How is D&D of any edition realistic?

[Rechan]

What they have argued is that it is more realistic than 4.0.

Which is like saying a quart of water is more wet than a pint of water.

I just came from a thread where a guy is claiming that 1e-3e multiclassing are "more realistic" than 4e's. Would you like me to quote him?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

In 4th edition I'm pleased to see they've given us the tools to better model some of the styles of fantasy that many of us grew up with (most of which is lower magic than D&D). Better than any of the previous versions of D&D at any rate.

This^^^

I like waht I see so far.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I have repeatedly seen it argued (recently) that older editions of D&D are more realistic or historically accurate than newer editions (D&D 3x included) or simply realistic. This was, in fact, a common claim regarding older editions of D&D and both AD&D 2e and D&D 3x. It seems to only come up around edition changes, though. At every other time in the existence of D&D, the game is loudly decried as being a miserable simulation of anything, except perhaps, certain fantasy worlds.



As stated above, yes, I have seen this. I've also seen it argued that past editions have a heavy focus on simulation, period. That said, I have yet to see any examples that clearly illustrate any given edition's adherence to historical realism or the modeling of physics past the fallacy (mentioned above) that because X edition does it another way, Y edition is inherenly realistic. Without examples of how X edition is inherently realistic, it's a pretty a hollow claim.

Once more you are using absolutes. No one has claimed 3.x is "inherently realistic." By continueing this arguement you are continueing down the path of a false asumption. Rather than focusing on the legitimate complaints about 4E you are continueing to prop up your strawman and fighting a battle that doesn't really exist.

 

[jdrakeh]

And none of the valid points are ever that their preferred edition is more "realistic".

I never said that it was a valid point (in fact, the invalid nature of this claim is the whole point of my opening post). That said, it is a point that gets made a lot.

This thread exists specifically because I would like to see specific examples of why X is realistic or more realistic (if the issue is, in fact, degrees of realism as Brown Jenkin has stated above).

I have seen only one attempt at explanation recently, which was of the "X does it differently, therefore Y is more realistic inherently" nature (no examples were provided to illustrate why Y was more realistic).

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Yes, that was my point. This is all you will get. Invalid points. The real argument lies elsewhere.

 

[Gallo22]

I think your taking what might be said out of context. If gamers are saying Game A is more realistic (and I use that term lightly!!!) than Game B, I think what they are trying to point out is:

Game A: A fighter swings, hits the opponent, cuts into his armor, causing a deep wound across his/her chest.

Game B: A fighter swings, hits the opponent, the opponent flies backwards 20' with a magical burst of flame jutting from his wound.

Some prefer "Game A" style (more "realistic"), some prefer "Game B" (more "over the top, video game like".

I'm quite certain this is what they mean by "realistic".

Nuff said!

 

[jdrakeh]

Once more you are using absolutes. No one has claimed 3.x is "inherently realistic." By continueing this arguement you are continueing down the path of a false asumption. Rather than focusing on the legitimate complaints about 4E you are continueing to prop up your strawman and fighting a battle that doesn't really exist.

Hi Brown Jenkin, rather than repeatedly calling me a liar, could you instead possibly provide examples as to why X is more realistic than Y, if the issue is degrees of realism as as you contend? I have already (twice) conceded that this may be the case, yet you continue to ignore this and instead focus on my assertion that I have witnessed statements of absolutism.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think your taking what might be said out of context. If gamers are saying Game A is more realistic (and I use that term lightly!!!) than Game B, I think what they are trying to point out is:

Game A: A fighter swings, hits the opponent, cuts into his armor, causing a deep wound across his/her chest.

Game B: A fighter swings, hits the opponent, the opponent flies backwards 20' with a magical burst of flame jutting from his wound.

Some prefer "Game A" style (more "realistic"), some prefer "Game B" (more "over the top, video game like".

I'm quite certain this is what they mean by "realistic".

Nuff said!

I 'get' this in terms of hypothetical games, yes. What I'm asking for is examples from real editions of D&D. As far as I know, the description of wounds in "Game A" above is not explicitly supported by the rules in any edition of D&D. The exact effects of a successful "to-hit" roll in D&D are always and always have been (to the best of my knowledge) adjudicated by the DM as she sees fit. I lack the familiarity with 4e to know whether it conforms to the example of "Game B" given above*.

*I do know that D&D 3x does not conform to this description, despite the fact that it was commonly derided for containing nothing but overtly superhuman combat effects upon its release. The effects of a successful attack roll in combat are still (with a few notable exceptions, such as the "Cleave" feat) described upon solely by the DM as he sees fit.

 

[Primal]

Nice stawman.

The 3.5 supporters have never claimed 3.5 was historicly accurate. What they have argued is that it is more realistic than 4.0. That doesn't mean they think it is perfect, rather that 4.0 is moving farther away than they like.

This.

 

[Rechan]

1-3e cannot be "more" realistic than 4e without some sort of basis of realism for 4e to take away. Examples of that realism that is being degraded is what is being requested.