D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Tony Vargas]

'Realism' is a flimsy excuse for changing the rules in a game that features the bizarre range of character types and challenges that D&D does.

As far as moving diagonally between two figures, it's consistent. Look at the way Wall AEs are defined. A 'wall' can't just be along a diagonal, each square of the wall must be adjacent to two others. If you want to lay out a line of creatures meant to present a similar, though living, barrier, you'd have to place them the same way. The mistake isn't in letting you move diagonally, the mistake is in leaving that gap in the 'line.'

Just a quirk of using the grid.

 

[Kzach]

If people were insisting on 'reality' in my D&D game, I'd be looking for another group.

If I was invested in that group, however, then I'd be insisting on using a different system. D&D doesn't do reality very well and if you can't accept that, then you shouldn't be using it.

 

[fjw70]

When people say realism they really mean believability. Believability is a subjective standard that can vary from one group to another or one player to another. Personally I don't see an issue with increasing enjoyment of the game by increasing believability (as long as your group is onboard with you).

 

[Tony Vargas]

One potential issue arises if 'realism' restricts what the rules allow for some characters, but not for others - or even to the advantage of others. Coming up with rationales for what the game does or allows that support verisimilitude or believability or whatever you want to call for it is a good idea.

The rules say you /can/ shift diagonally between two opponents. Saying that's 'unrealistic' when a PC tries to do it in the middle of play is potentially quite unfair.

 

[fjw70]

One potential issue arises if 'realism' restricts what the rules allow for some characters, but not for others - or even to the advantage of others.

It's not a problem if the group agrees to the changes.

Coming up with rationales for what the game does or allows that support verisimilitude or believability or whatever you want to call for it is a good idea.

For me it is game world first and rules second. I don't try to hard to make rules fit the game world.

The rules say you /can/ shift diagonally between two opponents. Saying that's 'unrealistic' when a PC tries to do it in the middle of play is potentially quite unfair.

I agree changing a clear rule mid session is wrong. Things like that need to be discussed before they come up in session. If I were that DM and wanted to change that rule (just using an example -- I don't have a problem with that rule) I would have allowed it that session and just said it would be changed for future sessions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Another thing to consider is what 'reality' you're trying to model in a D&D game. What a man can do with a sword IRL is not the same thing as what Conan can do with a sword in a REH pulp novel, or Zatoichi can do with a sword in a chambarra flick, or King Leonidas could do with a sword in the 300 graphic novel or a Knight could do with a sword in the Song of Roland.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Their rule is based on a
X
..X
....X
type of wall.

Well this is TRUE for walls. You can't move diagonal between corners like that. So maybe the DM is mixing up rules for moving around corners, and rules for moving between opponents? They are not the same.

 

[fjw70]

Another thing to consider is what 'reality' you're trying to model in a D&D game. What a man can do with a sword IRL is not the same thing as what Conan can do with a sword in a REH pulp novel, or Zatoichi can do with a sword in a chambarra flick, or King Leonidas could do with a sword in the 300 graphic novel or a Knight could do with a sword in the Song of Roland.

Yep it's a subjective standard. Just like what is fun. That's why each group should decide for themselves what is believable (or decide that believability isn't important) and fun, and not rely strictly on the rules.

 

[Henry]

That's why I stopped using terms like "Reality" a long time ago. A better fit is "plausibility" or "suspension of disbelief". Suspension of disbelief always seems to be harder with subjects that you're intimately familiar with than subjects that you're marginally familiar with. An aerospace engineer might have to put more effort into believing that a plain glider built like some cool yet totally noinaerodynamic wing-shape could fly, but might not have much trouble with a dragon flying because "it's magic." If I can't easily visualize an ooze-monster getting disadvantaged by a shove in such a way that it takes part of its action to "right itself" again, then it might be harder for me to visualize a power that knocks it prone. The important thing is: Can you get to suspension of disbelief. If you can't, then what you're looking at is going to be jarring for you.

For me, someone mentioned that in 4E "removed from play" is a condition - for me, that bugs me to no end, because there's NO WAY it can't remind you that you're playing a game, and that your PC or monster is a "playing piece." I'm fine with something "creating an extradimensional prison", but "removed from play" is RIGHT OUT! Leave it back in Magic the Gathering, where I'm fine with acknowledging I'm playing a card game...

 

[Artoomis]

4e, more so than any version of D&D since the original, sacrifices realism for playability. In particular ,4e sacrifices things for balance, so tweaking and adding various house rules can easily have unintended consequences where one class or race get affected more than others.

Of course, the rules occasionally get it wrong, and then should be adjusted, but only with extreme caution lest the game get out of whack with one character getting too much benefit or penalty relative to others.