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

[Lanefan]

The answer to the italicised, as far as Middle Earth is concerned, is a clear "no". The Hobbits live like they're at the centre of world production (ie 19th century England)

Not quite.

At best they live like they're on the periphery of the centre of world production - West Country farmers in 19th (or earlier) century England, to whom the industrial revolution hasn't really made much if any difference yet. Tolkein even plays with this at the end* by having Saruman in effect bring the industrial revolution with him into the Shire, and that doesn't go very well for anyone.

* - for those whose only LotR exposure is the movies, this bit was left out. You'll just have to read the books.

 

[Lanefan]

The arguments about disassociated mechanics and "realism" (ugh) are attempts by people that found 4e unenjoyable to analyze why they found it unenjoyable by looking at the grammar of the game. Now, they might not be correct, but it is unlikely that anyone who likes 4e would understand it ... because they disagree with the basic premise that 4e's grammar is unenjoyable.

Why does 4e (as opposed to any other edition) have to have anything to do with this?

Realism vs dissociation (and-or its just-as-bad twin brother, gamism) is a debate that far predates 4e. The only thing the 4e era gave us is a term "dissociated mechanics" for something that had been bugging us all along ("gamism" was the 3e era's similar contribution). The debate itself is edition-agnostic.

Dragging 4e into it just makes the debate another front in the edition war as people start viewing the question only through the lens of how their favourite edition handles it, rather than what's better for the game regardless of specific edition or version.

 

[Lanefan]

Regarding the second part of the OP's title, "Is D&D supposed to be realistic", there are these quotes from the AD&D 1e rulebooks that give good indication of the game's intent at its inception:





Which still holds for me today, and as such I would answer the "Is D&D supposed to be realistic?" question... especially the "supposed" part of it, with a No. D&D is supposed to be D&D, full of adventure in a fantasy world. I have my preferences, and areas where I will bump*, but I keep in mind that intent.


* As a martial artist, how staffs and spears are handled (kinda literally) is a hook for me .

Indeed; and some of us have been wilfully ignoring those bits of advice for a great many years now - as in, pretty much since we first read them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, so we're back to gamism being the debbil now, too? Why should I be surprised.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why does 4e (as opposed to any other edition) have to have anything to do with this?

Because people were discussing the term dissociated mechanics. That term grew out of a specific context. That's why.

Realism vs dissociation (and-or its just-as-bad twin brother, gamism) is a debate that far predates 4e. The only thing the 4e era gave us is a term "dissociated mechanics" for something that had been bugging us all along ("gamism" was the 3e era's similar contribution). The debate itself is edition-agnostic.

"Gamism" and "dissociated mechanics" is similar, but not the same.

Dragging 4e into it just makes the debate another front in the edition war as people start viewing the question only through the lens of how their favourite edition handles it, rather than what's better for the game regardless of specific edition or version.

The roundup essay at Alexandrian (the short, 2012 essay) tries to make the term edition- and game-agnostic; I don't think it entirely succeeds. The primary issue is the section What is a Roleplaying Game. That's where we see the usual, "I'm a neutral arbitrator, but if you don't play it my way, you're not really playing an RPG. I mean, sure, you can have your fun, but that's not real fun" maneuver.

I feel like someone else has done academic research on this ...

...{I}t picks up one of a few perennial debates: realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice; gender, ethnicity, and sex; and finally, the subject matter of the post, player and system typologies – what people enjoy about playing RPGs, how different people may have different preferences or styles, and how game design may accommodate that. The post responds dismissively to one of the most influential typologies, the Threefold Model, trying to focus the discussion on what “really” matters – player emotion – while also trying to claim a middle ground: “The thing is, different people’s emotional responses to different gaming techniques differ.”

This move – third – can be found again and again: “Making different kinds of games to support different kinds of play and different kinds of people shouldn’t de-legitimize the kinds of play that already exist” “People can often enjoy many different types of games. And if someone starts playing these ‘wrong’ games, they probably are getting something they missed elsewhere” Each time, a new piece of theory wishes to end fruitless debate and provide a big ecumenical tent of tolerance, yet by contributing a new piece that disagrees with previous ones, it does the opposite: continue the debate. While Henley’s blog post overtly makes light of the self-seriousness of RPG theory, it also tries to make its own theory stick. We see here at work some motives for RPG theorizing we identified: the joy of intellectual argument (and connecting over it); the desire to help design and play ‘better’ (implying particular normative ideas about what ‘good’ means); and the jockeying for social status and recognition within one’s community.

