Gaming Pornography: Will 4th Edition lead to a more Realistic and Useful Game?

[fuindordm]

Realism has always been a tension point of D&D.

On the one hand, it is nearly always true that "less is more" in fantasy. A campaign where most people are mundane and monsters are rare will do better at evoking wonder and awe when something magical does happen.

On the other hand, players will always want access to the magical stuff--because they are playing in a fantasy game, and want to play with the fantastic elements. Thus, you have not just one but many spellcasting classes.

One could always sit down with the players and propose that they make a party with no spellcasters--and play in a wholly humanocentric world where monsters and magic are as rare as hen's teeth. I don't think that's what they're coming to the table for, however. They're coming to be the fantasy, not play and wait with bated breath for the DM to place a magical beast in front of them.

 

[pemerton]

I don't want a more realistic and useful game. I want a fantasy game, not a world simulation exercise. That was what drew me to D&D in 1979 and still draws me today.

I don't think this is the sort of realism the OP has in mind.

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I mean by realism.
We use magic in our game.

By realism, given the parameters of a game about mythological and "fantasy subjects," I mean the stories and the game itself are tied to the real world, through myth, religion, culture, language, art, etc.

Not that it replicate the real world, but that it parallel it and draw inspiration from it, rather than try to develop an almost entirely "alien backdrop" as far removed from the real world as possible.

Jumping on the "realism" statement and applying a very narrow definition of the term is a good way to cut down the argument -- trollish or not -- without actually facing it. i think what the OP is talking about is an issue of tone and playstyle inherent in the system -- one that has changed over the years between and within the various editions.

A less obvious element of "realism" in the game is exercizing our intellectual and moral capacity. The game is more enjoyable when power is not gained for its own sake, but when the PCs have humanist goals and gain power to attain those goals.

I think it's pretty clear what the OP means by "realism" - as Reynard and Fuindordm have pointed out, he means dealing with real human issues, as revealed to us in real human literature and mythology.

Playing this sort of game would then be useful in the same way that reading a Graham Greene novel is useful, but reading an airport thriller is not. It would help us understand and appreciate our life and nature as humans, rather than (through sheer escapism) erect a barrier in the way of self-understanding.

Like the OP and some of the respondents, I have the same sort of feeling about roleplaying. But, while I agree the the tone of 3E (and, frankly, much of 2E, especially the Forgotten Realms) often runs in a different direction, there are exceptions. For example, I think that some of the Penumbra modules (The Ebon Mirror, Three Days to Kill, Unhallowed Halls, The Last Dance, Maiden Voyage, In the Belly of the Beast) have the potential to provide the sort of game the OP is talking about. So (I believe) do some of the vignettes presented in Beyond Countless Doorways and Book of Eldritch Might 3.

By "gaming pornography" I suspect the OP is attempting to articulate what could better be expressed as heroic wish fulfillment, sort of a Superman fantasy of all sorts of powers.

I'm not quite sure that is it - it's more like "something which has no aesthetic value beyond its stimulation/arousal of the observer". The OP's references to Warhol and rap music indicate a fairly conservative set of aesthetic preferences on his part - but while I can enjoy avant garde "art for art's sake" I don't know that I can come at "gaming for gaming's sake" quite as easily. I guess I can't divorce RPGs from narrative, and purely formal narrative without any genuine content I ultimately find hard to appreciate. Perhaps displaying my own conservatism, I find that even the best post-modern narrative betrays a sort of humanist core - and in any event has an intellectual cleverness that is not present in the so-called "gaming porn".

The genius of 1st Ed. AD&D is something that I have begun to appreciate more and more. In this case, how it enabled both "historical simulationists", and power gamers. It seems the long term trend of D&D design is more and more toward enabling power gamers, at the expense of "historical simulationists" and others.

I agree with the long term trend. What you say about early D&D is more-or-less consistent with Ron Edwards essay (A Hard Look at Dungeons and Dragons), but I think he's right that this was because early D&D was not a rule set in itself, but something more like a proto-game that each gaming group fleshed out in its own fashion in accordance with its own priorities. The growth of rules in 3E (which have undoubtedly won the battle, on the whole, with Rule Zero) has cemented it in the direction you identify.

