"I think Hydrogen is a rare element" and other science facts.

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think he is - he's pointing out that relatively, pound-for-pound, even a -2 STR halfling is incredibly strong, which means any idea that they have same exact composition as a small human is patently ludicrous. It also means, as I pointed out, suddenly finding this objectionable and "unrealistic" or "anti-science" because they have 2 more STR is obviously silly shenanigans.

That is fair point, though, I have never found "it is already unrealistic, so it doesn't matter if we make it even more unrealistic" to be a convincing argument. It is movement to to the wrong direction from my perspective, even if the initial conditions were not ideal either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is fair point, though, I have never found "it is already unrealistic, so it doesn't matter if we make it even more unrealistic" to be a convincing argument.

It does seen to be a popular argument though, if IMO rather dismissive.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have never found "it is already unrealistic, so it doesn't matter if we make it even more unrealistic" to be a convincing argument.

Really?!

I think that's an absolutely convincing argument, because the degree to which it's "even more" unrealistic is pathetically tiny. So I honestly think you might want to muse on that one a bit longer. If the degree which much, much larger, you could make a logical argument. But going from -2 to 0 in D&D rules? No. Being concerned about that is pure aesthetics.

Sure it's "movement in the wrong direction", but it's extremely small movement, and to make halflings "realistic", you'd need fairly complex rules with special cases for different sizes, but if we're going for that kind of realism, we also need to make it so humans, no matter how heroic, basically automatically lose any kind of melee vs Ogres and larger creatures - the only remotely viable way to bring them down being ranged weapons (spears, bows, etc.) or specialized weapons (extremely long pole-arms etc.). If you insisted on sticking to existing rules, you'd probably need to give halflings like -6 STR and cap them at 4 STR or something. Would you actually propose doing that though?

Also you'd probably want to cap elves at like 14 STR, and so on. And uh-oh, here comes Realism's creepy uncle, "Sex-Based Stat Modifiers", who has been living by himself in a basement since 1979. Nobody likes him, but when you get obsessed with "realism" in species stats in a fantasy game, he hears a clarion call and bursts out of his basement at a run!

It does seen to be a popular argument though, if IMO rather dismissive.

Because it's completely rational and logical, that's why it's popular. Really there's no counter-argument apart from "I am attached to the aesthetics", which is not really an argument, but is a reasonable enough position.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really?!

I think that's an absolutely convincing argument, because the degree to which it's "even more" unrealistic is pathetically tiny. So I honestly think you might want to muse on that one a bit longer. If the degree which much, much larger, you could make a logical argument. But going from -2 to 0 in D&D rules? No. Being concerned about that is pure aesthetics.

Sure it's "movement in the wrong direction", but it's extremely small movement, and to make halflings "realistic", you'd need fairly complex rules with special cases for different sizes, but if we're going for that kind of realism, we also need to make it so humans, no matter how heroic, basically automatically lose any kind of melee vs Ogres and larger creatures - the only remotely viable way to bring them down being ranged weapons (spears, bows, etc.) or specialized weapons (extremely long pole-arms etc.). If you insisted on sticking to existing rules, you'd probably need to give halflings like -6 STR and cap them at 4 STR or something. Would you actually propose doing that though?


Because it's completely rational and logical, that's why it's popular. Really there's no counter-argument apart from "I am attached to the aesthetics", which is not really an argument, but a reasonable position.

Wanting things to be as logical and realistic as practically possible is a rational argument in my view. Your suggestion feels dismissive of the preferences of others to me. Hard not to take the implication that my opinion is irrational negatively here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wanting things to be as logical and realistic as practically possible is a rational argument in my view.

What does practically mean here? Where, exactly and precisely, is that line drawn by everyone by mutual agreement?

Your suggestion feels dismissive of the preferences of others to me.

If you can't see aesthetics as a valid and reasonable position, which I literally said it was in my post which you quoted, that's on you. 100% on you. No-one but you is demeaning aesthetics that way. I think it's a reasonable taste to have, but it's not one that can supported by logic as applying generally.

Also, I didn't say it was "irrational". Please read what you quote. I said that there's no logical argument for seeing -2 as "realistic" and 0 as "unrealistic", and I chose my words carefully. I actually did initially say irrational but deleted it before I posted because that was not correct. It's not irrational, there's just no logical argument, only one of aesthetics.

Your argument of practicality is, I would suggest, precisely one of aesthetics, because everyone will drawn the line of "practicality" differently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What does practically mean here? Where, exactly and precisely, is that line drawn by everyone by mutual agreement?

If you can't see aesthetics as a valid and reasonable position, which I literally said it was in my post which you quoted, that's on you. 100% on you. No-one but you is demeaning aesthetics that way. I think it's a reasonable taste to have, but it's not one that can supported by logic as applying generally.

Also, I didn't say it was "irrational". Please read what you quote. I said that there's no logical argument for seeing -2 as "realistic" and 0 as "unrealistic", and I chose my words carefully. I actually did initially say irrational but deleted it before I posted because that was not correct. It's not irrational, there's just no logical argument, only one of aesthetics.

Your argument of practicality is, I would suggest, precisely one of aesthetics, because everyone will drawn the line of "practicality" differently.

It is subjective, but not necessarily aesthetic exclusively. The line is drawn differently for different people, but wherever it is for that person it is practical (or not) for them.

