jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
I keep reading in these "4e Sucks!" threads how past editions of D&D were highly dedicated to accurate historical recreation or modeling of Earth's physics or general reality. And frankly, I'm a bit puzzled. I'm a bit puzzled because I do not belive I have ever heard anybody make this claim about D&D before. If anything, for decades, the complete and total failure of D&D to do either of these things was frequently cited as a strike against D&D by detractors.
While it's obvious that D&D draws on a roughly Medieval technology level, there are several anachronistic elements thereof (e.g., crossbows were introduced to Europe circa 1066), several completely fantastic elements (e.g., a gold standard economy), and several factually inaccurate elements (e.g., the D&D version of Feudalism). These elements alone far remove D&D from any Medieval reality that history has recorded. That said, it's still recognizeably European. . .
When you throw in Elves, Dwarves, Halflings (or Hobbits, depending upon what edition of D&D you're playing) and the magic of The Dying Earth, however, I'm of the firm opinion that the game is more pure strain fantasy than a simulation of Earth's past history. I really think that the issue is pretty cut and dried based on preponderance of the evidence. I mean, is there really an argument that these anachronisms and fantasy elements are not prominent features of D&D?
Now, where physics are concerned, we run into a similar problem. Key features of the D&D system have always been at odds with the way things work in the real world. Hit Points is probably the best one to highlight, as it has been the most commonly cited example of how D&D fails to simulate reality at a basic level.
In D&D Hit Points represent physical health or the ability to cheat death (edition dependent), leading to the massive (and commonly cited) break with reality that somebody in good health could fall hundreds of feet or take a sword plade through the brain pan without so much as flinching. I am certain nobody is arguing that such treatment in any way models real life. Moving on. . .
D&D 3x introduced the massive damage rule which changed this considerably, though strictly speaking, the rule only makes death possible -- it's still not very likely if the character is of a Level that bestows the HPs making such a roll necessary in the first place. It also removed the rules for called shots, thus eliminating the issue of strikes to specific body parts not causing death when they should (as dictated by basic reason).
Now, all of that said, even with these refinements, it is still possible (and likely) for a D&D character to fall hundreds of feet and get back up to fight on. This is certainly reminiscient of myth and folklore. . . but a simulation of real world physics? The odds of suviving a free fall like that in the real world, assuming a highly skilled individual, are something on the level of greater than 1 in 1,000,000. In D&D, assuming a Level 10 character, those odds are more like 1 in 3.
[Note: In real life, age and experience have zero proven bearing on one's ability to survive a free fall from hundreds of feet in the air.]
And, really, that's just the tip of the iceberg. In real life people don't move in inches (or squares), weapon combat is a learned skill that mus be practiced (not a natural aptitude), things like windspeed and direction have a a huge impact on moving projectiles, untreated wounds lead to infection and death (or amputation) more times than not, etc, etc, etc.
There are, simply, a huge number of purely fantastic things in D&D and an overwhelming lack of rules or situations that attempt to mirror Earth's physics, history, or other realities. So far as I can see, anyhow. Regardless, the argument is being made quite often that the exact opposite is true (e.g., that D&D 3x and earlier are rife with historical realism and simulation of Earth's realities). There aren't, however, many examples being offered to bolster those arguments.
What I do not want to see are comparative fallacies like "D&D 3.5 is historically accurate because X Edition does things this way. . ." without any examples derived from the system that is being offered as historically accurate. Likewise, any argument that assumes one or two occurances in the documented history of humanity (e.g., "Phineas P. Gage survived after having a metal bar plunged through his skull!") constitute everyday, commonplace, occurances, will be ignored.
I am interested in seeing actual examples of reality or historical simulation from the cited systems themeselves. For example, I would like to see "The use of Hit Points in BD&D is realistic because. . . " followed by an example from BD&D or "The economy presented in D&D 3.5 accurrately mirrors Medieval Europe's own economy in these ways. . ." (so, you know, arguments with merit based on critical evaluation of the works being offered up as X or Y).
