D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Maxperson]

I have admitted many times that that mirroring real life completely is not possible, so this isn't some great counterargument. I still strive to do so when I can manage it. In fact, I feel that minimizing those no-RL choices during play is more important than during character creation, so that's my focus. I also feel that the best place to practice this philosophy is through setting and the DM side of play, so again that's my focus.

Yep. Folks who want to poopoo on the realism go straight to "You can't mirror reality, so you might as well not try to simulate anything real." It's a poppycock argument.

I've never in my life seen anyone even want to or try to mirror reality, but I have seen many different level of realism in games. Realism is a spectrum and just because you can't mirror reality, doesn't mean that there isn't any value to simulating aspects of reality if that's what you enjoy out of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

"Historical berserkers" were people wearing bear shirts. Actual battle-rage does not have reliable historical attestation, and the closest thing we can get is, effectively, psyching yourself up with drugs before a battle. That's not at all the same thing.

My daughter went to a berserker school!? That explains some things.

 

[Hussar]

Well, yes. That's why you don't focus on that. You focus on the stark beauty of the frost fields at first, and then mention the dark clouds on the horizon. You deal with the storm, the intense cold that freezes exposed flesh, the stepping on snow that covers a hidden crevasse.

The drama doesn't come from calm situations, it comes from using foresight to equip for terrible situations and environments. And then using your preternatural abilities and sorcerous magic. Which had better last until the end of the storm. After everything calms down, you see the snowdrifts have moved, uncovering an uncharacteristic patch of green in the distance.

And then the dire penguins attack!

My point being the real world provides examples of adventure and drama far more than poking at things in a hole in the ground.

Which is kinda my point. The real world adventures feature very long, extended periods of boredom and tedium punctuated by very brief periods of terror and excitement.

Your point about the dire penguins is exactly on point. The dire penguins attack, not because of any real world inspiration, but, because we want an exciting game. And far too many DM's forget this. The real world isn't all that exciting most of the time. Yes, we're not writing a novel. I don't mean that. But, the processes for creating an entertaining story and creating an entertaining game are far more similar than different. And, agian, far too many DM's IME, ignore things like pacing and story beats and whatnot, and sacrifice all that on the altar of "realism" which, frankly, creates games that are mind numbingly frustrating and boring.

 

[pemerton]

Yep. Folks who want to poopoo on the realism go straight to "You can't mirror reality, so you might as well not try to simulate anything real." It's a poppycock argument.

I've never in my life seen anyone even want to or try to mirror reality, but I have seen many different level of realism in games. Realism is a spectrum and just because you can't mirror reality, doesn't mean that there isn't any value to simulating aspects of reality if that's what you enjoy out of the game.

I have GMed hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of Rolemaster. I'm familiar with RPGing that aspires to simulate reality. I would say that I'm much more familiar with such RPGing than those who have played only, or primarily, D&D and mechanically similar games.

But framing in RM depends upon departures from "realism" in the sort of ways that @EzekielRaiden and @Hussar have spoken about: for instance, there is a small group of people who keep being confronted with dramatic events and dramatic opportunities.

And while RM play spends more time on relative minutiae of life than typical D&D play does, it still doesn't normally get to the level of filing tax returns.

 

[pemerton]

Your point about the dire penguins is exactly on point. The dire penguins attack, not because of any real world inspiration, but, because we want an exciting game. And far too many DM's forget this. The real world isn't all that exciting most of the time. Yes, we're not writing a novel. I don't mean that. But, the processes for creating an entertaining story and creating an entertaining game are far more similar than different.

"Not writing a novel" tells us about the process of creating the shared fiction.

But not the content. There's no reason the content of a FRPG session can't be comparable in excitement to the content of a fantasy story or film.

 

[Maxperson]

I have GMed hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of Rolemaster. I'm familiar with RPGing that aspires to simulate reality. I would say that I'm much more familiar with such RPGing than those who have played only, or primarily, D&D and mechanically similar games.

But framing in RM depends upon departures from "realism" in the sort of ways that @EzekielRaiden and @Hussar have spoken about: for instance, there is a small group of people who keep being confronted with dramatic events and dramatic opportunities.

And while RM play spends more time on relative minutiae of life than typical D&D play does, it still doesn't normally get to the level of filing tax returns.

