Why is realism "lame"?

[CroBob]

Just as a point of clarity JC. That isn't quite what is being said in the 4e dmg. That's taking things pretty far out of context.

I half expect it to be a quote mine, where the words were shared, but out of context. I'd check, but I don't have my DMG, and won't for almost a year.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then play those ones. I'm simply answering the questions of the thread. I, like many others, do not want our RPGs to be realistic because realistic is boring or, worse, full of horrible consequences for the actions heroes take. Further, Games are simply bad at mimicking real life, unless they forgo a HP system entirely, instead making somebody injured, possibly maimed, instead of simply "taking damage" in whatever sort of hit point system it has. In real life, you don't lose HPs, or stamina, or whatever. In real life, you get a gauge in your neck and start bleeding out, and then you're out of the fight and in recovery for months, if you survive at all. I agree there should be some sort of balance between realism and completely unrealistic, but only to the point that you can identify with the setting the game takes place in. I mean, there is generally ground, gravity, humanoids, and interaction at least somewhat reminiscent of how people can act, even if through different means. However, I don't understand why a game which involves freaking magic becomes unbelievable simply because one of the toughest SoBs on the planet can survive a short encounter with lava. That guy who conjured the lava out of thin air, sure, that makes sense, but someone coming into contact with the lava and surviving doesn't? I can't empathize with that train of thought.

This thread is not just about D&D but RPGs in general and lots of other RPGs use more realistic wound systems or have a more gritty feel. If you dont like those, that is fine. There is a place for over the top heroism in rpgs (and it works well in a game like D&D). But it isnt the only approach and it can be very fun to play somehting more realistic and gritty. Not saying you have to play them.

 

[Bluenose]

This thread is not just about D&D but RPGs in general and lots of other RPGs use more realistic wound systems or have a more gritty feel. If you dont like those, that is fine. There is a place for over the top heroism in rpgs (and it works well in a game like D&D). But it isnt the only approach and it can be very fun to play somehting more realistic and gritty. Not saying you have to play them.

But Elf Witch is saying he wants D&D to be like that, or more like that. There are other games for that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But Elf Witch is saying he wants D&D to be like that, or more like that. There are other games for that.

It looks like I missed that part of the post. D&D is not well suited to realistic game play. I think things can be done to make it more realistic if she wants realistic fantasy, I would say look into something like HarnMaster or Runequest. My only point is nothing wrong with wanting these things from a game.

edit: it looks like all she wants is optional rules for D&D to make it more realistic or is saying she wants 5E to be more realistic. In my opinion getting rid of stuff like HP isnt the way to go in Next, but it is fair for her to voice her opinion on the matter since they are taking the modular approach and i can definitely see a Gritty option book being something they could release.

On this subject I think there are two different calls to "realism" for D&D. One is what elf witch is asking for which is a genuine turn toward genuine realism in the game. That does not seem likey to take hold, though it may appear in the form of optional rules. The other is a reaction to some of the features of 4E which for some people, took a game that was already light on realism, and pushed it even further into the realm of really challenging believability (for some it had the opposite effect, but for many this was an issue). This is an issue I think we will se a response to in 5E. These folks are not asking for gritty realism,they just want things that challenge their sense of believability, like mundane heals, out of the game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just as a point of clarity JC. That isn't quite what is being said in the 4e dmg. That's taking things pretty far out of context.

There's a whole thread on it, if people want to agree with you, or agree with me. I don't plan on going over it again here. As always, play what you like

It was the answer to a question about opinions, so I presumed it'd obviously be about my opinion. However, I have a habit of taking things in ways other people do not, so there's a good chance I didn't pay enough attention to how I worded my answers. If that's what happened, I am sorry.

No worries. I get that it's your opinion, which is why I tried to explicitly state that, since you said it in reply to Elf Witch. If I came off as harsh, I apologize.

