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

[EzekielRaiden]

It seems to me that if a player knows that their PC can never be surprised (Alertness), or as per what I've quoted can know how many hits from an ogre they can take without falling - bizarre sorts of knowledge that no one in the real world has about themselves - then a PC can also know that (eg) they can perform this particular bit of swordplay once per encounter.

Yet the whole "dissociation" argument is supposed to rest on the notion that that is too bizarre a piece of knowledge for a character to have.

Very well said. This shows my issue well. Only certain, very selective versions of "this kind of choice/thinking is just too bizarre for a character to make/think," when a host of such decisions and thoughts has existed since D&D began. Hit points readily lead to highly unnatural thinking even if you treat them as "meat" points. E.g., "It's fine if I jump down this 100-foot cliff. Sure it will hurt, but I have 68 HP and falling damage is only 1d6 damage per 10 feet. I can't possibly take enough damage to die, and am very likely to take less than half my HP, so may as well just do it." Yet these choices are fine because HP are grandfathered in and aren't a discrete mechanical package. And while even many hardcore roleplayers will make such decisions, they'll rarely even notice how "dissociated" those choices are, because HP are like old leather, comfortable and familiar.

I made a similar argument about the disconnect between attack rolls and damage rolls. If you roll them separately (as the majority of players do), then you have an unnatural disconnect between player choices and character choices, readily expressed in pure RP terms: you know that you hit long before you know that you dealt a telling blow or a glancing hit or whatever, meaning you cannot describe the action until you havemade a purely out of character action. Meanwhile if you roll both at once, you are determining the results of actions that, X% of the time, never actually happened--the player thus has chosen to act, and has acquired knowledge through that action, that the character could not possibly have, creating another "dissociation" between the mental/behavioral state of the character and that of the player.

I fear I no longer remember who said it, but some claimed that my assertion that magic gets an unfair pass on this stuff was incorrect. Can anyone give me a good example thereof? I have already argued that I don't see the necessity of "dissociation" between "I have X units of Y-level spellcasting left," and IIRC Crimson Longinus has said the same thing. Does anyone have any other examples they know of? I will of course critique them so this is a request to put one's head on the chopping block so to speak, but I would very sincerely value being proven wrong on this point. I would really rather there be as many metrics as possible where magic (especially spells in particular) and non-magic can meet in the middle. With "dissociation," it really does come across as merely a restatement of "realism for thee but not for me," just by way of forking "realism" into two parts, "association" and unspoken implicit assumptions of IRL intuition.

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

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.

Wow. I had no idea that he had gone this far. So much for even the thin veneer of consistency. Even "dissociation" isn't bad (despite the fact that he explicitly rejected the inclusion of any "dissociated" mechanics for the at-the-table play of something purporting to be a roleplaying game). It's bad "dissociation" that is bad, becoming an outright No True Scotsman fallacy, just of a negative rather than positive character. ("No role-playing game would have 'dissociated' mechanics!" "But...you said you like Numenera?" "No role-playing game would have bad 'dissociated' mechanics!")

Or, to more directly address his particular claims: he's saying "dissociated" mechanics are fine, so long as they're...the player and the GM negotiating with one another. Giving the individual player the power to exercise these things on a small scale, however, is apparently absolutely verboten. Because the former is somehow okay and 100% playing a role, while the latter is somehow not okay and absolutely antithetical to playing a role. Because the former "serves a useful function," but the latter doesn't....according to him. It's just blatantly ad-hoc and "rules for thee but not for me."

Yeah, at this point, I'm afraid I can't take the "dissociated" mechanics argument even remotely seriously. Referencing it requires so much rejection of the way its creator actually used it, you (generic) may as well go for something else, you'll save yourself the bother.

 

[Mordhau]

The test of whether you can separate a descriptive term from a value judgement is whether you can use descriptive term without making a value judgement. You can.

I don’t know why people over complicate things.

 

[Oofta]

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.

If you were playing an RPG set in modern times would you have any more detail than D&D for mundane activities? How often does any fiction go into that kind of detail of how people acquire the stuff they own, no matter the genre or style? That's I why think it's just such an odd assertion that elves having stuff doesn't make any sense. Not going into details about mundane activities doesn't mean those mundane activities don't exist.

Practically all fiction, RPG or not, is superficial and "not realistic" by your standards. I don't see the point, the stories we tell only focus on things that matter. That's all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The test of whether you can separate a descriptive term from a value judgement is whether you can use descriptive term without making a value judgement. You can.

I don’t know why people over complicate things.

You're saying that you can make the call if something is a dissociated mechanic without the judgement call? Sure, but we don't see that with the use of the term. We instead see things like the quote from the Alexandrian above where some dissociated mechanics are excused because they are valued. We see the responses to my pointing out dissociated mechanics in D&D disclaiming that these even matter. The term 'dissociated mechanic' may indeed be a descriptive term, but it's almost never used absent value judgements. I wouldn't use it because it's not useful absent the value judgement -- so many things are dissociated by the provided definitions that it's not doing useful work. It's only when paired with the value judgement that "dissociated mechanics" does work, and that's because of the value judgement.

 

[pemerton]

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

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.

This was present in the original essay, which defended the "dissociated" mechanics of Wushu on the basis that they are good; whereas the 4e ones are bad.

 

[pemerton]

Wow. I had no idea that he had gone this far. So much for even the thin veneer of consistency.

See my reply to @Aldarc just upthread.

Even "dissociation" isn't bad (despite the fact that he explicitly rejected the inclusion of any "dissociated" mechanics for the at-the-table play of something purporting to be a roleplaying game).

I think your parentheses are not a fair account of his position. He does assert that "dissociated" mechanics are inimical to roleplaying in the moment of their use. Now I think that claim is false, as per my re-posting upthread of my example from the old (2011) thread; and I can give plenty of other examples too if anyone wants them. But the Alexandrian never said that a game ceases to be a RPG just because it is not roleplaying at every moment.

Yeah, at this point, I'm afraid I can't take the "dissociated" mechanics argument even remotely seriously.

Welcome to where some of us landed 10+ years ago! The notion of "dissociation" adds nothing to the concept of metagame mechanics, and fortune-in-the-middle, except a pejorative tone and a whole lot of obfuscation.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Maybe I'm missing something; the thread is a bit hard to follow.

I think it's very strange to suggest that because the economic relationships of Bree and Rivendell are not described in detail by the narrative that it means the world is unrealistic. The books never describe the existence of latrines, either. Should we assume that the hobbits spent six months trekking across middle earth, sometimes eating upwards of six meals a day, and never once evacuated their bowels? Is that the real reason Frodo had to depart across the western sea? To find an outhouse? That would certainly explain his miserable state!

Aren't historic and biographical works as unrealistic for similar reasons? Should we move The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or The Diaries of Anne Frank to historical fiction because they lack this universal contextualization and detail?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See my reply to @Aldarc just upthread.

The difference, for me, is that he's going up to bat for them in the Numenera intrusion example, championing them as truly excellent, one of the best advances in game design of the decade, etc. It's one thing to say "it's okay in some other game," it's quite another to be an evangelist for them.

I think your parentheses are not a fair account of his position. He does assert that "dissociated" mechanics are inimical to roleplaying in the moment of their use. Now I think that claim is false, as per my re-posting upthread of my example from the old (2011) thread; and I can give plenty of other examples too if anyone wants them. But the Alexandrian never said that a game ceases to be a RPG just because it is not roleplaying at every moment.

He said (all emphasis in original):

Let me try to make this distinction clear: When we say “roleplaying game”, do we just mean “a game where roleplaying can happen”? If so, then I think the term “roleplaying game” becomes so ridiculously broad that it loses all meaning. (Since it includes everything from Monopoly to Super Mario Brothers.)

Rather, I think the term “roleplaying game” only becomes meaningful when there is a direct connection between the game and the roleplaying. When roleplaying is the game.