Finally, fourth, we see the almost-eternal return of debates and points made previously (Henley’s appeals to affect theory are far from new), due to the ephemeral nature and fragmented structure of RPG theorizing. As Bourdieu put it: “To account for the infinite diversity of practices{, one has} to reconstruct the networks of interrelated relationship which are present in each”. In this respect, valiant attempts to capture its history can only scratch the surface. Cultural sociology may prove just as helpful. Future research on RPG theorizing will likely reveal just how rhizomatic our processes and means of thought and communication actually are.

Evan Torner (2018). Same as it ever was.


ETA- that said, I do think that the discussion of dissociated mechanics, at least in the 2012 essay, is a good and reasonably clear attempt to understand and explain the rules-grammar hangup that some people had.

 

[Lanefan]

Because people were discussing the term dissociated mechanics. That term grew out of a specific context. That's why.

That the term came from a specific context doesn't diminish its universal appliciability.

Keep the term. Drop the context of its origin.

"Gamism" and "dissociated mechanics" is similar, but not the same.

OK, so one is a symptom of the other. It's still the same issue, notwithstanding.

The roundup essay at Alexandrian (the short, 2012 essay) tries to make the term edition- and game-agnostic; I don't think it entirely succeeds. The primary issue is the section What is a Roleplaying Game. That's where we see the usual, "I'm a neutral arbitrator, but if you don't play it my way, you're not really playing an RPG. I mean, sure, you can have your fun, but that's not real fun" maneuver.

I feel like someone else has done academic research on this ...

...{I}t picks up one of a few perennial debates: realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice; gender, ethnicity, and sex; and finally, the subject matter of the post, player and system typologies – what people enjoy about playing RPGs, how different people may have different preferences or styles, and how game design may accommodate that. The post responds dismissively to one of the most influential typologies, the Threefold Model, trying to focus the discussion on what “really” matters – player emotion – while also trying to claim a middle ground: “The thing is, different people’s emotional responses to different gaming techniques differ.”

This move – third – can be found again and again: “Making different kinds of games to support different kinds of play and different kinds of people shouldn’t de-legitimize the kinds of play that already exist” “People can often enjoy many different types of games. And if someone starts playing these ‘wrong’ games, they probably are getting something they missed elsewhere” Each time, a new piece of theory wishes to end fruitless debate and provide a big ecumenical tent of tolerance, yet by contributing a new piece that disagrees with previous ones, it does the opposite: continue the debate. While Henley’s blog post overtly makes light of the self-seriousness of RPG theory, it also tries to make its own theory stick. We see here at work some motives for RPG theorizing we identified: the joy of intellectual argument (and connecting over it); the desire to help design and play ‘better’ (implying particular normative ideas about what ‘good’ means); and the jockeying for social status and recognition within one’s community.

Finally, fourth, we see the almost-eternal return of debates and points made previously (Henley’s appeals to affect theory are far from new), due to the ephemeral nature and fragmented structure of RPG theorizing. As Bourdieu put it: “To account for the infinite diversity of practices{, one has} to reconstruct the networks of interrelated relationship which are present in each”. In this respect, valiant attempts to capture its history can only scratch the surface. Cultural sociology may prove just as helpful. Future research on RPG theorizing will likely reveal just how rhizomatic our processes and means of thought and communication actually are.

Evan Torner (2018). Same as it ever was.

This takes it all far too seriously for my tastes.

All I'm after is a game designed to support a sense of consistent in-setting reality. That such in-setting reality must in many ways be based on and mirror our own is due to sheer practicality, as without such the game designers would first have to reinvent the sciences from the ground up and then - the hard part! - explain them in ways people could understand.

 

[Mordhau]

It would be interesting to see someone ask Justin Alexander how he feels about the 2d20 system with it's very dissociated mechanics for momentum and threat, given that he worked on Infinity which uses that system.

(I like the 2d20 system overall, although it is very dependent on having players who are able to get into the right groove in regard to currency use).

 

[Thomas Shey]

It would be interesting to see someone ask Justin Alexander how he feels about the 2d20 with it's very dissociated mechanics for momentum and threat, given that he worked on Infinity which uses that system.

(I like the 2d20 system overall, although it is very dependent on having players who are able to get into the right groove in regard to currency use).

2D20 is very much an Author oriented system in how its set up; not only Momentum but the way a lot (traits? Its been a little while since I looked at STA or Fallout so I can't remember the term) are set up.

 

[Mordhau]

2D20 is very much an Author oriented system in how its set up; not only Momentum but the way a lot (traits? Its been a little while since I looked at STA or Fallout so I can't remember the term) are set up.

It varies a lot depending on the particular game. Conan and Infiinity are more like a traditional game in respects other than the metacurrency whereas Dune borrows a lot from Fate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It varies a lot depending on the particular game. Conan and Infiinity are more like a traditional game in respects other than the metacurrency whereas Dune borrows a lot from Fate.

Well, yeah, the Modiphus games do have a considerable variance in a number of ways, but as you note, they all use Momentum.