Bring Back Verisimilitude, add in More Excitement!

[Herschel]

There is no more or less "realism" in any edition if you sit down and honestly look at it. Our imaginations contour to the game rules we learned to play with, not the other way around.

The whole "verisimilitude" argument is a crock. We play a game with flying dragons and powerful wizards where players can magically and instantaneously "heal" from life-threatening injuries, crushed psyches, exhaustion even dehydration or disease.
Any loss of "immersion" due ANY rules set we use is a product of our own bias and imagination shortcomings, not the rules themselves.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Here's where the rubber meets the road:

Let's say 5e allows you to play a characters with no arbitrary limits on how often they can use their abilities (e.g. for some barbarians, rage is a state which they can turn on or off).

Let's say that 5e also allows you to play a character with arbitrary limits on how often they can use their abilities (e.g. some other barbarians can enter a rage only a limited number of times per day).

Both are presented as equal options, i.e. neither is the "default" approach.

Does the presence of the latter annoy you so much that you wouldn't play 5e even though it allows you to do the former?

Do I think the Tome of Battle was one of the worst 3.5 books, one that I would never allow in my game? Yes. Do I have a problem with it being published and someone else using it? No. The only problem is if (as in 4e) it becomes the only option. There's plenty of room for a subsection of rules for people who like a certain style.

If an "artifical limit" works and provides a positive gameplay experience, it should stay regardless of whether it provides verisimilitude or not.

Does rage work and provide a positive gameplay experience? Would an alternative form of rage not limited by daily use not do as well in those respects? There are perfectly viable mechanics for rage other than the one in the 3.5 PHB (some are even suggested in this thread).

I love metagame resource management in games like action points, healing surges, daily powers and all. I don't like to sacrifice these for "verisimilitude" at all.

The substantive issue here is not gamism vs simulationism. It's whether the mechanics being raised are well written in any domain. Good rules impose limits, but with reason.

It's very easy to have a system where after you rage for a while (time based on Con), you get fatigued and suffer penalties that you have to rest to remove (without any of this rage/day business). It's very easy to have a system with vitality or stun damage that can be healed by a "second wind" during combat or a brief rest afterwards. The same goals are accomplished as with ability uses/day and healing surges (tracking tactical resources, balancing the character against a fighter, modeling the effects of prolonged exertion), but the result is more balanced and more believable.

Only magic huh?

How 'bout them hit points?

Hit points aren't a daily resource; it's significantly more complicated that "I can take 3 hits in a day and then I die, period". They certainly are arbitrary. I certainly wouldn't cite them as an example of good design, nor do most other d20 mechanics resemble hit points. More to the point:

That not a reason to keep them!

If they can figure out a better way to accomplish the *reason* they are there, I'd be glad to see (most of) them go away.

Even if it were true, "things have always been this way" isn't much of an argument. "Things are better for most players of the game this way" is the issue.

 

[Sylrae]

There is no more or less "realism" in any edition if you sit down and honestly look at it. Our imaginations contour to the game rules we learned to play with, not the other way around.

The whole "verisimilitude" argument is a crock. We play a game with flying dragons and powerful wizards where players can magically and instantaneously "heal" from life-threatening injuries, crushed psyches, exhaustion even dehydration or disease.
Any loss of "immersion" due ANY rules set we use is a product of our own bias and imagination shortcomings, not the rules themselves.

I really hate the idea that if you allow some concessions to verisimilitude for a fantasy genre you have to concede to any and every other verisimilitude breaking thing that comes along.

It's about equivalent to saying you can't be dissatisfied that someone at your table is trying to play a scifi character (say, using d20 future rules or starwars rules) in your D&D 3.5 game. Frankly its a load of crap.

Just because I'm willing to make concessions for a fantasy genre doesn't mean I should have to be willing to allow any other kind of verisimilitude breakers, particularly if they are breaking the verisimilitude of the fantasy setting.

The sort of verisimilitude I'm going for is what is believable in a fantasy novel or film, such as a forgotten realms novel, or eberron novel, or MtG novel, or whatever. I dont want my D&D to have jedi in it. I dont want my D&D to include stargate SG 1 characters. I don't want my D&D to shove in gritty film noir carchases. I don't want my D&D to act like a boardgame, and the more boardgamey it is, the less fun I'll have.

It's not necessarily *My Failing* if I dont want it to play like tactics ogre or mario party. That just means that *THAT* is not the type of game I want to play.