I can't help but notice that the very second poster says something about how skipping over the parts that aren't fun would mean going from combat to combat... and I'm curious; If this sort of thought is why people have a problem with 4E, then it's them who are defining the fun part of the game to be fights. And, certainly, the fights are fun, but that's not the only fun part (to me). The idea to skip to the fun parts would include skipping the mundane parts such as walking down the road to the palace and waiting in the clerk's office, and skip right to the meeting with the king's adviser, which will likely involve no combat, yet will probably still be fun. If you find only combat to be fun, awesome, play as you will, but that doesn't mean the game created the definition of what you find fun, it's only advising to skip the parts that are irrelevant to your fun. I fail to see how that's bad advice.

I haven't brought up any thoughts specifically about 4e, or how it's "fun" or "not fun". But, if you want my idea of the advice given, it's buried in that thread. Again, I have no real intention of going over it again in this thread. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

You can make as many supplemental, or "house", rules as you desire. I mean, if people don't like when a game isn't realistic, citing that other games are realistic... if this is such a hitch for you, I don't understand why you stick to the less realistic one. Or does it wind up that it's not really that important?



I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around this complaint. I mean, you complain that it's unexplained, yet refuse to explain it yourself. Do you have the same problem with magical spells not being explained? Yes, we know how certain things work in real life... the fictional world is not real life. Falls and lava don't have to be as deadly as in real life, you simply want them to be. And that's fine, but if the rules state something works that way, either it does, regardless how or if it gets explained, or you're free to change it to how you desire it to be. Where's the problem?



It's not. I may even be debating the issue, but my point is certainly not that either of us, or that anyone, is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. I do find it kind of silly that someone's upset over the unbelievability of HPs. Yeah, they're unbelievable, but I don't see that as a weakness. It's simply a part of how the game works. The game isn't trying to duplicate real life, which is made patent through the existence of magic, gods, monsters, HPs, etc. Nothing in the game is realistic, and I have a hard time understanding why someone would have a problem with "mundane" people also being unrealistic. Basically, it seems like cherry picking to me.



By pure coincidence, that's exactly the kind of game I'm working on right now. Still, I don't know if it'd suit all of your tastes, but those two aspects are there.



It was the answer to a question about opinions, so I presumed it'd obviously be about my opinion. However, I have a habit of taking things in ways other people do not, so there's a good chance I didn't pay enough attention to how I worded my answers. If that's what happened, I am sorry.



I can't help but notice that the very second poster says something about how skipping over the parts that aren't fun would mean going from combat to combat... and I'm curious; If this sort of thought is why people have a problem with 4E, then it's them who are defining the fun part of the game to be fights. And, certainly, the fights are fun, but that's not the only fun part (to me). The idea to skip to the fun parts would include skipping the mundane parts such as walking down the road to the palace and waiting in the clerk's office, and skip right to the meeting with the king's adviser, which will likely involve no combat, yet will probably still be fun. If you find only combat to be fun, awesome, play as you will, but that doesn't mean the game created the definition of what you find fun, it's only advising to skip the parts that are irrelevant to your fun. I fail to see how that's bad advice.

There have been third party supplements that can make DnD more gritty less who hoo out there I have played with some great DMs who have used house rules to make the game more gritty and realistic. So I know it can be done using DnD rules and my point is why would WOTC want to lose players who for the most part enjoy DnD by not addressing this issue. I am not sure why it has to be one way or another. There are ways to tweak the game I like the idea of E6 or E9 to avoid the demi god syndrome of high level play for some campaigns. Personally I find it boring play the same same over and over again. As a fantasy fan I like all kinds from high fantasy with lots of high level magic to low magic more gritty style fantasies. And I believe with the right rule set and supplements that DnD can give the DM what they need to run a variety of campaign styles. Realism may be lame for some players and DMs but that is not the case for others and I think it is a disservice to address the issue with the take your balls and go play elsewhere kind of meme.

