D&D General The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")

[Tony Vargas]

Which gets back into the issue of terminology, as defining "balance" has itself been the subject of many posts, threads, books, blogs, videos, podcasts, and virtually every other form of media. And yet we still can't settle on a consensus definition, let alone agree as to its implementation.

The most reasonable and useful, but still concise, definition of balance I've encountered so far is along the lines of a game is better balanced the more it maximizes the number of player facing choices that are both meaningful, and viable.

 

[Alzrius]

The most reasonable and useful, but still concise, definition of balance I've encountered so far is that a game is better balanced the more it maximizes the number of player facing choices that are both meaningful, and viable.

The problem being that this kicks the can down the road, with regard to defining "meaningful" and "viable."

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem being that this kicks the can down the road, with regard to defining "meaningful" and "viable."

I mean, you could keep asking to define words in a definition indefinitely...

Meaningful obviously sounds like a subjective element. A choice might seem meaningful to one player, but not to another. It's perhaps less important in designing a balanced system.

Viability is more straightforward. Does making the choice harm your fellow players' chances of succeeding in the cooperative game? Is it less-contributing than an equally-weighted alternative?

 

[Cadence]

Edit: Didn't see mod note above.

Indeed, that's the only reason realism, verisimilitude, dissociated mechanics, or immersion are ever brought up, to deny a player character that isn't defined as having supernatural powers an equal place in the game.

It is regularly brought up about lots of things - carrying capacity, hit points, fireball not burning papers being held ..

If the real issue is verisimilitude, then creating the reality-conforming classes, and arbitrarily limiting the casters down to their level should be fine. It never has been. Not once in any discussion I've ever seen. At most, we might get a nostalgic suggestion of restoring old-school limits on casting - forgetting how often they were ignored back in the day, anyway, because they just were never fun for anyone.

It's been brought up by a large number of people in this and the related threads recently.

 

[Oofta]

Which gets back into the issue of terminology, as defining "balance" has itself been the subject of many posts, threads, books, blogs, videos, podcasts, and virtually every other form of media. And yet we still can't settle on a consensus definition, let alone agree as to its implementation.

When it comes to how different characters work, I don't even really care about "balance". Far too often it's white room analysis with minimal difference in actual play. I can feel like I'm contributing to the game even if it's helping the wizard figure out how to best use their available spell or if the sneaky rogue is going to try to slip into the guard tower as part of a plan. Having different people contribute in different ways is part of the fun of the game.

More importantly, I care about whether the character fits my vision of the genre I'm trying to emulate and whether I have fun playing the character. Maybe that does mean that my character has disadvantages in some ways, if it does then I feel challenged to overcome those obstacles using alternative means.

Which goes back to my thoughts on whether the abilities represented "fit" the broad concepts. Those concepts are pretty broad when it comes to world creation. Some worlds tweak the default pseudo-medieval with magic and dragons core assumptions of D&D, and that's okay as long as they state it up front. But I still want the basic core concepts included. Which includes, for example, that a monk can't run a circle around the BBEG fast enough to create a tornado.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem being that this kicks the can down the road, with regard to defining "meaningful" and "viable."

Personally, I would think those are pretty straightforward.

Meaningful choice: 2+ distinct options, each altering the state of play enough to require re-evaluation of the state of play after seeing the results.
Viable: Every choice has at least one option, preferably more, which has a reasonable and context-appropriate chance of success, alongside reasonable and context-appropriate costs where applicable.

Reasonableness and context-appropriateness must always be worked out by actual people at actual tables discussing an actual state of play. There is not and cannot be an abstract idealized definition of "reasonable" nor "context-appropriate" because they are, of their very nature, dependent on the specific details of each situation.

 

[Pedantic]

Were we to honestly consider how readily magic - lacking any yardstick for realism - could be balanced to, or below, 'realistic'/verisimilitudinous/associated/whatever takes on non-casters, we'd find that it should be a non-issue. Classes could be balanced in spite of demanding verisimilitude, but they aren't. If class imbalances were just, y'know, techncial errors, then you'd expect they'd be all over the map, not very consistently generating a 'gap' between martials and casters.

If the real issue is verisimilitude, then creating the reality-conforming classes, and arbitrarily limiting the casters down to their level should be fine. It never has been. Not once in any discussion I've ever seen. At most, we might get a nostalgic suggestion of restoring old-school limits on casting - forgetting how often they were ignored back in the day, anyway, because they just were never fun for anyone.

I made something of a career out of disagreeing with this point in the past, though I've softened somewhat. Generally speaking, I think it's impractical to put supernatural and "natural" archetypes next to each other and expect them to remain on the same playing field, if you're going to address the aesthetic concerns that natural archetypes raise. The standard response is just to not do that, which clearly doesn't work for all consumers of the product, or we wouldn't be having these discussions.

Magic is definitionally better than non-magic in some significant way. Either action at a distance, action with less effort, action with a deferred cost, impossible action, etc. That capability then exists on top of mundane capability, because it is a quite reasonable assumption that having access to extra-normal capabilities doesn't affect your ability to solve problems conventionally.

The only way I think it's actually viable is to sufficiently quantify mundane actions such that you can actually limit them when you hand out magical utility. Pulley+mage hand is always better than pulley alone, thus access to mage hand must somehow prevent you from using a pulley.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magic is definitionally better than non-magic in some significant way

Why?

Why not magic is definitionally inferior to non-magic, because magic doesn't exist? Not existing is a big hit in usefulness.

If you grant magic existence in fiction, you can impose any restrictions or limitations you want on it's power or use.

Either action at a distance, action with less effort, action with a deferred cost, impossible action, etc.

Magic could levitate feathers and light matches at a range of 1' and it would be supernatural and definitionally magic - action at a distance.

Why less effort? Magic could easily require more effort. Long rituals, material outlays, years of study, intense concentration, years of supernatural aging.

Impossible actions needn't be powerful actions. Hatching an adult hummingbird from a hen's egg is impossible, it's not particularly powerful.

 

[Pedantic]

Magic could levitate feathers and light matches at a range of 1' and it would be supernatural and definitionally magic - action at a distance.

Yes. That's strictly superior to lifting objects by hand and has utility, expanding your available problem solving options. Magic must expand on mundane utility to be magic. That's precisely my point.

Why less effort? Magic could easily require more effort. Long rituals, material outlays, years of study, intense concentration, years of supernatural aging.

To be clear that was a list of ways in which magic could exceed mundane utility, not a list of requirements.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. That's strictly superior to lifting objects by hand and has utility, expanding your available problem solving options. Magic must expand on mundane utility to be magic. That's precisely my point.

If your arms are less than 1' long and you don't have tongs. :|

Magic can be overtly supernatural and absolutely magic, but useless.