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

[Micah Sweet]

D&D, in general, doesn't care about it. Gary Gygax wasn't too fond of realism or the appeals thereof for game rules, to put it mildly, and he thought that people who wanted realism out of D&D should look elsewhere for their gaming needs. That's probably even more so true now.

I kinda get the impression that you are trying to turn D&D into a game that it is not and never was rather than reading about the sort of game that D&D 5e is trying to be.

I don't particularly like what 5e is trying to be. I know you know that. But it is the lingua franca of the community, so I have to address it. I look for ways to make changes so it is more realistic. Level Up helps with that, and I also homebrew, but giving up on it entirely is not an option if I want to play.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Certainly this seems like a gap that would be difficult to bridge.

The piece I'm relentlessly confused by is how James Bond, John Wick, Robin Hood, and John McClane are viewed as "appropriate D&D archetypes" while superhero media is a "separate but related genre"

What lense do we have to watch Die Hard through to analogize to a fantasy hero engaging in direct melee combat with giant mystical beasts?

This. I feel like this problem is 2 dimensional. Consider any character in fiction or reality that might be compared with a D&D character for any reason. You will have two axes: What level in D&D is this character, and what "power level" is this character in general?

Consider someone like Indiana Jones. He's clearly of very low power level, but he's also of clearly low character level.

Yet there are people arguing that characters with a low power level system should fit into the entire level span of D&D of levels 1-20. This seems absolutely impossible to me.

 

[Oofta]

So, do we all get that the line between exactly what non-realistic things we will accept, and what we won't, is a matter or personal preference, and broadly could be treated as arbitrary?

You are okay with a mundane person taking on a physically impossible giant, but not okay with a guy in a bar fight goading a bunch of folks to bum rush him? Fine.

I am okay with that mundane person doing both those things. Also fine. I'm good with different people having different desires.

One game consistently supporting both of us with the exact same rules? That's the thing that's not a realistic expectation.

Goading people into a bar fight can still happen in my game. It's just not going to be something that happens under any situation.

But this really comes down to what genre D&D is trying to emulate and what people want out of it. D&D became it's own fictional niche a long time ago and part of that niche includes people that cast spells of one sort or another and people that don't. While all characters in D&D can affect the world around them by what they say, the base D&D fighter can only affect the world around them by their actions. They may be able to kill a dragon with a sword, but they are still physically swinging that sword.

Which is all to say that I agree that no game can be everything for everyone. Fortunately there are plenty of games out there that do a better job of emulating different genres. I'm just expressing my preference that fighters stay fighters without powers that are spells in everything but the label.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This. I feel like this problem is 2 dimensional. Consider any character in fiction or reality that might be compared with a D&D character for any reason. You will have two axes: What level in D&D is this character, and what "power level" is this character in general?

Consider someone like Indiana Jones. He's clearly of very low power level, but he's also of clearly low character level.

Yet there are people arguing that characters with a low power level system should fit into the entire level span of D&D of levels 1-20. This seems absolutely impossible to me.

Right. I think it is fine for characters to be just a "badass mundane" to about level ten, but beyond that it makes more sense to accept that we're in the realm of mythic heroes.

 

[M_Natas]

So, because I hurt my shoulder and am in pain I read the whole thread as a distraction and it worked ... because greater pain can overshadow weaker pain.

Boy, does this discussion goes in circles.

First - Supernatural Fighters.

So - are fighters in D&D supernatural? If you compare them to earth humans - yes. Also James Bond John McLane, Hawkeye and Co are supernatural in that regard.
That comes with the territory (Action Genre).

Why are "mudane" D&D fighters tough term then their earthly counterparts?

Because it is a game and without them being tougher the game would be quickly over.
In like 99% of all Action Games the characters, be it PCs or NPCs, need to be tougher in order to have a satisfactory game experience.
Counter Strike (or Fornite for the younglings) would be boring if you die (or get incapacitated) by one bullet hit.
The same with D&D - if my character would be real, it would have 1 maybe 4 HP max and never get more. The game would be over after the first giant rat.