It’s very tempting to see all of this in a purely negative light: As if to say, “Dissociated mechanics get in the way of roleplaying and associated mechanics don’t.” But it’s actually more meaningful than that: The act of using an associated mechanic is the act of playing a role.

He's very clearly saying that having "dissociated" mechanics pulls something away from being an RPG. The less "associated" the mechanics are, the less "roleplaying is the game." He very specifically, above this quote, uses an actual board game as an example of something with "dissociated" mechanics, in order to demonstrate that mechanical "dissociation" is what makes that game not an RPG, just a game where people happen to be able to play a role. (Specifically, contrasting Call of Cthulhu as a so-called actual RPG while Arkham Horror is a board game "right on the cusp" of being a roleplaying game, and saying, paraphrased, "You wouldn't call Monopoly an RPG just because you can roleplay while playing it, right? So games that have RP in them but aren't 'game = RP' don't count as RPGs.")

He does, later, make a band-aid statement: "Does this mean that dissociated mechanics simply have no place in a roleplaying game? Not exactly." But he then ruins any possible coverage that might offer by explaining that that "not exactly" refers to either (a) mechanics that aren't actually part of "play" proper (like character creation)...or by saying that games that do that could be storytelling games, and thus not roleplaying at all. In other words, yeah, he's still saying that these mechanics are at least among the things that separate roleplaying games from other kinds of games. And then he went on to stand on a soapbox for a dramatically more "dissociated" mechanic, being completely unrestrained in his effusive praise thereof.

Welcome to where some of us landed 10+ years ago! The notion of "dissociation" adds nothing to the concept of metagame mechanics, and fortune-in-the-middle, except a pejorative tone and a whole lot of obfuscation.

I mean, I didn't think it was much of an argument either way, but there was at least the teeniest, tiniest space where I could take seriously that relatively ordinary folks (that is, the large group unfamiliar with terms like "fortune-in-the-middle") could have found something useful in it. But now anyone taking it seriously has to grapple with the blatantly biased nature of the underlying argument. The original article gets highlighted because "dissociated" mechanics in-play-itself are presented as inherently bad for roleplaying. Its true colors are revealed when he shows that no, some "dissociated" mechanics in-play-itself are actually amazing for roleplaying, it's only bad "dissociated" mechanics in-play-itself that aren't okay. And of course 4e's kind are bad...and it's always the martial ones that are bad.

 

[Lyxen]

This was present in the original essay, which defended the "dissociated" mechanics of Wushu on the basis that they are good; whereas the 4e ones are bad.

Honestly, this is clearly the problem in all the discussions, people jump on the fact that rulesets have to be good or bad, when in fact they are purely subjective and a matter of taste.

For me, 4e mechanics are not good or bad, they are extremely appropriate to certain styles of play, and less so to others, whether you like them or not depends on your taste in particular in terms of playstyle. And is it appropriate to criticise people for their tastes ?

And if I may, on this topic, both you and @EzekielRaiden are hardcore fans of 4e and honestly a bit oversensitive on the topics above, ready to jump down anyone's throat just for voicing his opinion of 4e when it seems negative to you. Yes, I know, all these negative opinions are unjustified as 4e is the best game to have been published ever, and people are stupid for not understanding that, but as long as you cling to that attitude, no discussion is possible. Some people, however mistaken, happen to have other opinions, and as long as you don't respect that, it's really hard to have discussions with you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think your parentheses are not a fair account of his position. He does assert that "dissociated" mechanics are inimical to roleplaying in the moment of their use. Now I think that claim is false, as per my re-posting upthread of my example from the old (2011) thread; and I can give plenty of other examples too if anyone wants them. But the Alexandrian never said that a game ceases to be a RPG just because it is not roleplaying at every moment.

That seems like a roundabout way to object anything but IC posture (in the old RGFA usage) but accepting that there may be practical need for Author or Director stance under some circumstances. Which, okay I guess, but seems to be at best an extremely idealistic approach mixed with some degree of projection on other people's needs when gaming.