But I don't think that the OP is talking about historical simulation. I think he's talking about "humanist gaming" as clarified by Fuindordm. My knowledge of RPG systems is a bit limited, but I suspect that either Hero Quest/Wars or The Riddle of Steel might do this best, and neither of them is a simulationist system. For various legacy reasons my group uses Rolemaster as its system, which doesn't actively facilitate humanist gaming but (for various reasons) I think makes more room for it than D&D 3E.

About long term goals: 3E is the first edition where Adventure Paths from 1-20 levels became somewhat standard form for long campaigns (the first AP wasn't really an AP, but disjointed adventures). Long campaigns did exist before, of course, but the slow advancement meant that gaining power for even long-term goals was almost impossible.

In 3E it is possible to set sights for some really powerful bad guy that needs defeating, for which the PCs need similar power to defeat, and play it out. 1 to 20 levels is possible in one campaign with 3E, and with the adventure path framework the gaining of power has some predetermined purpose, not just power for its own sake.

So in this regard I think 3E supports long term planning and gaining powers for a purpose better than previous editions. And I also think this has been demonstrated with the APs, vs. the piecemeal modules that were released for previous editions (some exceptions like night below and some 1e joined modules).

I think the real issue is "What sort of purpose or goal is in mind"? I have GMed (modified to RM) The Bastion of Souls, the conlcusion of the original WoTC Adventure Path (though I suspect this may not count as an Adventure Path in the sense you have in mind). The plot of this module raises some really interesting issues - identity, personality, the relationship between life and death - but does absolutely nothing with them. As written, it is just a romp. The Bastion of Souls could equally be the Bastion of Cotton Candy and it would make no difference to the adventure - the PCs would still fight the same monsters, raid the same temples, etc.

Compare this to The Ebon Mirror, which expressly grapples with the thematic issues to which its plot gives rise.

I'm not familiar with the Paizo modules, so can't comment. But I've identified above what I believe might be the best 3E modules, of those I know, for humanist gaming. And as it happens they are all one-offs or vignettes that can be fairly easily ported into any campaign. Whether this is co-incidence, or because the OP is correct in saying that it is these sorts of adventures that are preferable for "humanist gaming" I'm not sure.

 

[pemerton]

Realism has always been a tension point of D&D.

<snip>

One could always sit down with the players and propose that they make a party with no spellcasters--and play in a wholly humanocentric world where monsters and magic are as rare as hen's teeth. I don't think that's what they're coming to the table for, however. They're coming to be the fantasy, not play and wait with bated breath for the DM to place a magical beast in front of them.

I don't think the availability of magic to PCs is necessarily an obstacle to "humanist gaming", provided that its connected in some interesting fashion to the themes of the gameworld.

For example, my current game has 3 spell-using PCs:

*a warrior-mage, whose need for magical training led to him meeting a boat pilot who turned out to be a celestial dragon in human form who was trying to bring an end to a particular conflict in the spirit world;

*a paladin, whose faith is constantly shaken by his discoveries about the maneouvrings of the gods, but is also re-affirmed by his several encounters with the sprit of a dead god (inspired by Monte Cook's Requiem for a God), who died to keep the world save from voidal nightmares, and who is trapped in an undending cycle where he relives the battle and his own death, from which the paladin is hoping to liberate him;

*a ranger, a fox spirit cast from heaven to earth who over a thousand years has earned sufficient merit to take on human form, and is always looking for stories of his own past that will help him re-establish his place in the heavenly hierarchy.

These characters aren't earth-shattering in thematic power or originality, but they do (in my opinion, at least) anchor the game to human reality in a way that takes it beyond "gaming porn", whilst also having a lot of fantasy in the game

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Laser guns and treestump-bunny-tentacle monsters!

Your wish was granted:
Tome of Horrors by Necromancer Games. It is called Wolf in Sheeps' Clothes.

 

[Numion]

Maybe even Warforged shouldn't be written of as gaming porn straight off. They can be used to explore themes similar in Frankenstein, Asimovs robots, etc.. which are more about human than their creations anyway.

Where Jack7 might see gaming porn, I see roleplaying opportunities. Essentially a Warforged character could be played as a tool built for a war that’s over. Don’t say that’s not a literature staple – there are countless books and movies about the difficulties soldiers coming home from war face.

