Why is realism "lame"?

[Bedrockgames]

HPs are said to be, in explicit and unambiguous terms and in almost every RPG I've ever played, not merely physical injury. In 4E especially, you're not even bleeding until you've already lost half of them. A "mundane" man can't catch his breath and recover from some superficial bumps and bruises all on his own? It's not like he has gigantic wounds, here. He's banged up a bit, and that's all. That doesn't stretch my imagination at all, let alone thinly. How is it so difficult for you to imagine a guy taking a breather after a strenuous fight?

While HP have always been a combo of luck, health, mojo, etc. they still physical damage. I older versions if you took a point of damage part of that wa suck, but part of that was actual damage. And it isnt a stretch to make the connection between a sword doing 1d8 damage and that being some kind of physical harm to the body. 4E offers a new definition of how HPs work, but it is a definition that runs counter to how most of us have viewed HP and used it in praactice. I dont like the idea that that a blow cant become physical damage until you are at a certain level of HP. For me that doesnt work. "The 20 points of damage you just took from the ogre's sword only winded you" doesnt work for me. It takes a game that is already on the cusp in terms of realism and believability and drives it over the edge.

Particularly in earlier editions, it is very clear from hownatural healing works that there is a physical component to the damage you are taking (even if it includes fatigue). You cant take 13 points of damage in AD&D or 3E and say okay "these 10 points here are mojo and these 3 here a cut".

it also serioiusly stretches believability for me to have so many figts involving swords, fire spells, and arrows result in less bruising and harm than a boxing match. Seems very cartoony to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Within context, it's advice to be descriptive and not to think of the game as only the rules, but as the adventure it's detailing, not to throw the rules away to make combat exciting. Grab out your DMG and read that entire four or five paragraph section. I don't feel like posting a wall of text.

i have read it. Many, many times. 2E is a system I like and understand very well but some of the Gm advice was flawed. But my point is that to make 2E play cinematic, you must fudge. If they had something like bennies in the game, this wouldn't be neccessary. The designers were trying to make the game cinematic, but the underlying mechanics didnt support it. Sure you shouldnt be a slave to the rules, but of the mechanics are activley making it difficult to run a cinematic game unless you ignore them, it just isnt a cinematic game.

i mean, if i made a game that claimed to be highly realistic, but only engaged in realism here or there, nd at other times was loaded down woth mechanics that produced highly unrealistic results, i couldn't salvage my claim to realism by saying "just ignore the unrealistic bits and results to make thegame more believable".

 

[Bedrockgames]

And by the way, I am not saying that people who find healing surges and mundane encounter powers realistic are wrong. I can see that some people do find them believable. I just find them quite jarring.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also worth pointing out we are getting to somewhat ontradictory arguments to contend with here. On the one hand posters argue the game as always been hopelessly unrealistic so any effort to maintain vestiges of realism, or avoid new mechanics that break suspension of disbelief are misguided. The game's soul is fundamentally about the unrealistic, the inconsistent and fantastic. On the other hand we ae told that 4E with its healing surges, bloodied condition and mundane envounter powers, isthe most realistic and internally consistent edition of the game ever. If you hold the former position, and believe the latter to be true, then 4E's more realistic and consistent mechanics must bemisguided.

 

[Umbran]

I actually would like to see what someone neutral to the discussion thinks is rude, if only out of curiosity.

Fair enough.

I'm "neutral" in the sense that I haven't had what I'd consider a prolonged discussion in this thread. Personally, I haven't chimed in more because this discussion looks entirely unproductive. That's because I find you needlessly aggressive, Neonchameleon aggressively dismissive (which I'd consider rude), and Bedrockgames aggressively defensive (which I think has come off as rude in a few posts).

But that's just me. I'm a sucker for civility, and I just don't see it happening here. Too many people have to "prove" their side Correct (you, Hussar, and Neonchameleon on one side, with KM, Elf Witch, bill91, and Bedrockgames on the other), with some posters being much more divisive than others (in my view). Not my cup of tea. As always, play what you like

I'll avoid going too far into specifics at this moment, but I think Jameson here is not too far off the mark.

