D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

pemerton · Mar 12, 2022

pemerton said:
We know that, in D&D, things dropped or otherwise unsupported fall to earth. But is that due to the same force that explains (among other things) why moons orbit planets and planets orbit suns?

Maxperson said:
Yes. Or Reverse Gravity would not function.

Reverse Gravity is a spell that makes creatures and objects in a small area "fall" upwards. I don't see that it has any relationship at all to the force that explains why moons orbit planets and planets orbit suns. In fact, the whole way the magical effect is describes seems to imply that there is no such thing as universal gravitation, and rather than all there is is a tendency of things to fall to earth if dropped or otherwise unsupported. The spell reverses that tendency.

Maxperson said:
Also, page 195 of the 5e PHB, "For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."

And page 48 of the DMG, "The Ethereal Plane also disobeys the laws of gravity; a creature there can move up and down as easily as walking."

Page 61 of the DMG, "Limbo has no gravity, so creatures visiting the plane float in place."

Page 175 of the DMG, "Until you or another creature uses an action to push the button again, the rod doesn't move, even if it is defying gravity."

Likewise, these all seem to us the word "gravity" to refer to a tendency of things to fall to earth, not universal gravitation.

pemerton · Mar 12, 2022

el-remmen said:
Care to elaborate? Because I am not following.

My contention is that you don't have encumbrance rules because you want a realistic game. Rather, you have encumbrance rules because you want to make keeping track of inventory and load-out a part of play. (Whereas, as per my earlier post, classic D&D doesn't make worries about spillage, or contamination, a part of play.)

Once you've decided to make inventory and load-out something that play is focused on, then of course it makes sense to have your rules for that be reasonably verisimilitudinous.

MGibster · Mar 12, 2022

D&D isn't realistic, it's never been realistic, and I don't ever expect it to be realistic. Which is fine, because realism isn't exactly what I'm looking for in a game where my character can fly while throwing lightning at a dragon. But I find that stories with fantastical elements need to have some aspects that are grounded in realism, or at least something resembling realism, hence verisimilitude, for me to relate to them.

I hate the iconic barbarian from Pathfinder. And 90% of my hatred for this image is because of the surfboard she insists on calling a sword. I know some people think it looks cool but I think it just looks silly. Even Games Workshop artists look at that and say, "Whoa, maybe scale back the weapon a bit?" I can accept a gnome sorcerer trapping people in magical webs without blinking but I simply cannot accept that stupid sword. I just can't believe it. It's broken me in a way that magic hasn't.

Mordhau · Mar 13, 2022

MGibster said:
D&D isn't realistic, it's never been realistic, and I don't ever expect it to be realistic. Which is fine, because realism isn't exactly what I'm looking for in a game where my character can fly while throwing lightning at a dragon. But I find that stories with fantastical elements need to have some aspects that are grounded in realism, or at least something resembling realism, hence verisimilitude, for me to relate to them.

Doesn't this seem contradictory to you?

MGibster · Mar 13, 2022

Mordhau said:
Doesn't this seem contradictory to you?

Not at all. When it comes to stories with fantastical elements the audience needs to be willing to buy into the premise. To enjoy entertainment like The Walking Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, and even Juan of the Dead, the audience much accept the premise that corpses will stand up, shuffle to the nearest living person, and attempt to feast on their flesh. Once I've accepted these fantastical premises I can get on with enjoying the stories. But it doesn't follow that I must accept any and every fantastical element the writers decide to throw into the story.

But I won't pretend that the line I place in the sand for this is objective. It's purely based on personal preference. If you like surfboard sized swords because you think they're cool, well, more power to you. If you haven't played a Final Fantasy game then I've got a treat for you.

Mordhau · Mar 13, 2022

I just don't understand how we can treat realism as a binary state and as a continuum simultaneously.

How is it possible to state that D&D is not realistic but also that it needs to be somewhat ground in reality? The first clause implies a binary while the second requires that there not be.

What set of criteria is being used to determine if something is realistc or not in a binary sense?

Swarmkeeper · Mar 13, 2022

I personally do not seek realism in my D&D, but I do like a world that has consistency. A good deal of that consistency may be related in some way to IRL physics but I believe that is more for convenience (less to invent) than for any true desire for fantasy worlds to simulate our real one.

Thomas Shey · Mar 13, 2022

Lyxen said:
But it's because HP are not a combat mechanism, they are a story-telling mechanism and represent plot protection, nothing more.

Very much a matter of opinion, especially in a system where no defensive skill otherwise exists.

Thomas Shey · Mar 13, 2022

MGibster said:
D&D isn't realistic, it's never been realistic, and I don't ever expect it to be realistic. Which is fine, because realism isn't exactly what I'm looking for in a game where my character can fly while throwing lightning at a dragon. But I find that stories with fantastical elements need to have some aspects that are grounded in realism, or at least something resembling realism, hence verisimilitude, for me to relate to them.

View attachment 153294

I hate the iconic barbarian from Pathfinder. And 90% of my hatred for this image is because of the surfboard she insists on calling a sword. I know some people think it looks cool but I think it just looks silly. Even Games Workshop artists look at that and say, "Whoa, maybe scale back the weapon a bit?" I can accept a gnome sorcerer trapping people in magical webs without blinking but I simply cannot accept that stupid sword. I just can't believe it. It's broken me in a way that magic hasn't.

I should just note that at least the PF2e version does that because she's a variety of barbarian that have a specific (mostly negative) relationship with giants, and thus can use oversized weapons. Its supposed to be abnormal.

Voadam · Mar 13, 2022

Thomas Shey said:
I should just note that at least the PF2e version does that because she's a variety of barbarian that have a specific (mostly negative) relationship with giants, and thus can use oversized weapons. Its supposed to be abnormal.

That was the original story in earlier editions too, that it is literally a giant's weapon from her backstory which is oversized for a human and she takes penalties to use it but that her strength and barbarian rage are enough to make it work well.

A lot of narrative and a little mechanics thrown in to justify a Final Fantasy/Warhammer sized weapon imagery.

D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

MGibster

Legend

Mordhau

Hero

MGibster

Legend

Mordhau

Hero

Swarmkeeper

Hero

Thomas Shey

Legend

Thomas Shey

Legend

Voadam

Legend

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex