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

[Olaf the Stout]

...and how did you not notice that D&D was utterly and completely unrealistic right from the get-go?

That quote says it all for me right there. I'm not sure if any game that has spellcasters and monsters can really be all that "realistic" to begin with.

Olaf the Stout

 

[NewJeffCT]

Be that all as it may, having now recently discovered that the game is to be transformed yet again by a new Edition I cannot help but wonder if this revised system will lead to a more useful and realistic game, or will it simply lead to a new orgy of purple and green skinned races of silly flame throwing super assassins with no connection to the real world? With none of the historical, mythological, religious, cultural, literary, poetical, etc. connection to the past of the real world which made the original game so fascinating, realistic (given the necessarily accepted semi-fictional parameters of a fantasy based role-playing game), useful, and enjoyable?

If this new Edition is simply a re-vision of yet another, albeit more muted or simplified, foray into the absurdly useless "fantasy-view" that Role Playing must lead as far away from the real world as possible and become in itself a sort of imaginary and yet useless surrogate/vicarious world which bears as little resemblance to the world of the player as it would necessarily be chaotic and senseless to the character himself, then I have no interest in such an edition, or such products.

But if the game begins to revolve back into the roots from which it sprang, if it breeds more mythology than meaninglessness, more edification than mere escapism, then I will view this new development with real interest.

And, how is one to judge whether or not a 1E elf is more realistic than a 3E or 4E one?

Personally, I thought the non-human level restrictions in 1E were wholly unrealistic given the long live span of elves, or the fact that the Demon Goddess Lloth had a massive 66 hit points - not just the avatar of Lloth, the actual Goddess herself. Considering that a 1E ranger could have 2d8+6 hit points at first level (up to 22 hit points if they had an 18 Con) - you could have 3 first level rangers on a par with a goddess. While I think munchkinism (or Monty Haulism for us old timers) is 90% the realm of the DM, I think 1E lent itself much more easily to wild munchkin campaigns where a party of mid-level types could challenge Lloth for lunch and then finish off Orcus for dessert.

 

[WayneLigon]

If you think modern fantasy is vapid, you haven't read much modern fantasy.

You can do the exact same things with D&D you used to. Nothing has changed except kicking a series of stupid and useless set of poorly-designed restrictions to the curb, as should have been done in 1980.

Hyperbole and hot air, pure and simple. I give this troll a 2.

 

[Korgoth]

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. [snip] As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.

 

[NewJeffCT]

If you think modern fantasy is vapid, you haven't read much modern fantasy.

You can do the exact same things with D&D you used to. Nothing has changed except kicking a series of stupid and useless set of poorly-designed restrictions to the curb, as should have been done in 1980.

Hyperbole and hot air, pure and simple. I give this troll a 2.

But, when 3E came out, I was told by some old-line gamers that 1E was the cleanest and tightest set of gaming rules ev-ah. No, I am not joking about that quote. (well, maybe saying "ev-ah" instead of "ever" is a bit of a stretch) Now, I loved 1E D&D, but I knew back when I first got the books at 13 or 14 years old that the rules were not perfect, or that well organized.

 

[Reynard]

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. The most obvious cue is the art direction of each edition.

(I am going to leave OD&D and B/XD&D out of the argument. The former because I am not familiar with it; the latter because it is an animal all its own and not part of the 1e-2e-3e-4e continuum.)

1E art, particularly in the early days, was at time crude, and at times joking, but generally speaking had a much grittier, dark ages feel to it. The warriors are wearing hemets and mail and using shields. The wizards, robes and pointed hats. People rode horses, roofs were thatched, and monsters were mean ugly suckers. the art fit the tone of the game very well. 1E was a tough game, as much a test of the player as the PC, with disease and insanity and starvation right there in the DMG next to more fantastical dangers. 1E was "realistic" in the sense that it tried to embrace the dark ages/medieval world (or at least a romanticized version thereof) and challenges. Fantasy elements were assumed to be a little removed from the common populace so that "historical" modes of government and society could reasonably exist in the worlds of D&D -- much in the same way that such elements were fringe in Howard and Tolkien.

By the time 2E came along, the art style had evolved to be generally in line with the covers of your typical high fantasy novels. At least early on, the art was realistic but overly clean and romantic, and the game followed suit. Gone were the rules for starvation, as were the assassin and barbarian. The greys were bled out of the world and high adventure and epic tales were the order of the day. "Real world" threats were pushed aside while monsters and magic became far more powerful and common. Heroism, not mercenary greed, was the assumed motivation behind PC action -- and heroes don't die from rot grubs or disentary (sp), or so we're told. Whitewashed pastiche's of Tolkien and Howard (mostly the former, though Drizzt is well within the sword and sorcery heroic mould) were the order of the day -- many of which were published by TSR itself.

The next shift actually took place before 3E appeared. In the latter half of 2E's life, the "cool" started to take over. There was the Goth-Cool (Ravenloft) and the Punk-Cool (Planescape) and the Grunge-Cool (Dark Sun), but they were all cool. With the possible exception of Ravenloft, the new worlds from TSR -- including, in addition to those mentioned, Spelljammer, Red Steel and Birthright -- took cool to a new level with races, classes, magic and monsters that were an order of magnitude cooler than the previous edition-and-a-half's.

With 3E, we got yet another redesign on the art front, but one that relied heavily on the "cool" of the end of 2E. The rules and implied setting also became "cooler" and less "realistic", finally putting the nail in the coffin of any threats to life and happiness that weren't CR'd. 3.5 and Eberron were the ultimate expression of the state of the art of what D&D had morphed into -- a world so diametrically opposed to the origins of the game that it was barely recognizable as "medieval fantasy" and was often confused with "steam punk".

Now, I have contended in the past -- and will forever, I suppose -- that each edition is in fact a different game, because each one makes different assumptions, suggests a different playstyle and asks different things of the players and DM. And that's fine. the games (and the gamers) can co-exist. I know that i have finally realized that 3.x is not, in fact, the D&D for me, so I will be going back to a previous version. But that I realize that i dont like 3.x, doesn't make it bad or poorly designed (quite the contrary, for its intended purpose, it is very well designed). And I expect 4e to be the pinnacle of game design (seriously; no snark there) by some of the best designers in the industry. But I doubt very much, based on what we've heard so far, that it is going to be D&D to me.

So cut the OP some slack, huh? Even if he was trolling, that doesn't mean he was wrong.

 

[Wormwood]

So cut the OP some slack, huh? Even if he was trolling, that doesn't mean he was wrong.

It wasn't the OP's arguments that are being derided, but rather his sneering, antagonistic, and contemptuous language.

 

[Acts]

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

You make some good arguments - though I think you make them for a game that has long since changed.

I never played first edition. I have to take your word for it that it was more realistic and useful. By useful I gather that it's use, in your case, is to recreate adventures in the ancient empire of the Byzantines. To that end, I can imagine you would need a game to be useful.

D&D is not historical, possesses only base realism. There are games that recreate your requirements very well. Too well, for some. D&D is not, or at least no longer that game.

I actually hope for something that you don't; I hope the game is flashy, fast and vibrant. I hope it spends little time on being realistic, and more time being consistent. If this is gaming porno, my heels are on, baby.

Thank you giving reason to your argument, and not lambasting an edition that doesn't exist. If every dissentor could make such good arguments, Wotc would probably go out of business.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Solid 8.

I give it a 9! That took some work! :golfclap:

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

D&D was never realistic, I love 1e but goddern it realistic it aint!