Realism is a spectrum, and not just one spectrum. There are a bunch of dials to turn. That it's not realistic for the group to keep being confronted by monsters, dramatic events and opportunities, has nothing to do with whether or not some other aspect of the game should be more realistic in someone's opinion.

I've played Rolemaster and as detailed as it is, it's not trying to mirror reality.

 

[MichaelSomething]

In case you are interested the 2e core books are print on demand, the PDFs are $10, $10, $6.

2e PH POD+PDF $23, 2e DMG POD+PDF $24, 2e Monstrous Manual POD+PDF $26.19. So about half the price of the 5e core books.

It is the IMO uglier revised full color 2e PH and DMG but the rules text I believe are the same as the original 2e PH and DMG. And they are softcovers and not hardcovers. But they are fairly available if you want to buy them.

And the internet is also a place where you can find fresh 2E games to play!

Find Online D&D and TTRPG Games and Groups | StartPlaying

Search 1000s of upcoming online tabletop roleplaying games. Search by game system, virtual tabletop, date, and Game Master. Find a new D&D campaign or sign up for a one-shot with your favorite TTRPG.

startplaying.games

Granted, it's a pay to play system but I don't keep track of where OSR players hang out. Maybe try the OSR subbreddit or some other place they would be?

 

[Zardnaar]

And the internet is also a place where you can find fresh 2E games to play!

Find Online D&D and TTRPG Games and Groups | StartPlaying

Search 1000s of upcoming online tabletop roleplaying games. Search by game system, virtual tabletop, date, and Game Master. Find a new D&D campaign or sign up for a one-shot with your favorite TTRPG.

startplaying.games

Granted, it's a pay to play system but I don't keep track of where OSR players hang out. Maybe try the OSR subbreddit or some other place they would be?

2E and OSR is easy enough to recruit for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So what? Dramatic things can still happen in a setting that mostly operates like the real world with fantastic elements. The rules or the DM certainly don't need to force that drama either, it can just emerge from player decisions through their PCs, using information the PCs have available. Plenty of games do it to one degree or another.

Can--but rarely do. That's the whole point. Most lives are not dramatic. “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.”

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is the fantasy version that. Regardless, it is something the character can decide to do, it is not a meta decision.

Yes. In a way that actively conflicts with and denies reality. That's the whole point. It absolutely IS a meta-decision, specifically for that reason.

I mean to me it is rather obvious that manoeuvres are things the character knowingly decides to use. Like they could in-character say "I'll disarm the guard" etc. Granted, it having a limited resource is a bit weird and gamey, but at least it is not a weird than in 4e, where you for some inexplicable reason could do each stunt only once. But personally I would still design this a bit differently.

And see, this is exactly where I see a straight-up hypocritical contradiction. There is no difference between these two things. Yet you claim that one is fine, if a little weird, while the other is absolutely, totally verboten.

Doing something four times between ~two combats vs doing it once between each combat is not that different. Yet somehow you think they are WORLDS apart, even though--other than happening somewhere between "twice as often" and "about as often"--they are exactly the same.

Unless and until you can articulate a real difference between these things, your position is in no way a commentary on the nature of the abilities. It's a complaint about which edition published them.

No. Sure, magic is easier to justify, as even in-universe it can work however you want. But it was you, not me, who tried to insist that several non-magical features were meta even though you don't need to interpret them that way.

You didn't need to interpret them that way in 4e either. Yet you chose to then. That's the point.

Yes it is.

"No, it isn't!"

We can play the "I just reject what you say" game forever, but I consider it pretty pointless to do so. I articulated why. If you're actually going to respond, as in, taking the argument seriously and addressing why it's wrong, then I'm all ears. Until then? I'm going to take such meaningless responses as evidence you don't actually have an argument.

Then, to be frank, you're just bad at immersion. You absolutely can feel the character's feelings. Granted, it probably is more shallow than if you literally were there,

That is precisely why you can't feel them!

You can feel an image of them. You can model an approximation of them. But you cannot feel those exact same feelings. They are, always and inherently, at an arm's length from you. It would be a mental illness to ACTUALLY feel those feelings 100% as if they were really happening to you, because that would mean you couldn't actually distinguish imagination from reality.

but with good "method acting" and a GM who is good at making the world feel real you can get close.

"Get really close" = "actually there." That's...kind of the point. This isn't a mathematical limit. There is always, always a gap, so long as you aren't mistaking imagination for reality. And God, I certainly hope you aren't doing that.