 

[Laurefindel]

I have never found "it is already unrealistic, so it doesn't matter if we make it even more unrealistic" to be a convincing argument.

Indeed, I like to call that the « because dragons! fallacy ».

Still, I’m willing to make concessions and stretch my voluntary suspension of disbelief to allow a gameplay that would otherwise be made impossible with rules more in line with my perception of reality.

D&D has combat. D&D has halflings. Combat is ‘wanted’ by players in my games. Therefore, halflings must be allowed to excel at combat too*.

* 5e14 struck the best balance there IMHO

 

[James Gasik]

D&D's worlds are based on exceptions. Where one draws the line is subjective as what one can accept. Some people can accept child-sized adventurers, others cannot. Some people can accept Dwarves being able to swim, others cannot. Some people can accept giant-sized ants, bees, and other creatures existing in the game, others cannot. Some people can accept that something as large as a dragon can fly about at great speeds without the necessary wingspan, others cannot.

I could go on, but the fact is, even if we assume "D&D worlds are like Earth, save for exceptions", there's a lot of exceptions, many grandfathered in since the earliest days of the game, and not all are noted as being such.

To argue that "this is unrealistic but this other thing is acceptable" when both exist in the same game is not going to be very persuasive. Some will want citation to know precisely what is simply the way things are meant to be, and what is a mistake- but games are notoriously inconsistent with providing citations. Sometimes a Wizard (God) did it is all you get.

Now this thread was intended to talk about when the DM gets the science wrong, not the game designers! And of course, it goes without saying that the DM (or the designer) is only wrong if they make the statement that "we follow the science".

D&D is not a reality simulator. Gary Gygax makes a point of this back in the AD&D 1e DMG and I've never read any D&D book that tells me it's meant to simulate reality- quite the opposite, in fact. Any relationship to real-world physics in a D&D world is coincidental, as the physics involved with magic ships sailing between crystal spheres through the phlogiston or disc-shaped worlds (the tenth planet in Oerth's star system for example) exist because we're told that they do- nobody is claiming that Greyspace is intended to simulate our universe's physics, so the fact that The Wink exists doesn't necessarily make it an anomaly or mistake- only by claiming it isn't an anomaly or mistake would make it one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed, I like to call that the « because dragons! fallacy ».

Still, I’m willing to make concessions and stretch my voluntary suspension of disbelief to allow a gameplay that would otherwise be made impossible with rules more in line with my perception of reality.

D&D has combat. D&D has halflings. Combat is ‘wanted’ by players in my games. Therefore, halflings must be allowed to excel at combat too*.

* 5e14 struck the best balance there IMHO

This is why I said I learned to live with it. Most folks IME want their PCs to be at least moderately effective at physical stuff, so you you have to allow for that practically.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Really?!

I think that's an absolutely convincing argument, because the degree to which it's "even more" unrealistic is pathetically tiny. So I honestly think you might want to muse on that one a bit longer. If the degree which much, much larger, you could make a logical argument. But going from -2 to 0 in D&D rules? No. Being concerned about that is pure aesthetics.

Sure it's "movement in the wrong direction", but it's extremely small movement, and to make halflings "realistic", you'd need fairly complex rules with special cases for different sizes, but if we're going for that kind of realism, we also need to make it so humans, no matter how heroic, basically automatically lose any kind of melee vs Ogres and larger creatures - the only remotely viable way to bring them down being ranged weapons (spears, bows, etc.) or specialized weapons (extremely long pole-arms etc.). If you insisted on sticking to existing rules, you'd probably need to give halflings like -6 STR and cap them at 4 STR or something. Would you actually propose doing that though?

Also you'd probably want to cap elves at like 14 STR, and so on. And uh-oh, here comes Realism's creepy uncle, "Sex-Based Stat Modifiers", who has been living by himself in a basement since 1979. Nobody likes him, but when you get obsessed with "realism" in species stats in a fantasy game, he hears a clarion and call and bursts out of his basement at a run!

So what the modifier did was to represent a thing that would be a bigger difference in the fiction with a smaller difference in the game. That is a compromise between realism and gameability. But the difference was still represented, and given the ungodly amount of crying about how this two point difference made certain combinations literally unplayable, then it certainly felt like a big difference to many! In practice it directed halflings away from strength-based builds, resulting a game where the halflings usually were not good at strength-based things, which is exactly what you would expect based on the fiction. Thus the mechnics succesfully, if somewhat imperfectly, modelled the fiction.

And no, no one has desire to model sex based differnces, but that they're no modelled, yet halflings had two point penalty to their strength compared to humans, to me logically implies that this two point penaly represents larger difference than what exists between human sexes.

When modelling something in the game, it is beneficial to look the bigger picture. Based on carrying and lifting maths the two point difference is nowhere near enough to represent strength difference between 30 pound and 120 pound humanoids. But the lifting maths is completely nonsensical to begin with. In the game giants can throw rocks they according to the rules they can barely lift. But the two point difference actually matters in the game and it directs what sort of builds people choose. The group's strongman is unlikely to be the halfling. This modelling is not exact, but it is impactful. This is the sort of "broad strokes simulationism" I prefer. I am not interested in getting bogged down to exact details, but I want the overall picture to be simulationistic in general sense. "halflings are small, so they're physically weaker than humans" suffices for this, even though the exact ratio of their weakness would be a bit wonky.