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

[mmadsen]

No offense but I NEVER (even in '79 when I started playing) considered D&D REALISTIC.

I don't think the D&D rules have ever been considered particularly realistic, but most of the game used to take place outside the narrow confines of the rules. It took place in the game world, as adjudicated by the DM, not in the game system, as spelled out by the rules.

(Also, as the game moves to higher levels, it seems to move further and further into the self-referential world of spells and magic items, and how those spells and magic items interact.)

 

[Numion]

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.

Some of the worst examples of self-reference have been, surprisingly, with D&D from the start. Take for example the gelatinous cube. It's a monster evolved to living on a graph paper. Somehow its evolution knew that the monster only exists in a game that's played with maps drawn on square graph paper, not in some imaginary fantasy world. Whatever.

Another point are the adventures. While the latter 3E adventures embrace D&D reality and make most sense in that milieu, they at least try to make sense within the fantasy reality. Compare that to 1E, where some adventures make full sense if you consider they're dungeons in, no, not greyhawk or forgotten realms, but an RPG game. Caves of Chaos make no sense at all. Another 1E gem of a 'setting realistic' adventure is Tomb of Horrors. Again, it doesn't make much sense within any fantasy setting (except something so strange that the OP would say its rpg porn), but makes perfect sense within D&D the game. Just remember you're not roleplaying a character, not immersing in a world and rather keep in mind you're playing a tournament module and you'll be ok. Then the dungeon will make sense - you're in a pissing contest with the modules creater, not in a fantasy world far far away.

And the OP would have us believe that that is the edition that supports realism (within the setting) and roleplaying humane issues? Riiiight.

 

[Nifft]

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

This is a good way of saying it.

D&D has several mutually conflicting goals. Some folks favor one aspect over another, sure, and the game can tolerate a lot of tinkering to further one goal (at the expense of the others). But the way the rules deal with this essential tension is IMHO the key to D&D's success.

Cheers, -- N

 

[catsclaw227]

It seems to me that the OP is saying in all his postings that it's the SYSTEM that has made the game unrealistic over the years, but his supporting comments seem to say that he thinks it is the SETTINGS that have altered the game.

As far as I can tell, you can shoehorn the uber-fantastic or the realistic into any system you want.

But if he really is saying that the SYSTEM is at fault, then is he saying by proxy that Monte Cook is a pornographer?

 

[CleverName]

I don't think the D&D rules have ever been considered particularly realistic, but most of the game used to take place outside the narrow confines of the rules. It took place in the game world, as adjudicated by the DM, not in the game system, as spelled out by the rules.

(Also, as the game moves to higher levels, it seems to move further and further into the self-referential world of spells and magic items, and how those spells and magic items interact.)

Hmm, it was my experience with oD&D through 2e that the reason "most of the game used to take place outside the narrow confines of the rules" is because they had to. The hodge-podge rules did not work. When I play a non-diceless game, I hope that when it comes time for system-work, that the system is designed to reflect the game I'm playing.

So, it seems to me, that you want a game whose rules do not relate to the themes the game is identified with or wants to promote. And that's more realistic and less like porno.

Whaaaa?

Again, other than setting yourself up for disappointment, or the need for semantic badminton here on the forums, I just don't see the point.


I think, nay hope, you will be thoroughly disappointed with 4e.


Take care.

 

[mmadsen]

Hmm, it was my experience with oD&D through 2e that the reason "most of the game used to take place outside the narrow confines of the rules" is because they had to.

Agreed.

So, it seems to me, that you want a game whose rules do not relate to the themes the game is identified with or wants to promote. And that's more realistic and less like porno.

I believe it's my turn to say, Whaaaa? I have no idea what you're talking about. Nonetheless, I'm not hoping that you will be thoroughly disappointed with 4e.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

Convergence of ruleset and original setting: historical waregaming

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.

Hmmm. I don't think I articulated my argument as clearly as I intended.


I think there is some truth to the idea that it was a proto-game, this is especially consistent with Arneson's philosophy of D&D.

But 1st Ed AD&D was ultimately a compilation and update of OD&D, and the base setting for that was fantastic wargames, that is, historical wargames with an element of the fantastic.

1st Ed. AD&D was essentially a setting-less release, the named spells in the PH notwithstanding. The result is the assumed setting is the original fantastic historic wargame of Chainmail. And this is this establishes the style, tone, and play that the mechanics were designed to enable.

That, I think, is the key point: the assumed basis for the ruleset. I have encountered exceeding few people who do think that setting and ruleset are tied to each other.


The setting has changed from a quasi-historical earthlike setting to...all kinds of bizarre things. Planescape, Eberron, Spelljammer, etc. The shift began in 2nd Ed with the settings themselves, but was codified and intercalated into the writing and design of 3E.



I think the bottom line is that the OP will not be satisfied with any game that doesn't have the same setting foundation and design philosophy of 1st Ed. AD&D.

Now the point here is not the specific setting per se, it is the assumptions that are expressed through ruleset design about style of play, thus my earlier statements about heroic wish fulfillment vs historical simulationism.

To state concisely: setting = ruleset = style of play

And

OP style of play != 3E/4E ruleset because 3E/4E setting != 1st Ed setting

 

[Artoomis]

I am largely in agreement with Jack7 and Reynard. I prefer for D&D to be inspired by the world's mythologies (Aztec, Egyptian, Vedic, Chinese, etc.) and by the old fantasy masters (George MacDonald, William Morris, H. P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E. Howard, A. Merritt, J. R. R. Tolkien, etc.).

I don't prefer for D&D to be inspired by computer games, comic books, or most fantasy written since Tolkien died.

Agreed. I do not mind adding in material from contemporaray fantasy authors, I am just not overly fond of material that has no relevance to something authored outside of D&D.

I really liked it when D&D focused on using actual mythology, as at that time folks playing the game actually learned somthing about mythology at the same time - an actual useful purpose for the game other than as a fun way to spend time!

 

[Artoomis]

...1st Ed. AD&D was essentially a setting-less release, the named spells in the PH notwithstanding....

Interestingly enough, 4e is also supposed to be a setting-less release sp they can re-introduce beings like Thor. Does that mean the core books will be more like D&D of old in terms of being somewhat based upon actual earth mythology?

 

[Abisashi]

I really liked it when D&D focused on using actual mythology, as at that time folks playing the game actually learned somthing about mythology at the same time - an actual useful purpose for the game other than as a fun way to spend time!

This argument has been used several times, both in this thread and in creating school curriculums, but I haven't really heard a solid justification. Why is it useful to learn about ancient mythology? I'm not saying I think it isn't; I really don't have an opinion because I have neither heard nor concieved of a solid justification (though I haven't spent much time on it).