Traditional D&D realism.
I've noticed there's a definite trend among the D&D fanbase of people saying they want the game to be "more realistic" but meaning they want it to be more consistent with the gamist abstractions of previous versions of D&D.
Traditional D&D realism.
That's a new(ish) one, or maybe an old one that's new again. For quite a while it seemed like demanding 'realism' was passé, and demands for "verisimilitude," "immersion," and the corresponding horror of "dissociated mechanics" had taken its place.I've noticed there's a definite trend among the D&D fanbase of people saying they want the game to be "more realistic" but meaning they want it to be more consistent with the gamist abstractions of previous versions of D&D.
If it is physically possible for your skills and your tools to disable the lock, then unless the consequences of failure actually change the conditions-- unless they make it impossible-- then there's absolutely no reason you cannot just keep working the lock until you succeed. You will succeed, eventually, unless your failure either makes the situation impossible or you give up.
The idea that if someone can't pop open a lock within the first six seconds of trying, they're physically incapable of doing it in any amount of time... that's baffling to me. What kind of "realism" is that?
That isn’t generally how the fiction is matching the mechanics.
Instead, the one roll represents how well you did overall over the course of however much time you spent trying. It doesn’t represent a single attempt.
Not at all. The DC should change if you have significantly more time with no distractions, or you should have Advantage, or the DM May determine that there is no actual chance of failure and not have you roll a die at all.Which means, mechanically, trying to pick a lock for six seconds is the same thing as trying to pick it for an hour.
There's no way you can slice this that it makes sense.
Mechanically, an attempt is an attempt, regardless of how long it is.
And, fundamentally, there's things where a failed attempt makes it harder (or even impossible) to try again... and then there's picking locks. This is practically the Platonic ideal of people complaining about rules being "unrealistic" because they're more forgiving than older rules that were deliberately unrealistic in the first place.
People need to stop complaining that modern D&D is "unrealistic" when their only basis for comparison is old D&D.
The idea that a thief can only try to pick the same lock once comes from the same edition (and the same logic) that every door the PCs encounter is closed and locked, even if they've already unlocked and opened it. It's board game logic for a glorified board game; it's fine until you start unraveling the economy of a city full of landlords and notice you're only pretending to be the world's wealthiest top hat.
*HP as meat with literally any faster than month of recuperation for a fairly small chance of mostly recovering. No. Absolutely not. You got shot in the face. You are permanently maimed. A year of healing isn’t gonna fix that. Period. A hit cannot be a direct hit and still play characters through a dozen fights where they get hit several times each fight. It’s a complete non-starter.
I don’t think any edition actually functioned like that, but okay.And, fundamentally, there's things where a failed attempt makes it harder (or even impossible) to try again... and then there's picking locks. This is practically the Platonic ideal of people complaining about rules being "unrealistic" because they're more forgiving than older rules that were deliberately unrealistic in the first place.
People need to stop complaining that modern D&D is "unrealistic" when their only basis for comparison is old D&D.
The idea that a thief can only try to pick the same lock once comes from the same edition (and the same logic) that every door the PCs encounter is closed and locked, even if they've already unlocked and opened it. It's board game logic for a glorified board game; it's fine until you start unraveling the economy of a city full of landlords and notice you're only pretending to be the world's wealthiest top hat.