D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[MuhVerisimilitude]

More like rejecting elements and consideration on the ground of them being gamey or 'gamelike' or otherwise 'being a game' and leaving it at that as if it were a reason for rejection in and of itself without elaboration, implying a disapproval of the game being treated as a game.

Yes. Let's create an example ability:

F-Word Around And Find Out: As an action you toss out an insult to all nearby enemies within 30 feet. They must all roll wisdom saves. If they fail, they must spend their reaction to move their move speed up to you. You then get a free attack action.

There are several approaches to critique this: First approach is it is overpowered. Yes possibly. This is legitimate. I approve of it.

The second criticism is that it's not realistic. Someone might say that is not realistic, but it IS realistic. They have to roll a will save or if they fail they lose control and act irrationally. That's perfectly realistic within the context of the game itself even.

So we find ourselves at the third piece of criticism. It's too gameist. It's too much like a game ability. It brings to attention the fact that this is a game.

That last kind of criticism is, I believe, exactly what this thread is trying to discuss.

 

[Oofta]

Yes. Let's create an example ability:

F-Word Around And Find Out: As an action you toss out an insult to all nearby enemies within 30 feet. They must all roll wisdom saves. If they fail, they must spend their reaction to move their move speed up to you. You then get a free attack action.

There are several approaches to critique this: First approach is it is overpowered. Yes possibly. This is legitimate. I approve of it.

The second criticism is that it's not realistic. Someone might say that is not realistic, but it IS realistic. They have to roll a will save or if they fail they lose control and act irrationally. That's perfectly realistic within the context of the game itself even.

So we find ourselves at the third piece of criticism. It's too gameist. It's too much like a game ability. It brings to attention the fact that this is a game.

That last kind of criticism is, I believe, exactly what this thread is trying to discuss.

Except it's not "perfectly realistic" with no other assumptions because it's supernatural. There is no way I, as a normal mundane person, can do this. No one can. Being supernatural doesn't make it wrong, a lot of things in D&D are. It's only a problem if you describe it as something a person without supernatural abilities can accomplish.

 

[billd91]

Except it's not "perfectly realistic" with no other assumptions because it's supernatural. There is no way I, as a normal mundane person, can do this. No one can. Being supernatural doesn't make it wrong, a lot of things in D&D are. It's only a problem if you describe it as something a person without supernatural abilities can accomplish.

There's also no way I, as a normal mundane person, could stand up to a giant and survive. No one normal could. Yet we don't consider that supernatural in the way I think you're using it.
As long as an appropriate defense is being overcome and reasonable conditions met, I'm not that fussed with minor elements of control that would stem from non-magical goading or taunting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's also no way I, as a normal mundane person, could stand up to a giant and survive. No one normal could. Yet we don't consider that supernatural in the way I think you're using it.
As long as an appropriate defense is being overcome and reasonable conditions met, I'm not that fussed with minor elements of control that would stem from non-magical goading or taunting.

Well, your opinion on that particular issue at least is clearly not universal.

And again, one thing being unrealistic doesn't mean that nothing is or should be.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Except it's not "perfectly realistic" with no other assumptions because it's supernatural. There is no way I, as a normal mundane person, can do this. No one can. Being supernatural doesn't make it wrong, a lot of things in D&D are. It's only a problem if you describe it as something a person without supernatural abilities can accomplish.

I said it was realistic. I said nothing about it being supernatural.

While I disagree with what you are saying, I will concede for now and agree that it is supernatural (it really isn't, though). It is, nevertheless, realistic.

We can bring in another ability much like it and I feel most people will agree that it will the same three angles of "attack". Let's introduce this ability:

Rally The Troops: You shout a powerful battle cry that raises the morale of your allies within 30 feet. They can spend any number of hit dice and heal themselves that amount.

Again:
1: Is it overpowered? Possibly
2: It is realistic. Definitely.
3: Is it gameist?

 

[Cadence]

I said it was realistic. I said nothing about it being supernatural.

While I disagree with what you are saying, I will concede for now and agree that it is supernatural (it really isn't, though). It is, nevertheless, realistic.

We can bring in another ability much like it and I feel most people will agree that it will the same three angles of "attack". Let's introduce this ability:

Rally The Troops: You shout a powerful battle cry that raises the morale of your allies within 30 feet. They can spend any number of hit dice and heal themselves that amount.

Again:
1: Is it overpowered? Possibly
2: It is realistic. Definitely.
3: Is it gameist?

If only it said "restore those hitpoints" instead of "heal"...

 

[Vaalingrade]

I know it's not a new argument, but it never ceases to amaze me how people who insist on realism just flat out ignore our actual reality in favor of the ultra mundane where it is impossible to taunt groups of people.

But that's beyond the scope of this thread where others will feel it ruins their immersion that those people are moving in 5ft increments or there is a mechanical save for a mundane taunt.

 

[Oofta]

There's also no way I, as a normal mundane person, could stand up to a giant and survive. No one normal could. Yet we don't consider that supernatural in the way I think you're using it.
As long as an appropriate defense is being overcome and reasonable conditions met, I'm not that fussed with minor elements of control that would stem from non-magical goading or taunting.

A giant is still just flesh and bone. There are plenty of stories of people taking on bigger opponents with skill and perhaps unusually high strength. Conan never used explicitly supernatural powers.

Meanwhile taunting someone is not mind control and it makes no sense, especially if you don't share a language.

 

[Cadence]

A giant is still just flesh and bone. There are plenty of stories of people taking on bigger opponents with skill and perhaps unusually high strength. Conan never used explicitly supernatural powers.

Meanwhile taunting someone is not mind control and it makes no sense, especially if you don't share a language.

What if it said the language has to be one they understood and instead of auto attacking you it shifted something like morale x points towards doing so? (So the pope wouldn't attack you, but heaven help you if it's a bunch of __ soccer fans?).

 

[Oofta]

What if it said the language has to be one they understood and instead of auto attacking you it shifted something like morale x points towards doing so? (So the pope wouldn't attack you, but heaven help you if it's a bunch of __ soccer fans?).

I don't have a problem with some classes or subclasses having supernatural or magical abilities.

There are just times I want to play Conan, Fafhrd, the Gray Mouser, Gimli or Legolas. If my PC is based on one of those and incites someone to fight, I want it to make sense in the context of RP.