I am genuinely interested to hear how (or why) this perception shift came about. That two of D&D's most commonly cited weaknesses have, almost overnight, become championed as two of its greatest strengths is fascinating.
While it's obvious that D&D draws on a roughly Medieval technology level, there are several anachronistic elements thereof (e.g., crossbows were introduced to Europe circa 1066), several completely fantastic elements (e.g., a gold standard economy), and several factually inaccurate elements (e.g., the D&D version of Feudalism). These elements alone far remove D&D from any Medieval reality that history has recorded. That said, it's still recognizeably European. . .
When you throw in Elves, Dwarves, Halflings (or Hobbits, depending upon what edition of D&D you're playing) and the magic of The Dying Earth, however, I'm of the firm opinion that the game is more pure strain fantasy than a simulation of Earth's past history. I really think that the issue is pretty cut and dried based on preponderance of the evidence. I mean, is there really an argument that these anachronisms and fantasy elements are not prominent features of D&D?
Now, where physics are concerned, we run into a similar problem. Key features of the D&D system have always been at odds with the way things work in the real world. Hit Points is probably the best one to highlight, as it has been the most commonly cited example of how D&D fails to simulate reality at a basic level.
In D&D Hit Points represent physical health or the ability to cheat death (edition dependent), leading to the massive (and commonly cited) break with reality that somebody in good health could fall hundreds of feet or take a sword plade through the brain pan without so much as flinching. I am certain nobody is arguing that such treatment in any way models real life. Moving on. . .
D&D 3x introduced the massive damage rule which changed this considerably, though strictly speaking, the rule only makes death possible -- it's still not very likely if the character is of a Level that bestows the HPs making such a roll necessary in the first place. It also removed the rules for called shots, thus eliminating the issue of strikes to specific body parts not causing death when they should (as dictated by basic reason).
Now, all of that said, even with these refinements, it is still possible (and likely) for a D&D character to fall hundreds of feet and get back up to fight on. This is certainly reminiscient of myth and folklore. . . but a simulation of real world physics? The odds of suviving a free fall like that in the real world, assuming a highly skilled individual, are something on the level of greater than 1 in 1,000,000. In D&D, assuming a Level 10 character, those odds are more like 1 in 3.
[Note: In real life, age and experience have zero proven bearing on one's ability to survive a free fall from hundreds of feet in the air.]
And, really, that's just the tip of the iceberg. In real life people don't move in inches (or squares), weapon combat is a learned skill that mus be practiced (not a natural aptitude), things like windspeed and direction have a a huge impact on moving projectiles, untreated wounds lead to infection and death (or amputation) more times than not, etc, etc, etc.
There are, simply, a huge number of purely fantastic things in D&D and an overwhelming lack of rules or situations that attempt to mirror Earth's physics, history, or other realities. So far as I can see, anyhow. Regardless, the argument is being made quite often that the exact opposite is true (e.g., that D&D 3x and earlier are rife with historical realism and simulation of Earth's realities). There aren't, however, many examples being offered to bolster those arguments.
What I do not want to see are comparative fallacies like "D&D 3.5 is historically accurate because X Edition does things this way. . ." without any examples derived from the system that is being offered as historically accurate. Likewise, any argument that assumes one or two occurances in the documented history of humanity (e.g., "Phineas P. Gage survived after having a metal bar plunged through his skull!") constitute everyday, commonplace, occurances, will be ignored.
I am interested in seeing actual examples of reality or historical simulation from the cited systems themeselves. For example, I would like to see "The use of Hit Points in BD&D is realistic because. . . " followed by an example from BD&D or "The economy presented in D&D 3.5 accurrately mirrors Medieval Europe's own economy in these ways. . ." (so, you know, arguments with merit based on critical evaluation of the works being offered up as X or Y).
I am genuinely interested to hear how (or why) this perception shift came about. That two of D&D's most commonly cited weaknesses have, almost overnight, become championed as two of its greatest strengths is fascinating.
Last edited:
As I've always said, D&D only models one style of fantasy well - itself.