Okay I will try and explain one more time. I want a reason other than game mechanics of why something works in the world. Take healing it works because a god grants divine magical power to a priest who is a faithful follower that is good enough for me. Magic works because it is a force in the world different people harness it differently sorcerers have it in their blood , wizards learn complicated formulas to use the power. The way the game mechanics handle how magic works can be woven into a story very easily. A sorcerer who has run out of spell slots can be said to have used all their magical energy and need to recharge. It makes sense to me from an endurance point of view. I ran cross country in track in high school so I trained my body to endure running for long periods of time but there are limits where you need to stop because your body needs rest. As sorcerers level they are training their body to endure using more magic. It is he same with any other class fighters get better at fighting because they do it a lot. All that seems very believable to me. A high level character can fight a dragon because they have gotten better at what they do they are more experienced.

Hit points in the game are not just how much damage you are taking they also represented your ability to defend at least that is what the game designers claim. So a high level fighter has more not just because he has gotten stronger physically but because he has gotten better at protecting himself in battle. It is a clunky system as I have said but it can be work with. Where it really shows its clumsiness is using it for things like falling from terminal velocity or falling in lava. Again why can a high level fighter not just survive a fall but can do it over and over again. It makes little sense that falling out of the sky and hitting the ground has anything to do with defense abilities. It is sheer luck and one I think should be equal to all character no matter the level. There is no training for falling from terminal velocity. There is no in game reason other than sheer amount of hit points to explain it. I don't believe an Olympic trained runner has any better chance of falling and living than an ordinary housewife who jogs it will come down to luck and how and what they land on.

In the game world PCs are better than most because they have above average traits and they experience things that make them better at what they do. All that is pretty realistic. But there are things that go wonky simply because of hit points. In 1E a mob had the ability to be a danger to a higher level PC but that is gone now. Now even a mid range PC can stand and sneer at the city guard or laugh off a crazed mob because they have more hit points a higher AC and the mob and city guard often can only hit on a crit. Now some people may be okay with that in their game I am not one of them I would like to see balanced rules for handling that kind of thing.

There is a lot I miss about AD&D the game seemed more believable more realistic and little more gritty. Using haste effected the wizard by aging them. Coming back from the dead required a system shock roll to see if you survived it and you could not do it over and over again. It took a lot longer to level. While I like some of what 3E did to fix things I think it went overboard in making PCs over powered in some areas.

I don't how else to explain this other than I have. Mechanics should have some story telling support the fact that a high level fighter can fall from terminal velocity over and over again without any story telling explanation other than hit points is a flaw in the game for me.

 

[Elf Witch]

But Elf Witch is saying he wants D&D to be like that, or more like that. There are other games for that.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am asking why DnD can't support both styles of play? I have seen it done by great DMs. And since WOTC loves printing books you would think that a splat book on how to make the game more gritty would be something that could interest people. How many splats did we need on how to make magic more powerful and different yet they keep bringing them out. BTW me Jane not Tarzan.

 

[SkidAce]

It does support both styles of play. and we will continue to play gritty can't survive lava immersion games no matter how many times other people tells us there are other games that do it better.*

It's what I learned to play and I like it.

*not poking anyone in specific.

 

[Teflonknight]

I am intrigued by the idea of a gritty game....is there a thread somewhere that compiles the house rules used...including alternates to hit points?

As for the subject at hand, I assume that wotc may not be aware of the desire for those optional rules or they feel that the market is not out there.

i don't think realism ruins the game, as long as that is what you like. If you and your group want increased realism in your games then go for it. If your group wants a more fantastical over the top super heroish game then awesome. I think the only problem with either is if not everyone in the same group wants the same game.

If wotc doesn't believe it is financially feasable, aka they won't make money, I think that an article on their website outlining some rules for grittier play would bring some good will.

 

[CroBob]

There have been third party supplements that can make DnD more gritty less who hoo out there I have played with some great DMs who have used house rules to make the game more gritty and realistic. So I know it can be done using DnD rules and my point is why would WOTC want to lose players who for the most part enjoy DnD by not addressing this issue. I am not sure why it has to be one way or another. There are ways to tweak the game I like the idea of E6 or E9 to avoid the demi god syndrome of high level play for some campaigns. Personally I find it boring play the same same over and over again. As a fantasy fan I like all kinds from high fantasy with lots of high level magic to low magic more gritty style fantasies. And I believe with the right rule set and supplements that DnD can give the DM what they need to run a variety of campaign styles. Realism may be lame for some players and DMs but that is not the case for others and I think it is a disservice to address the issue with the take your balls and go play elsewhere kind of meme.

