Why is realism "lame"?

[Janx]

I remember an old Dragon magazine cartoon where they have this barbarian tied to a tree studded with arrows and a firing squad is shooting arrows at him. The guy in the background says something to the effect of, "Ok boys, keep shooting, he's got thirty HP left."

think it could get bogged down with all the "exception" rules, but I wonder how much of these situations can't be solved with situational rules?

For instance, Executions. If you are tied up, and about to be executed, it's not a coup de grace attack. The executioner simply kills you with his attack. No roll. You're dead. You ability to avoid this fate is tied to any immunities/protections, or what you should have done to avoid this point.

Falling from great heights: no cap on maximum damage. It's 1d6 per 10 feet. period. High PCs may survive a 50 foot fall, but not falling out of an airplane after joining the mile high club is 500d6, give or take, and the math with solve the problem. terminal velocity ain't worth modelling, if it means people fall from airplanes and live.

Lava should inflict way more damage, just by proximity. being with 5-10 feet of lava in the real world causes burns. So crank up the damage by proximity to 1d6 damage per 10 feet under 50 foot distance. Or whatever Wikipedia says the safe distance is.

Being surrounded by hostiles should fall under the overbearing rules from 2e, which enabled the angry mob of peasants to take down the 20th level PC.

Sure, this could turn into a long list of situational rules, but I don't see how they would drastically change D&D, other than correcting a few of the more extreme unrealisms that come up.

 

[Balesir]

Sure, you could add a range of additional "situation" rules to D&D to handle such things, but, given that there are sets of rules out there that deal with the "unrealisms" just by their inherent structure as rules, why bother? Why not just use D&D for what D&D does well, and those other rule sets for what they do well?

 

[Janx]

Sure, you could add a range of additional "situation" rules to D&D to handle such things, but, given that there are sets of rules out there that deal with the "unrealisms" just by their inherent structure as rules, why bother? Why not just use D&D for what D&D does well, and those other rule sets for what they do well?

Because odds are good I would find fault with those other rules just as easily for making different "realism mistakes"

Personally, I don't have a problem with D&D, it is the primary ruleset I play with. I don't have a long list of house rules for it either. But I just demonstrated some simple fixes for what folks complained about that I wouldn't find overly complex or invasive to the design.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I think the best fix for anything like that is:

DM's, talk to your players when things like this come up. If everyone agrees that it's ridiculous, go with what feels right to the group. Don't be a dick about it, but, make the feelings of the table resolve the action, rather than strict adherence to the rules.​

And, if someone says, "No, but, hey, you can totally survive a fall from an airplane", just let it slide and move on. By and large, it's really not worth getting worked up over. If it bothers you and your group all the time, then it's time to start perusing other systems. And this applies to any gaming system.

 

[Umbran]

Because realistic = very like real life, and real life = boring.

Or, to put it more simply - realism is lame because reality is lame.

I've a friend who is an engineer in real life. He plays the best darned mad scientist in my Deadlands game, in part because it allows him to do all the things he'd want to do, but cannot, because the Universe simply doesn't work that way. The player generalized this into something he called the "Too Cool Rule". The Too Cool Rule simply states that a lot of things don't happen in the real world simply because there's a limited amount of Coolness in the universe, and having the things would just be too cool to be allowed. It isn't that these things break the laws of physics, but the laws of physics are created to enforce this more fundamental rule. Rocket packs and flying cars? Too cool. Mutant powers and laser eyebeams? Too cool. Aliens from another planet coming to visit us? Way, way too cool.

Heck, in our universe, even getting into a fistfight over a matter of principle is apt to end up with a trip to the hospital and weeks of painful healing (and maybe an aggravated assault charge).

So, I can understand why some folks don't want a whole lot of realism. Realism isn't terribly consistent with the action, adventure, and dire decisions that must be made in a hero or heroine's life.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, having recently blown out my knee during a tug of war contest at my daughter's preschool, with resultant multiple visits to the doctor, MRI scans and several injections, I can totally agree that realism sucks.

I mean, imagine for a second that your character tries to bend the bars of his cage, and suffers a hernia. Not a whole lot of fun there.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure, you could add a range of additional "situation" rules to D&D to handle such things, but, given that there are sets of rules out there that deal with the "unrealisms" just by their inherent structure as rules, why bother? Why not just use D&D for what D&D does well, and those other rule sets for what they do well?

Because a lot of people want to play DnD. So I think additional rules like this as a supplement would be great.

 

[billd91]

Because a lot of people want to play DnD. So I think additional rules like this as a supplement would be great.

I probably can't emphasize this enough. A lot of people do want to play D&D and, for a lot of places, it's the only game in town for which you can get enough interested players. That's the legacy of being the market leader in an industry with a bunch of waxing/waning also-rans.

 

[Bluenose]

Because a lot of people want to play DnD. So I think additional rules like this as a supplement would be great.

If D&D doesn't work the way they want, is it unreasonable is it for them to expect the game to change to match what they want? Especially when there are a whole range of other games doing things more "realistically", that would match their claim. I mean, I understand billd91's point that it's the only game in town for a lot of people, but it doesn't have to stay that way. It was for me, till I made the effort to change it. Helped by having players who didn't really know what else was available, and when I showed them more jumped at it with both feet.

 

[Janx]

If D&D doesn't work the way they want, is it unreasonable is it for them to expect the game to change to match what they want? Especially when there are a whole range of other games doing things more "realistically", that would match their claim. I mean, I understand billd91's point that it's the only game in town for a lot of people, but it doesn't have to stay that way. It was for me, till I made the effort to change it. Helped by having players who didn't really know what else was available, and when I showed them more jumped at it with both feet.

to counter that, D&D has a rich history of being tweaked, modified and house ruled to cover these aspects people care about.

Some people take it farther than I would care to, but some of the basic "complaints" are easily solved with a simple patches.