Just like its perfectly acceptable for someone running a hard-scifi game to get peeved off when someone tries to say they have to allow the players to play as wizards, and magic breaks their immersion and gets in the way of the game they want to play, and the stories they want to tell.

@Ahnehnois: I couldn't have put it better myself. Exactly.

 

[mmadsen]

There is no more or less "realism" in any edition if you sit down and honestly look at it. Our imaginations contour to the game rules we learned to play with, not the other way around.

Are you honestly claiming that no rule set is even the slightest bit more realistic than any other?

They're all imperfect, of course -- sometimes on purpose -- but it's pretty easy to make a rule set less realistic, so it's obvious that the degree of realism is far from immutable.

 

[LurkAway]

The whole "verisimilitude" argument is a crock. <snip>
Any loss of "immersion" due ANY rules set we use is a product of our own bias and imagination shortcomings, not the rules themselves.

Wow. Are you Ron Edwards in disguise?

 

[Sylrae]

There is no more or less "realism" in any edition if you sit down and honestly look at it. Our imaginations contour to the game rules we learned to play with, not the other way around.

I know I already answered the second part, but I needed to come back to this point.

If that was true, I wouldnt own more than one RPG, and I'd certainly have no reason to ever buy into a new one if I already had one on the shelf. Hell, I'd probably just narrate over the pieces of a chess board.

 

[Phaezen]

Problem with wanting verisimilitude in rules is that the the concept of verisimilitude in itself is abstract and what is acceptable is different for everybody.

Take for example limiting a barbarians rage uses on a daily basis. You may find this lacks "verisimilitude" but what if it was put like this:

A barbarians rage goes beyond a mere emotional state and involved the barbarian working up into a berserk state, channeling pure fury into his actions. This takes an immense toll on him and therefore he can only do this once of twice a day for a limited period. After this his emotional and physical reserves are drained and he is unable to work up to the necessary emotional state until he has had a night's rest. Legends tell of barbarian heroes who can work themselves into a berserk state five or more times a day, but these powerful individuals are extremely rare.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Take for example limiting a barbarians rage uses on a daily basis. You may find this lacks "verisimilitude" but what if it was put like this:

A barbarians rage goes beyond a mere emotional state and involved the barbarian working up into a berserk state, channeling pure fury into his actions. This takes an immense toll on him and therefore he can only do this once of twice a day for a limited period. After this his emotional and physical reserves are drained and he is unable to work up to the necessary emotional state until he has had a night's rest. Legends tell of barbarian heroes who can work themselves into a berserk state five or more times a day, but these powerful individuals are extremely rare.

I would ask why if it takes such an "immense toll", the barbarian doesn't take "immense penalties" afterwards. Why does the rage rule exist on an island, and not have any effect on the barbarian's emotional and physical state except to make it harder for him to rage the next time? Of course flying into a berserk rage is draining. You can certainly say that a more powerful barbarian should have more stamina or be better able to sustain a rage state. I just don't think rages/day model that effectively.

 

[Phaezen]

I would ask why if it takes such an "immense toll", the barbarian doesn't take "immense penalties" afterwards. Why does the rage rule exist on an island, and not have any effect on the barbarian's emotional and physical state except to make it harder for him to rage the next time? Of course flying into a berserk rage is draining. You can certainly say that a more powerful barbarian should have more stamina or be better able to sustain a rage state. I just don't think rages/day model that effectively.

3.x the barbarian counted as exhausted until he had a chance to rest after the fight, so you could have something along those lines if you like?

4e went a slightly different route and the barbarian is channeling his primal nature when he rages. So, much like druids a people are limited in the amount of primal energy they can channel at a time or in a day but they are not exhausted to the extent of a more martial barbarian.

 

[Ahnehnois]

3.x the barbarian counted as exhausted until he had a chance to rest after the fight, so you could have something along those lines if you like?

That was redundant with the rages/day. Take those out and leave the fatigue and it's fine.

4e went a slightly different route and the barbarian is channeling his primal nature when he rages. So, much like druids a people are limited in the amount of primal energy they can channel at a time or in a day but they are not exhausted to the extent of a more martial barbarian.

I'm not sure what a "primal" power source is, or how a druid and a barbarian came to use the same power source. Even in 4e nomenclature, I would have thought a barbarian would be "martial". In other words, that's a whole nother can of worms.