D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

[Ovinomancer]

Some of those aren't nearly as dissociated as others as they can so easily be explained in the fiction:

1. Explained by extra training and study in being aware of one's surroundings.

This doesn't really make much sense, though. What is this mystical training? When did you get it? These things are not required at all by 5e. I get that you'd probably make a houserule for it, but, again, houserules are kinda cheating when pointing out dissociated mechanics in the game.

2. Dubious. Explainable if used on self as simply taking a breather, maybe.
3. Dissociated, as is the entire "hit dice" mechanic in 5e.
4. Dubious; the more one sees hit points as meat, the less dissociative they are. If they were split into body (meat) and fatigue (vitality) points the dissociation would lessen greatly. Where the dissicoation really rears its ugly head is at the 0 (down) and 1 (fully functional) point; an area that's needed help since the dark ages.

Meat points that go away with a single 6 hours nap with 2 more hours of not having a combat for an hour? No, doing this breaks them even more because now that hit die makes no sense, the rest makes no sense, and the second wind makes no sense. You've solved one problem by make three others (at least) worse. And I don't think this solves the one problem, either -- what does 1 hp damage look like to a commoner vs a 20th level fighter if delivered from the same source? There's meat and then there's other meat?

5. Explained by specialized training in faster/more efficient combat techniques.

What specialized training, though? What makes a fighter making 4 attacks so uniquely different from a rogue making +10d6 attacks? What's the fictional element, here, that explains this every time instead of ad hoc each time?

A good sign of "dissociated" mechanics is going to be ad hoc explanations every time because this means there is no real in-fiction explanation that's happening, but rather a mechanic that requires flexing the in-fiction explanation to justify it uniquely every time.

6. Explained by specialized training in stealthy combat techniques; training only available to the "right" people (a.k.a. Thieves and Rogues).

Same as above.

 

[pemerton]

This is just an odd complaint to me.

It's not a complaint. It's an observation, which (in my view) shows that fantasy can be engaging, even compelling, without being realistic beyond the most superficial veneer.

 

[pemerton]

You get away with literary backdrop in literature. You really can't in a TTRPG as granular as D&D. This why RPGs based on licensed games tend to have so much more world detail than the original material showcased. They were created for different purposes.

I personally think that it tends to help rather than hinder a lot of RPGing, even D&D RPGing, to use more literary backdrops. A lot of D&D modules - I'm thinking most of the AD&D, 3E and 4e ones I'm familiar with, for instance - don't need sociological details or economic details to work. The WoG has a timeline set out, but would it affect any of the modules set in the WoG if the timeline instead was set out like the 4e one, with its vague references to fallen Nerath, the ancient empires of the Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc? Not really, as best I can see.

I think a lot of the imperative, in RPG design, to build up that world detail, is not driven by what is needed for play but rather what is taken to be a sign of a well-developed world.

 

[pemerton]

What specialized training, though? What makes a fighter making 4 attacks so uniquely different from a rogue making +10d6 attacks? What's the fictional element, here, that explains this every time instead of ad hoc each time?

I agree with your whole post, but this bit in particular is worth emphasising.

In the context of a game in which (i) the action economy is abstract (even with 6 second rounds) and represents multiple attempts to land a telling blow etc, and (ii) the damage system is abstract and represents injury, setting back one's foe, luck and "plot armour", etc, then what is the in-fiction difference between increasing the rate at which attacks are rolled, and increasing the damage per successful attack?

I can see the game-mechanical difference. But I don't get what is going on in the fiction. (And this applies to the multiple attacks fighters get in Gygax's AD&D as much as the 5e implementation of the same basic rule.)

