A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except he's right, at least in this much: any attempt - no matter how badly done or off the mark it may be - is better than no attempt.

Why is this? Because once the (or an) attempt has been made it's much easier to build on that attempt, refine it, and improve it than it is to start from scratch.

Actually, I think the entirety of D&D is a refutation of this argument. A rather thorough one in fact! The game was instantly, at its initial inception, trapped by the structure of its mechanics, the places where it is abstract, and others where it is concrete, and the way it structures participant roles, etc. It has never escaped ANY of this, and the one time it got close/arguably did, you all utterly rejected the result!

I would argue that game designers find it necessary to implement some sorts of mechanics, lest there be no game at all. Yet, to a large degree, the choices they make at the start are unlikely to be overcome later, or incrementally improved. Instead, whole new game systems are usually constructed.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, I think the entirety of D&D is a refutation of this argument. A rather thorough one in fact! The game was instantly, at its initial inception, trapped by the structure of its mechanics, the places where it is abstract, and others where it is concrete, and the way it structures participant roles, etc. It has never escaped ANY of this, and the one time it got close/arguably did, you all utterly rejected the result!

I would argue that game designers find it necessary to implement some sorts of mechanics, lest there be no game at all. Yet, to a large degree, the choices they make at the start are unlikely to be overcome later, or incrementally improved. Instead, whole new game systems are usually constructed.

Actually it's the opposite. 1e had attack charts. 2e progressed to THACO. 3e simplified to high AC and bonuses to classes that matched THACO but were easier. 1e had a few background skills that you might get one of. 2e had proficiencies, but once you had them you pretty much never got better or worse. 3e went to a better skill system, but with numbers that were too high. 5e simplified while keeping skills that could be improved. Class mechanics. Spell mechanics. Save mechanics. And more. All went through progressions that improved them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually it's the opposite. 1e had attack charts. 2e progressed to THACO. 3e simplified to high AC and bonuses to classes that matched THACO but were easier. 1e had a few background skills that you might get one of. 2e had proficiencies, but once you had them you pretty much never got better or worse. 3e went to a better skill system, but with numbers that were too high. 5e simplified while keeping skills that could be improved. Class mechanics. Spell mechanics. Save mechanics. And more. All went through progressions that improved them.

You recognize that "improve" is entirely subjective, yeah?

 

[hawkeyefan]

There is. Any time your model brings in something from the real world and attempts to model the real world to some degree, realism has increased, even if the model is still highly unrealistic. The real world connection and modeling must have greater realism than having nothing at all, because nothing = 0 and you have at least something greater than 0 with those connections.

No, a flawed model can be less use than no model. And what about when comparing two systems that add some kind of realism, but do so in different ways. How do you know which adds more realism?

It’s opinion.

Right. This is where our differences originate and I'm not sure we can get past it.

Probably not, no.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree they both (try to) reflect realism in their own way. Neither are fully successful, of course, so it comes down to determining which one gets closer.

So how do we determine that?

I thought I already did, unless you're looking for some sort of hard-numbers comparison - in which case you're out of luck, in that any attempt to put numbers on any of this will just lead us back away from realism and into abstraction.

That’s what quantify means. If you’re going to claim that something is objectively true, that A is more than B, then you need to be able to show how. You need to show the value of A and then the value of B, so that the objective difference is clear.

This is my point. There is no way to do this on this topic because it is simply a matter of preference. It is entirely subjective.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually it's the opposite. 1e had attack charts. 2e progressed to THACO. 3e simplified to high AC and bonuses to classes that matched THACO but were easier. 1e had a few background skills that you might get one of. 2e had proficiencies, but once you had them you pretty much never got better or worse. 3e went to a better skill system, but with numbers that were too high. 5e simplified while keeping skills that could be improved. Class mechanics. Spell mechanics. Save mechanics. And more. All went through progressions that improved them.

All editions and versions of D&D prior to 3e have basically the exact same combat system, with a few slight tweaks or elaborations. 2e's THAC0 produces the EXACT same numbers as 1e's combat charts (there is an offset for certain very high ACs and the stepping for fighters is +1/1 instead of +2/2, but 1e offered that as an option). So, no, things pretty much stayed locked into exactly the same system. Even 3e's system has basically the same sort of model, attacks vs AC with a to-hit number followed by a damage roll, and save numbers for avoiding certain effects. All versions use a d20, etc. There was some change at the 3e break in terms of how the order of actions was determined, but that is really the biggest change in D&D combat. Fundamentally the model has remained unchanged for 40 years.

