Why is realism "lame"?

[I'm A Banana]

However, with a system like 4E, the base system itself is actually very simple. As, in my not entirely humble opinion, it should be. When the base system is simple, it's easy to figure out what kind of effect each change will have on the game.

You're right, but I think we may have different definitions of "simple." IMO, if you're talking about 4e's skill system, okay, it's simple. If you're talking about 4e's combat system...then it is lousy with fiddly bits with great meaning and meaningless bits that seem significant. IMXP, of course.

I do think options should be part of basically every RPG, but at what point do you give up on writing a rule book at all and just hand people a business card that says "Do whatever you want"?

This is part of why I'm a big supporter of the OGL. The best way to ensure that someone can find a suite of options that suits their own table well is to ensure that there is an ecosystem of options that are more diverse than any one person will ever functionally need. Let everyone make modifications to your base system, and it is going to wind up adapted to EVERY niche, even the ones you've never thought of or the ones you personally don't have any interest in. The OGL enabled things like roleplaying in fantasy Africa, detailed rules for fictional sex and romance, a 300+ page compendium of historical weapons and armors, telekinetic flying jellyfish as a PC race, and more. I might not care about any of those personally, but a plentiful ecosystem makes it more likely to find what I DO care about. At least one "gritty" d20 variant has already been mentioned in the thread, and there's at least a dozen more where that came from.

WotC doesn't need to provide everything (though they might want to provide some of the most common desires). They just need to provide a platform -- an engine -- that can run anything, and to give everyone permission to do anything they want with it. The magic of the OGL is, in part, that it supports the natural way that people play the game anyway.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're right, but I think we may have different definitions of "simple." IMO, if you're talking about 4e's skill system, okay, it's simple. If you're talking about 4e's combat system...then it is lousy with fiddly bits with great meaning and meaningless bits that seem significant. IMXP, of course.

My belief is that the fiddliness of 2e, 3e, and 4e combat is about the same (and ultimately little different from that of Storyteller) - but it's a matter of where things are loaded. 2e has a fiddly system with THAC0, assorted non-obvious saves, descending AC, weapons doing different damage based on the target type, NWPs using their own rules, etc. By contrast 4e has a very simple system (slightly simpler than 3e's, which is a lot simpler than 2e's) - and fiddly characters who have at will attacks where one pushes, one hits the neighbour of the target, etc. So the complexity outcome is about the same in all cases.

And one of the problems with 4e is that until Essentials there wasn't a character class that used this simplicity to end up with a genuinely simple character (the 4e Slayer is as simple as a 2e Fighter, and far simpler than the 3e fighter).

 

[Bedrockgames]

The HP debate has been done over and over but what I will say is this, beginning with 3E HP and heals increasingly presented a believability issue for me. By 4E it became impossible to ignore with how quickly healing functioned. I get that healing and hp has never been a 100% simulation of reality. It was always a simple system that kept down record keeping and allowed for extensive dungeon crawls and long ventures into the wilderness with less rest than if characters had more realistic, static health. But one day or instant non magical heals take the game too far in the direction of a cartoon. A week or more, i can handle. There is enough of a nod to the need for the body to rest and recover. So yes HP are imperfect to begin with. There are flaws I can overlook (for example the 1st level guy healing all his hp faster than the 10th level warrior). But I just find a slower heal rate, say 1 HP per day ot 2 for every day of full rest, more believable, than a guy healing fully naturally in say a day or within minutes. This is enough of an issue for people that I believe they will have to address it in Next if they want to earn back lapsed customers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My belief is that the fiddliness of 2e, 3e, and 4e combat is about the same

My direct experience with the combat of 2e and 3e, and playing it as "theater of the mind," runs counter to your belief.

A lot of this has to do with movement. The more effects there are that push, pull, slide, shift, teleport, and otherwise move creatures, the more precise positioning down to the 5' square begins to matter, the more fiddly combat becomes. It's not just movement (an entire combat role is dedicated to applying a -2 penalty and tracking out-of-turn actions!), but that's a big driver.

the 4e Slayer is as simple as a 2e Fighter, and far simpler than the 3e fighter

I disagree and find the differences to be remarkably obvious, but that's not really here or there with regards to D&D being maybe a game inclusive of "realism" or not.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My direct experience with the combat of 2e and 3e, and playing it as "theater of the mind," runs counter to your belief.

And mine runs in line with my belief. If Theatre of the Mind is what you want then I agree repositioning people makes it a challenge.

A lot of this has to do with movement. The more effects there are that push, pull, slide, shift, teleport, and otherwise move creatures, the more precise positioning down to the 5' square begins to matter, the more fiddly combat becomes. It's not just movement (an entire combat role is dedicated to applying a -2 penalty and tracking out-of-turn actions!), but that's a big driver.

And that combat role is somehow more complex than a 3.X Batman Wizard? But nevertheless the combat rules are simple and the applications fiddly - which is precisely what I was saying.

I disagree and find the differences to be remarkably obvious, but that's not really here or there with regards to D&D being maybe a game inclusive of "realism" or not.