Why? It's what you do with anything else. If you don't like a certain food, you either alter the recipe until you do like it, or you eat something else. Don't like how unrealistic a fantasy game is? Change it until you like it, or play something else. It's not ballsing up, it's a practical solution. Playing the game you want, how you want, is the best way to game. I fail to see how that's remotely bad advice.

Okay I will try and explain one more time. I want a reason other than game mechanics of why something works in the world. Take healing it works because a god grants divine magical power to a priest who is a faithful follower that is good enough for me. Magic works because it is a force in the world different people harness it differently sorcerers have it in their blood , wizards learn complicated formulas to use the power. The way the game mechanics handle how magic works can be woven into a story very easily. A sorcerer who has run out of spell slots can be said to have used all their magical energy and need to recharge. It makes sense to me from an endurance point of view. I ran cross country in track in high school so I trained my body to endure running for long periods of time but there are limits where you need to stop because your body needs rest. As sorcerers level they are training their body to endure using more magic. It is he same with any other class fighters get better at fighting because they do it a lot. All that seems very believable to me. A high level character can fight a dragon because they have gotten better at what they do they are more experienced.

So (1) "God did it", and (2) "Magic has a spiritual fatigue element" are full explanations with no missing steps or complexity for you, but "He's so tough that falling at terminal velocity simply won't kill him" isn't a good enough explanation for that? I think you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying that it's realistic, or that it can be explained through parallels with reality, I'm saying that it doesn't need to parallel reality, because it's fiction. If you want an explaination, you can make one up on the fly. Say he's simply that tough, or say the acceleration of gravity versus the wind resistance greatly reduces terminal velocity in this specific world, or whatever. You can explain it however you want! That's not your problem. You don't like it because it doesn't parallel reality. You want it to. Bottom line. And that's fine. I don't empathize, but that's your problem, not the lack of an explanation.

Hit points in the game are not just how much damage you are taking they also represented your ability to defend at least that is what the game designers claim. So a high level fighter has more not just because he has gotten stronger physically but because he has gotten better at protecting himself in battle. It is a clunky system as I have said but it can be work with. Where it really shows its clumsiness is using it for things like falling from terminal velocity or falling in lava. Again why can a high level fighter not just survive a fall but can do it over and over again. It makes little sense that falling out of the sky and hitting the ground has anything to do with defense abilities. It is sheer luck and one I think should be equal to all character no matter the level. There is no training for falling from terminal velocity. There is no in game reason other than sheer amount of hit points to explain it. I don't believe an Olympic trained runner has any better chance of falling and living than an ordinary housewife who jogs it will come down to luck and how and what they land on.

Not only is it what they claim, if it's to be believable at all, that's what it must be; A character's ability to continue taking relevant action. Once you reach zero, you're actually injured, not just worn out and bruised... Why can a high level Fighter do those things? I provided two explanations for the fall damage in my last paragraph. Lava could simply be not as hot as in real life, or he's simply so tough that he can withstand falling in friggin' lava. Bam! Again, any explanation you want. You claim there's no in-game reason, but there obviously is, since that's what happens. If you want to explain it with in-game physics, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. If you want it more realistic, do that. Again, the problem is not the lack of explanation, it's the lack of this fantasy being real.

There is a lot I miss about AD&D the game seemed more believable more realistic and little more gritty. Using haste effected the wizard by aging them. Coming back from the dead required a system shock roll to see if you survived it and you could not do it over and over again. It took a lot longer to level. While I like some of what 3E did to fix things I think it went overboard in making PCs over powered in some areas.

I have no idea how haste aging a wizard, coming back from the dead, or leveling, can even possibly correlate with anything that happens in reality. It's all completely fictitious. None of that was realistic, because there's nothing in reality we can compare it to, aside other fictions or, possibly, medical science, but that's reaching. More gritty, sure, but not more realistic at all.