly in response to improved technology in armour (both because piercing plate was harder and because a fighter wearing plate didn't really need a shield any longer).

But, regardless that many/most of the old movie/roleplaying tropes about medieval combat are false, the idea that it matters at all seems to be predicated here on a key point: that "immersiveness" is a paramount value in game play.

I don't think this has been justified in the slightest. I mean, I enjoy it, from time to time, even though I find it extremely hard to maintain with any edition of D&D. But I also find it entirely possible to enjoy play without it; what claim does "immersionism" really have to being the "paramount value"?

 

[Dausuul]

As regards the "breaking reality" aspect of magic, I agree and disagree with this. D&D magic can do anything, but if you cut sharply against the established sense of how magic works, you can break immersion just as badly as if you allowed a non-magical fighter to take to the air and fly.

Imagine, for example, a spell that surrounds the caster with an aura of blinding sunlight, healing any nearby undead and dealing acid damage to Lawful creatures. Magic can do anything, so this should be just fine, right? But most people confronted with this spell would respond, "Wait. Sunlight that heals undead? And deals acid damage based on alignment? That doesn't make any sense!"

For a less egregious example, a lot of cleric powers in 4E take the form of "Damage an enemy. If you succeed, an ally gets a buff." I can't be the only one who finds those powers jarring. I understand what they're doing from a mechanical point of view (giving clerics the ability to buff allies while going on offense), but in terms of the game world, the only way they make sense to me is some kind of dark vampiric curse where you draw off your enemy's life-force to strengthen your allies. Not what you expect to see from a cleric of Pelor.

 

[D'karr]

what claim does "immersionism" really have to being the "paramount value"?

None that I can tell, in fact playability would be my vote for paramount value. I could play a game with heavy immersion and if it's "unplayable" for any of various reasons (rules, mechanics, cost, etc.) it will go to the "not even used" pile.

 

[Dragonblade]

In the physics of the 3e world, I fail a save vs. a hold spell and am paralyzed for X rounds until the magic fades. I can see that being a plausible reality.

In the physics of the 4e world, I get hit by a hold spell, but continue to struggle against it (as a I make saves every round) and eventually break free. I can see that being a plausible reality as well.

Likewise, HP/Surges of 4e vs. the HP of 3e are for all intents and purposes the same. Both are an abstract measure of health and vitality. Any assertion to the contrary is really just splitting hairs and personal opinion.

I don't find either 4e or 3e more inherently "realistic" than the other one. Each represents internally consistent albeit different realities as defined by the game rules.

The 4e rules tend to represent a more Hollywood cinematic notion of reality. But that isn't always true either. I have made some ridiculously broken 3.x/PF characters in my day that were anything but realistic.

I think pursuing realism too far is the white whale of gaming. The more a game tries to be simulationist or realistic, the less fun I find it to play. I personally feel that "realism" should always take a back set to "fun". But I don't begrudge others who prefer the other notion.

If 5e isn't capable of smoothly handling both ideals then it will fail. I and many others already play Pathfinder, so I don't need another game system that mimics what it does. Likewise, I play 4e as well and I won't drop it for a 5e that takes away some of the fun gameplay that I enjoy about it to appease the tyranny of "realism".