When I want Realism I play GURPS. Not a game in which someone can take a crossbow bolt at point blank range and survive without any significant penalties - or one in which the original designer described the banner of realism as the refuge of scoundrels. D&D has to me always been trying to be a cinematic game and the hit point system makes this screamingly obvious. On the other hand 4e has narrative consistency which is a different matter entirely. I expect Indiana Jones to be larger than life and to take a ridiculous amount of punishment - he is not "realistic".

 

[I'm A Banana]

And that combat role is somehow more complex than a 3.X Batman Wizard?

Nobody said that it was?

When I want Realism I play GURPS. Not a game in which someone can take a crossbow bolt at point blank range and survive without any significant penalties - or one in which the original designer described the banner of realism as the refuge of scoundrels. D&D has to me always been trying to be a cinematic game and the hit point system makes this screamingly obvious.

If you accept that your experience is not universal and that D&D is a flexible enough concept to have "more realistic" variant HP systems, then I don't know why you wouldn't want to accept a D&D that actually did permit that for those that wanted it.

That's the thrust of my point, after all: D&D doesn't HAVE to be Indiana Jones, necessarily, and hasn't ever been, for a lot of its players. It's not a single-purpose tool. That hammer can also have a claw on the back - it's not JUST for hammering.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nobody said that it was?

So you were comparing the most complex core classes in 4e with ...? I'm calling Batman Wizards and 3.5 Druids as the high end 3.5 complex classes. And I dispute that a 4e defender is as complex as either.

If you accept that your experience is not universal and that D&D is a flexible enough concept to have "more realistic" variant HP systems, then I don't know why you wouldn't want to accept a D&D that actually did permit that for those that wanted it.

How many parts of it do you replace?

That's the thrust of my point, after all: D&D doesn't HAVE to be Indiana Jones, necessarily, and hasn't ever been, for a lot of its players. It's not a single-purpose tool. That hammer can also have a claw on the back - it's not JUST for hammering.

4e believe it or not has a claw hammer on the back. But until you start throwing out major systems like the hit point rules, D&D is going to be cinematic past level 2.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So you were comparing the most complex core classes in 4e with ...

I hadn't said a thing about any particular 4e class? I had compared my experiences with 4e combat to earlier-e combat and found 4e combat to be overall a slightly more complex and fiddly experience than before, and gave a supporting point to illustrate why that may be the case for me, in the context of illustrating that different editions have been able to accommodate different levels of customization, while remaining overall quite customizable despite this.

How many parts of it do you replace?

That's up to the individual group, I imagine. The system can be built in such a way that none of it is essential to play. For WotC's purposes, I don't imagine they'd stray far from the pen-and-paper heroic fantasy that is traditional for D&D, but there's no reason in my mind that they cannot allow for other tables to have their own interpretation of what "D&D" means to them, even if it becomes a space opera game about politics and intrigue played using a monopoly board and poker hands. That might not be my D&D or your D&D or Jeremy Crawford's D&D, or WotC's D&D, but there's little need to play gate-keeper to what that word could mean for every table out there, and lots of reasons not to.

4e believe it or not has a claw hammer on the back. But until you start throwing out major systems like the hit point rules, D&D is going to be cinematic past level 2.

I think your second sentence undercuts your first one here. If you see D&D as requiring a certain kind of HP rule, then HP in D&D are single-purpose only. I don't think HP in D&D are anything like a "major system," so I can see a lot of different ways to use it to accomplish a lot of different goals for a multitude of different tables who might never use HP in the cinematic way that you seem to feel it must be used in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

4e believe it or not has a claw hammer on the back. But until you start throwing out major systems like the hit point rules, D&D is going to be cinematic past level 2.

D&D really straddles the line in my opinion. It has strong cinematic elements but it was never particularly suited to cinematic play. TORG and Savage Worlds are deeply cinematic and far better choices for that in my opinion. D&D has always kind of had its foot in a number of different ponds, probably because at its best it is the one game people with a host of different preferences could gather around and play together. Did it have everything for the player who wanted realism? No but it had just enough for many of them. I would argue HP are not really about cinenatic play at all, but rather more about making dungeon crawls feasible and as a kind of reward system.

So i think the argument that D&D is cinematic because HP, therefore the game should primarily be built around cinematic play, doesnt really make sense. That would be like arguing because the encumbrance rules try to place realistic limitsn what you can carry, the game is mainly about realistic play, so future editoins should be all about simulationism. This is exactly the kind of argument that creates hostility between fans of different editions, because it denies people the experience they had with the game. I know lots of 4E fanshave trouble uderrstaning how I could find 4E healing and encounter powers highly unrealistic but find HP and old class powers believable enough, but I do.

 

[Obryn]

I know lots of 4E fanshave trouble uderrstaning how I could find 4E healing and encounter powers highly unrealistic but find HP and old class powers believable enough, but I do.

Speaking only for myself, I understand it. Where I part ways is that I think 4e's healing surges and encounter powers make for a better game, and I'm vastly more interested in the "game" angle than the "simulation" angle when I'm sitting down at a table with my friends, pretending to be elves.

-O