1e and 2e both had the optional background skills and NWP mechanics (not introduced into 1e until OA officially). This is a sort of incremental evolution, but note how these systems are always entirely optional until 3e, and all through AD&D they remain largely unworkable due to an adherence to a very limited type of design. Even 3e's version has problems based on its inheritance from NWPs. Only in 4e do we see some real evolution in the skill system, much of which has been subsequently undone in the name of 'tradition' (5e's system is somewhat of a mishmash of 4e and 2e influences).

I am OK with the idea that there were 'improvements', and if you compare 4e to 0e there are some significant differences, but even 4e is still working largely within the paradigms and set of mechanical tools established at the earliest times in D&D. Meanwhile other games have introduced entirely new, or radically restructured, mechanical solutions which D&D will obviously never be able to absorb due to its established structure (and the unwillingness of many players to change how they play).

Once you establish mechanical systems and subsystems it is very hard to go back and do something really different and potentially better. So creating poorly thought-out approaches to some aspect of the game and then expecting that to simply 'evolve' seems like a poor strategy to me. Most likely that element will remain almost the same, possibly being subject to revision at some edition break, but almost always with a lot of pushback and controversy.

Now, if you are talking about home brew, well obviously there's less of an issue with making ad-hoc changes where only a hand full of people use the system, but even then you may find it difficult to change.

 

[Hriston]

Show me the rules for weapon deterioration then. If you can do that, I will concede that weapon deterioration is in the game.



Not weapon deterioration. It doesn't exist in 5e. If it did, you could quote me the rule.



Again, if this were true you could in fact show me the rule for weapon deterioration. Since you are making the claim that it exists, quote it.



You can say it all you like, but my PC who is right next to you with the exact same type of short sword purchased at the exact same time and used in the exact same fights, will have an equally sharp short sword despite never once having sharpened it. Why? Because weapons simply do not get dull in 5e.



There's nothing to house rule. There are no rules that state that weapons deteriorate.

It isn't necessary that there be a rule or a mechanic for the degradation of weapons for it to be an element of the fiction in the game. All that's required is that the players at the table imagine it to be so. The whetstone is listed on the equipment list as an aid to that, so we can see that's what's intended. We can also see that it's intended to be a player-side element because it's on the equipment list, rather than something to be invoked by the DM whether the players want it to be a focus of play or not as a rule or mechanic would suggest.

You don't need a mechanic to tell you how fast grass grows or how many leaves fall from the trees in Autumn for those to be elements of the fiction in a game of D&D. If the party returns to a location after an absence of several months and the DM describes the grass as having grown longer in the intervening time, I don't think it's an appropriate response for the players to say that grass doesn't grow in D&D because there's no rule for it.

 

[Maxperson]

No, a flawed model can be less use than no model. And what about when comparing two systems that add some kind of realism, but do so in different ways. How do you know which adds more realism?

Less use is a different metric, and a flawed model can't be of less use than no model. No model = 0 use. A flawed model will be used by at least someone out there. I didn't use the disease mechanics in 1e, but I played with DMs who did. No matter how bad a model is, someone will find use for it. Nobody can find use for a non-existent model.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't necessary that there be a rule or a mechanic for the degradation of weapons for it to be an element of the fiction in the game.

Yes there does need to be a rule or mechanic for it. Degradation causes weapons to hit less and do less damage, as well as break. If there is degradation, you either have a rule for those things or the DM just uses fiat. Otherwise, it doesn't actually exist.

All that's required is that the players at the table imagine it to be so. The whetstone is listed on the equipment list as an aid to that, so we can see that's what's intended. We can also see that it's intended to be a player-side element because it's on the equipment list, rather than something to be invoked by the DM whether the players want it to be a focus of play or not as a rule or mechanic would suggest.

The players don't get to add things to the game without DM approval, and DM approval = the DM adding it to the game. If the players came to me and said they wanted weapon degradation in the game, I would sit with them to work out the mechanics for it. They could not unilaterally add it, though, and the existence of the whetstone doesn't do it by itself.

And the whole, "The players add it in by buying whetstones and saying they repair their weapons" is dead on its face. Again, if we play a game together and you purchase a whetstone and "repair your sword, but I don't do either, my sword is still going to be identical to yours. That proves that weapon degradation doesn't exist, because if it did, my weapon would degrade, but it doesn't.

You don't need a mechanic to tell you how fast grass grows or how many leaves fall from the trees in Autumn for those to be elements of the fiction in a game of D&D. If the party returns to a location after an absence of several months and the DM describes the grass as having grown longer in the intervening time, I don't think it's an appropriate response for the players to say that grass doesn't grow in D&D because there's no rule for it.

False Equivalences are false. You don't need a mechanic for grass and leaves, because grass and leaves don't impact mechanics he way weapon degradation will. A degrading weapon will be less effective and eventually break.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not if you have a whetstone!