EDIT: I remember having a similar conversation on Usenet when 3E came out. Barbarians get d12 HD, which includes an ability to dodge telling blows; and they get to add their CON to hp (so does CON help you dodge?); and they get to add their DEX to AC (but why not hp, if hp including dodging telling blows?); and they get damage reduction. What is that last thing, in the fiction, and in relation to all the rest?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I personally think that it tends to help rather than hinder a lot of RPGing, even D&D RPGing, to use more literary backdrops. A lot of D&D modules - I'm thinking most of the AD&D, 3E and 4e ones I'm familiar with, for instance - don't need sociological details or economic details to work. The WoG has a timeline set out, but would it affect any of the modules set in the WoG if the timeline instead was set out like the 4e one, with its vague references to fallen Nerath, the ancient empires of the Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc? Not really, as best I can see.

I think a lot of the imperative, in RPG design, to build up that world detail, is not driven by what is needed for play but rather what is taken to be a sign of a well-developed world.

An idea I fully support. Worldbuilding has severely degraded in modern D&D.

 

[pemerton]

An idea I fully support. Worldbuilding has severely degraded in modern D&D.

I wasn't sure which idea you were supporting: my preference for a more REH-ish or 4e-ish approach of narrative backstory but not a whole host of timelines and charts; or the opposite.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wasn't sure which idea you were supporting: my preference for a more REH-ish or 4e-ish approach of narrative backstory but not a whole host of timelines and charts; or the opposite.

The opposite. I prefer 2nd Ed's or to a lesser extent, 3rd Ed's approach to worldbuilding.

 

[Mordhau]

You get away with literary backdrop in literature. You really can't in a TTRPG as granular as D&D. This why RPGs based on licensed games tend to have so much more world detail than the original material showcased. They were created for different purposes.

It depends on the type of game but rpgs in general tend to toward a deconstructive element towards genre conventions in settings.

Tolkien can get away with not caring if Rivendell has sewers, but if the PCs kill one of Elrond's sons and then hatch a plan to escape through the sewers then the GM needs to make some kind of decision about waste disposal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No one here cares about your crusade against Alexandrian. Some of us however find 'disassociated mechanics' as somewhat useful descriptor, which helps discussing games.

Mod Note:

That first sentence makes this post personal, which is not only unnecessary, it’s a problem for the mod staff. Don’t make disagreement with another poster about the other poster, make it about the issue at hand. PERIOD.

 

[Aldarc]

An example of how the Alexandrian engages in special pleading in order to make exceptions for "dissociated mechanics" in games that he likes:

A DIGRESSION ON DISSOCIATION

Some of you may now be pointing your finger in horror and crying out, “Dissociated mechanic!” And, yes, that’s true. The mechanics of XP spending in Numenera is very similar to the use of fate/luck points in other systems and they’re tied directly into the intrusion mechanic.

But as I’ve mentioned many times in the past (and, most notably, in the Brief Primer on Dissociated Mechanics), it’s not the end of the world for an RPG to include some dissociated mechanics as long as those mechanics are providing a valuable function.

In the case of GM intrusions, the function of liberating the GM to take huge creative risks while being “protected” by a safety net which allows the players to seamlessly rein them in if they go too far is absurdly valuable.

It should also be noted, for those who are particularly allergic to dissociated mechanics, that GM intrusions are incredibly flexible tools which are used entirely at the GM’s discretion: You can use them all the time, you can use them rarely, or you can use them never. More importantly, the nature of each intrusion is entirely up to you. That means you can make them as associated or dissociated as you want: It’s very trivial, for example, to only use intrusions which a PC could avoid or negate through the actions they take.

Justin's criteria claims here that it's okay "as long as those [dissociated] mechanics are providing a valuable function." This self-selectively overlooks what "valuable functions" such mechanics have in the games that he dislikes while making exceptions for them in games that he does like. In short, it's okay when Numenera has dissociated mechanics, but it's bad when 4e D&D has dissociated mechanics.

This is ultimately why I find his whole "dissociated mechanics" argument to be facile. It's a post hoc argument trying to address why he dislikes 4e, which he tries to make seem infallible through jargon. The problem is, however, that once you begin applying that jargon with consistency to other games, then one starts seeing "dissociated mechanics" everywhere, but instead of admitting that the original argument was flawed or re-addressing one's personal hang-ups with 4e D&D, it instead becomes about making exception after exception to preserve an argument increasingly filled with holes.