The same with Action movies. If John McClane or Conan only could withstand what a normal real human could withstand, it would be over after the first encounter.

It is a concession to the Action Genre. You need tough characters or their would be barley any action in it.

And D&D is an action RPG.
In a physical sense Call of Cthulhu Characters are more realistic. They will not win a fight against a Lion ever with their bare hands. But Call of Cthulhu doesn't have 80% combat rules.

Second - Taunt ability and suspension of disbelief

So, now we know, why fictional Fighters in the Action Genre are tougher (supernatural tougher) than normal humans. Its needed in order to function as intended.
So, what about other unrealistic stuff? In D&D we have Magic, Monsters and so on. That is also needed or it wouldn't be a western fantasy rpg.Thats fine, too.

But for any Fantasy/unrealistic thing to work, we need realism in other places. How much is Genre dependent.
If their would be suddenly Aliens in Die Hard, John Wick (or Indiana Jones!) people would hate it. If John McClane could at will breath fire or Taunt all people always into attacking him, it would kill them story. It would break the suspension of disbelief for a lot of people.

So D&D, Action Movies and so on are unrealistic where it is need to be in order to function. But they need to be realistic where they can. Like in social interactions in D&D. They ground the game a little bit more in reality. They make the world feel alive (when done correctly).
If you make anything, every aspect, unrealistic, the game or the movie would be unrelatable.
Thats why a lot of people here hate the Taunt ability. It sucks, because it causes (NonPlayer)-Characters in the game to behave unrealistically in comparison to real world people. Which breaks their suspension of disbelief. Suddenly they are not inside the game world anymore. Suddenly they are at the game table and John used a homebrew character ability that wouldn't survive any playtest.

So you always need a degree of realism in your story. And "human" behaviour is the most important thing.
People can accept Magic, Dragons, Tough guys, but if a person doesn't behave like a real person in that unrealistic situation would, it breaks most people's suspension of disbelief.

That's why the Taunt ability is bad.

For other realistic or unrealistic stuff (outside of "human" behaviour) it depends on the individual how much realism they need to stay grounded.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So what can wizards do in that hypothetical? It seems all 3+ spells would be off limit, as would certain level 1-2 spells and certain cantrips.

At that point, why not just play levels 1-3 and buff the monsters.

Magic goes beyond the mundane, by definition. Put some restrictions on how and when you can cast, nerf a few spells (just a few), combine that with fighters actually being able to make a lot of attacks and kill a lot of stuff quickly (a cleave mechanic and a reduction in hit points across the board would help), and a rough balance and a rough grounding could be achieved.

 

[Azzy]

Doesn't make my point any less true. Popularity and value are not connected in any way beyond money.

The point was refuting your assumption that the edge cases are not edge cases because not everyone plays as casual as me. Yours was the initial Ad Populum.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Side note..if I recall correctly, John McLane literally taunts people into fighting him.

 

[mamba]

The piece I'm relentlessly confused by is how James Bond, John Wick, Robin Hood, and John McClane are viewed as "appropriate D&D archetypes" while superhero media is a "separate but related genre"

What lense do we have to watch Die Hard through to envision a fantasy hero engaging in direct melee combat with giant mystical beasts?

it’s not about what they fight, it is about what they are capable of during the fight.

If you do not see a difference between James Bond and Ironman there…

 

[Minigiant]

Again it all comes down to people liking things that are bad gameplay.

An ordinary human cannot slay nor survive a combat with an adult D&D dragon armed and armored with steel.

"Are DMs forced to give him magic items?"
"No"
"Are DMs forced to give him supernatural mounts?"
"No"
"Are DMs forced to make him supernatural?"
"No."
"Are DMs forced to include some way to fill that gap?"
"No."
"Then your desires won't make good gameplay"


"A wizard with 1 spell, 2 HP, and 3 companions is bad game design if you assume 6 or more encounters."

There are bunch of semipopular D&D opinions which without other adjustments make for bad gameplay. Never keeps them from cropping up year after year.