Whatever your actual desires, a bunch of you are coming across rather like your main motivation for being in the discussion is to be Right, and that anyone with an alternative take on it is Wrong. This no longer reads like a discussion, but like an argument. It looks like it is not about learning from others, but is instead about winning and losing. When a conversation drifts into that realm, there's a tendency for everyone to start getting rude. To be honest, those of you who are trying to prove "There Is NO Grittyness In D&D" seem the rather more aggressive and dismissive - your argument is the more exclusionary one, as you are arguing *against* something, rather than for something.

Here's my advice - stop what you are doing. Assume, instead, that in some sense, *everybody* in the discussion is actually 100% correct, at least from their perspectives. The folks who can't find gritty play in D&D's mechanics, honestly cannot find gritty play in D&D's mechanics. Those who have found it easy and supported - it *is* there, even if you cannot see how. Add on top that nobody here is terminally stupid or unobservant.

With that assumption, the discussion should be more about what in the other person's perspective makes things work (or not work). It can be more about learning how the game can function for players who aren't you, and less about how the other guy is wrongity-wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce.

 

[Balesir]

For what it may be worth, I don't see [MENTION=6683307]CroBob[/MENTION] as fixed on arguing that "realistic D&D" is "wrong" so much as holding my initial position of puzzlement over why some folk desire to use D&D for "realistic" play. At first blush it can seem like deciding to do time trialling on a pushbike, but choosing a unicycle to do it on; there's little doubt that it's possible, on some level, but it's puzzling why anyone would want to do it.

I have come to realise that the simple truth seems to be that, for some people, D&D is roleplaying. Replace "D&D" with "roleplaying" in what they say and I agree with most of it completely; it's hard not to. Some folk hold this view, and they have every right to do so, but I think it does have a few unfortunate side-effects for D&D from my point of view.
[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] asks why D&D can't be made more "flexible" in order to please everyone, at least via a bit of tweaking and module selection. I think that may well be a good way to please those folk for whom D&D ought to be all of roleplaying in microcosm. It is a tall order simply because roleplaying is quite literally limited only by the players' imaginations, but I think that quite a lot of ground that would seem "sensical" to the mainstream gamer could probably be covered without too much hassle. The problem (for me) is that this won't please me, because it specifically excludes the style of play I have finally found a class/level/hit point system to be useful for. It excludes a tight, clearly laid out system that is balanced such that players are given both interesting choices (i.e. ones where no single option is clearly "optimal") and a clear understanding of the implications of those choices (via the understanding of a largely unambiguous game system).

This is, in essence, why I said some while ago that I wish 4e had been produced as something other than "D&D". There is clearly a significant constituency "out there" for whom D&D is either something very specific in terms of its tropes and DM-malleability or expected to be adaptable into anything that roleplaying itself "should" be. This is probably largely because it has always been the "big boy" on the block - whatever. My position is simply that, if that is what the "mainstream major game" has to be then I'm really not interested in it - but others clearly are, and good luck to them.

So, to CroBob and the rest I would say: there is a "mainstream" of gamers out there who either want D&D to be a specific thing (i.e., what it has always been, with perhaps a few tweaks to make it simpler without losing that "special something"), or want it to stretch to cover everything that they imagine they want to be included in a roleplaying game. You and I don't share this desire of the game - we may even think it's a doomed and hopeless phant'sy - but it's really not for us to say it's "wrong" or that those folks don't have a right to want what they want. It's a tragedy (for us) that a game that (for us) finally makes sense of all those D&D system tropes is being dumped so that D&D can return to these "mainstream" desires - but denying the mainstream their "dream game" would be just as much an unfairness to them.

The simple fact seems to be that we got out-voted - either by greater numbers or by folks whose vote counts for more than ours. I wish it looked like an non-mainstream game would pick up the baton for the sort of game I see and like in 4e - I think it still has lots of development potential to explore - but that seems unlikely due to the "GSL lock" that WotC have on it. I suppose I'll carry on with the "final" 4e and maybe try some of that development myself - but, even absent that, there are plenty more fish/systems out there in the sea...

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem (for me) is that this won't please me, because it specifically excludes the style of play I have finally found a class/level/hit point system to be useful for. It excludes a tight, clearly laid out system that is balanced such that players are given both interesting choices (i.e. ones where no single option is clearly "optimal") and a clear understanding of the implications of those choices (via the understanding of a largely unambiguous game system).