Another tie to our culture is the slavery aspect, that’s one way to look at the Warforged. They exist because man brought them, just like in some cases a lot of people were considered subhumans and brought to strange places. Eberron could be used to explore this aspect also: how are Warforged integrated to the society and how do are their rights viewed?

There are real world literature and cultural mysticism (even religious) analogies to the Warforged, starting from the very old golem myth. It just seems that Jack7 is looking at the scene too narrowly – maybe the Warforged aren’t mentioned by name, but the hypothetical idea of artificial people and all the problems they bring (once they start to think on their own) have been part of human culture for very long. It’s very shortsighted and disingenuous to write it off because the name was invented by WotC.

Not articulated very well above, but:

Warforged = Been around very long in some form and very ingrained in human culture, pop-culture. Hence, shouldn’t be classified by Jack7 as RPG porn (as he defines it), unless he has an axe to grind with WotC. Regular at Dragonsfoot, perhaps?

 

[Piratecat]

I see you know as much about art as you do about gaming.

See you in three days.

You know the Rules, folks. Please follow them. It's fine if you don't agree with someone's ideas or opinions, but taking a personal shot at them isn't appropriate.

 

[mmadsen]

I think it's natural that as we add more and more rules for more and more things that don't exist in the real world -- magic, monsters, etc. -- the game becomes increasingly self-referential and divorced from reality.

Some people enjoy that, or don't even notice it, but many of us have long enjoyed learning about the real world by exploring a hypothetical fantasy world, and much older fantasy writing hews much closer to historical adventure with a twist from a touch of fantasy.

When I look back to my early gaming years, most of the decisions we made in the game were grounded in the game world, not in the game rules -- Where do we set up camp? What kind of kit did we bring? Wait, we're running out of food? How do we find these Caves of Chaos? "Bree yark!" They're surrendering!

I would love to see the next version of D&D take more cues from real life exploration and military adventures, but I doubt it will.

 

[outsider]

Some people enjoy that, or don't even notice it, but many of us have long enjoyed learning about the real world by exploring a hypothetical fantasy world, and much older fantasy writing hews much closer to historical adventure with a twist from a touch of fantasy.

I'm starting to think that people have been playing a totally different game than I have. Never have I gamed with a person that was trying to "learn about the real world", nor did we ever feel particularly edified when it incidentally occured. D&D has never seemed even close to a historical adventure to me. Maybe this is a phenomenon confined to 1st edition AD&D, and those that played it heavily. Almost everybody on the "reality" side of the arguement identifies 1st ed as their reference point. 1st ed definitely seemed to lean in that direction with the "Survival Guides".

I cut my teeth on 2nd ed and OD&D, and I've rarely seen anything like you all are talking about occur in either of those. 1st edition is the only version of D&D I don't have much experience with. Frankly, it's sounding to me like 1st ed is actually the least D&D like of the bunch, offering a completely different experience from OD&D, 2nd edition AD&D, 3rd edition D&D, and most likely 4th edition D&D.

 

[CleverName]

Will 4th Edition lead to a more Realistic and Useful Game?


<SNIPPED>

Will the 4th Edition lead to a more realistic and useful game, or will it proceed towards an altogether other end?

Wow, I really hope you are disappointed. No offense but I NEVER (even in '79 when I started playing) considered D&D REALISTIC.

Never.

D&D is its own weird, sometimes silly, fantasy RPG genre. If the game designers are successful they will amp up the D&Dness of the line, not its basis in reality.

 

[(contact)]

I think it's pretty clear what the OP means by "realism" - as Reynard and Fuindordm have pointed out, he means dealing with real human issues, as revealed to us in real human literature and mythology.

Playing this sort of game would then be useful in the same way that reading a Graham Greene novel is useful, but reading an airport thriller is not. It would help us understand and appreciate our life and nature as humans, rather than (through sheer escapism) erect a barrier in the way of self-understanding.

Well put. I appreciate the OPs point emerging (against his prose) from this thread. I still feel that as your examples pointed out, D&D is ultimately just a rule-set, and with a careful approach from a DM, it can handle any thematic approach you're looking for, provided high-action and pulp-style-heroism is involved.

At the moment, D&D games can be dark, light-hearted, shallow, edifying, or an combination thereof. The default D&D game (as implied by the core books) is fairly shallow and light-hearted. I don't see that changing, but I don't see other approaches becoming less possible either as we transition to 4e.