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

[pemerton]

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.

I was talking about a set of books - LotR - and not a RPG. A book set in modern times will normally posit that people have the material wellbeing, leisure time etc that is typical for someone of their place and class.

A modern RPG where (for instance) PCs live in nice houses and have comfortable incomes though they don't seem to engage in any productive activity would be one which isn't realistic. That may not matter.

In Classic Traveller, it's all rather obscure how the economy works. I can say from experience that that doesn't matter.

Practically all fiction, RPG or not, is superficial and "not realistic" by your standards.

I didn't say that LotR is superficial. It's more profound than any FRPGing I've experienced. I said that its treatment of economics, social structures, human geography and the like is not realistic beyond a superficial veneer.

 

[pemerton]

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.

That's a contentious claim. For instance, it may be that the only epistemic avenue you have to the thing you're judging is your affective response to it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not saying they're not described. I'm saying they are described, and what is described is unrealistic.

We are told how far apart the Shire, Bree, and Rivendell are. We're given a general impression of the geography in which they are located. We're given a general impression of their material standards of living. And in the case of Rivendell, we're given a general sense of how the Elves spend their time.

And the combination of those things were are told is unrealistic. The amount of use and consumption is unrealistic relative to the amount of production.

 

[Maxperson]

They roughly know badly the ogres previous hits have hurt them and can surmise that it is likely that they could still take couple of more. Of course the dice are random, and there are criticals etc, so it is unlikely that the the player could asses such things with 100% confidence. (Average damage of a stock ogre is 13 per hit, but the max is 36. There's a lot of variance.)

Not really. Let's say the PC has 60 hit points and the ogre hit him for 14 damage. He can't surmise that he can take about 3 more hits. Why? Because he really didn't get hit or if he did, it was a glancing blow. An ogre is 10 feet tall and is a muscular half ton in weight. It swings a small tree fashioned into a spiked club. If that ogre had hit the PC solidly, the PC would be crippled or dead. The PC knows that glancing blow hurt, but for all the PC knows the next hit could be a solid strike, killing him.

 

[pemerton]

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.

It's also empirically utterly implausible, for at least two reasons:

(1) There are known cases where so-called "dissociated" mechanics cohabit with, and even support, playing in character. I (re)posted an example upthread, and have more I can give if anyone is interested.

(2) Declaring actions on the basis of out-of-character knowledge is fundamental to some pretty standard ways of RPGing, including ones that the Alexandrian seems to be comfortable with, as per this thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And if I may, on this topic…

Mod Note:

No, you may not. What followed made it personal; making it personal creates problems.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

I'm pretty sure a lot of annoyance comes from people not just voicing opinions and preferences and leaving it at that, but frequently coming up with these kind of Alexanadrian psuedo-science arguments to 'prove' that 4e is not an rpg, has nonsensical mechanics, etc.

I'm not a 4e is the best person, but I get pretty annoyed by the amount of this whenever 4e comes up on threads.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Eh, I could easily see that distinction being as simple as, "A dissociated mechanic isn't inherently flawed, but it may be a more questionable design. If it doesn't fit within the game world, and doesn't follow or reinforce the themes or genres the game or setting itself is attempting to express, then the mechanic's implementation is more questionable. It may break suspension of disbelief rather than reinforcing the narrative or encouraging role-play. You should examine the purpose the mechanic serves, and if there may not be better alternatives."

That is, it's not a red flag, but it could be a yellow one.

I do think it's a pretty common question about, "Hey, how come a battle master can only attempt to disarm four times without taking a nap?" Or even, "How come only the battle master can disarm four times when the rogue can sneak attack all day?" That doesn't make sense, and the real answer is: "Unlimited disarm would either be too good, nerfed into a waste of time, or de facto nerfed by everyone magically always having locked gauntlets and natural weapons. Limited disarm lets you be cool and powerful without the whole game turning into Disarming & Dropping." There could be a better mechanic for battle master, though. It might relate to how superiority dice are recovered, or disarm might have some other mechanic behind it.

Similarly, there's questions like, "How come Cure Wounds heals me completely at level 1, but not at level 10? Why does my stamina and ability to avoid damage make healing magic less effective?" That's a question that 4e solved with a better mechanic: healing surge value. There are others, though: "How come I can only long rest once a day?" "Why does a short rest take an hour?" "Why is my ability to fight the same at max hp as it is at 1 hp?" Most if not all of those questions have inspired other discussions or alternative rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Agreed. While dissociated mechanics are a thing, trying to attach “good” and “bad” labels becomes problematic.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not saying they're not described. I'm saying they are described, and what is described is unrealistic.

We are told how far apart the Shire, Bree, and Rivendell are. We're given a general impression of the geography in which they are located. We're given a general impression of their material standards of living. And in the case of Rivendell, we're given a general sense of how the Elves spend their time.

And the combination of those things were are told is unrealistic. The amount of use and consumption is unrealistic relative to the amount of production.

How do you have any clue what is being produced where? We don't know the population of Rivendell, but it's not a large city and many estimates put it at a few hundred at most, a quick google search marks it at 100 or fewer. As far as we know elves crap silver* and import all of their goods. It's also not hard to believe that elves have some magic that help sustain them. But we are not given a general idea of how elves spend their time, we're given a general idea of how a handful of elves spend their time.

As far as the hobbits, they're small agrarian towns similar to those that have always existed about a day apart.

*More seriously, craft highly sought after goods that are worth a small fortune to outside traders or any other number of ways of sustaining themselves.