Personally, I think people need to stop advocating for what the system should be and start figuring out how they want the game they play at their own tables to work.

If the system is a sprawling mess of vagueness and inanity, but there's a few options you can tune to tighten it up and make it clearer, then who cares if someone half a county away is playing their D&D game in a way that you wouldn't approve of?

I think it's entirely possible to have a tight, clear game within a modular, all-encompassing system. There's no reason D&D5e can't be designed with core math that is robustly balanced and enables a narrow focus so that people who want that can get it by shaving off all the stuff they don't want and running it slim and tight. There should be no reason that someone can't get a very 4e-like game by turning a few dials.

 

[Elf Witch]

I certainly did not mean to come off as rude or that my way is the right way to play. I have only been trying to answer what I consider realism in RPGs and how it works or does not work in DnD for me.

I will say that I was getting frustrated because I felt that I was being put in the position to defend my personal likes and this started to feel more like a debate than a discussion.

Balesir really summed up very nicely what I think is going on here. My biggest dislike of 4E is how limited and rigid it seems to me. It is has it place and I think it does certain really well. It is perfect for con style play and for living play. I think it is is perfect for a pick up game and a game played to introduce people to role playing at game stores. And it satisfied a lot of what certain people want out of a game.

Since I don't want to play the same style campaign over and over again I want a game that can give me dials that can go from more grim and gritty to cinematic without having to houserule the game to the point that it starts looking more like something else than DnD.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Since I don't want to play the same style campaign over and over again I want a game that can give me dials that can go from more grim and gritty to cinematic without having to houserule the game to the point that it starts looking more like something else than DnD.

If they are still sticking with their mpdular approach to 5E, this is probably the ideal timeto express that opinion. If you want truly gritty, i think it would take quite a fewdials but could see a "Dark and Gritty" book coming out to support the game. If they can squeeze in a ton of optional rules likethey did in the 2E core books, they might be able to fit in some gritty options in the core book.

we should keep in mind that is what they said next would be all about: dials you can adjust to make the game play how you want. I see nothing wrong with including a gritty end of the spectrum on those dials.

 

[Balesir]

Personally, I think people need to stop advocating for what the system should be and start figuring out how they want the game they play at their own tables to work.

I do this for each instance of play I run already - a key part of it is selecting which system we will use. The "game I play at my own table" will be what I want it to be - but it won't (necessarily) use D&D (any edition) as its system.

If the system is a sprawling mess of vagueness and inanity, but there's a few options you can tune to tighten it up and make it clearer, then who cares if someone half a county away is playing their D&D game in a way that you wouldn't approve of?

People half a country (or more - I'm in the UK so many gamers in the gamer-rich US will count) away will play as they like, and this will not bother me in the slightest. But if I have a game that does what I want for a specific campaign without me having to understand its dials and options so well that I can mould it into a game that does what I want, the "mouldable" game won't get a look in. I have little time and I'm fundamentally lazy/pragmatic by alignment.

I think it's entirely possible to have a tight, clear game within a modular, all-encompassing system. There's no reason D&D5e can't be designed with core math that is robustly balanced and enables a narrow focus so that people who want that can get it by shaving off all the stuff they don't want and running it slim and tight. There should be no reason that someone can't get a very 4e-like game by turning a few dials.

This is theoretically possible in a "monkeys and typewriters" sense, but (a) I'm not convinced it's their aim and (b) I see no glimmerings of this in the playtest material so far. Sure, there might be a "tactical combat" module and so on, but (as others have said) this misses most of the point. GURPS is already a game that has "tactical combat" options and a plethora of other options, but it very decidedly does not do what 4e does in this respect. The very fact that there are other "optional" systems - or even "core" systems that are overwritten by the "4e lookalike" options - muddies the waters and makes the system less clear and unambiguous.

If the "multigame option" is what "D&D fans" want, then I say "let them have it". I'm not sure exactly how widespread the preference is, but it seems pretty common, and it's what the IP owner has decided to support. If I sound like I'm moaning, it's not because the folks with these preferences will get what they want - I'm genuinely glad for them. I'm just sad that me - and apparently others, too - will not get what we like supported for the time being.