How is D&D of any edition realistic?

[jdrakeh]

3e is less realistic then OD&D

3e has many more magical items, spells, and things of fantasy like monsters in all of its books. That makes it less realistic then OD&D with its very few books.

You clever bastard

 

[Harr]

What I've seen is that in general when someone here says 'realistic' when referring to D&D, their definition of the word usually holds Lord of the Rings Midle Earth as what is 'realistic', not the historical real world. For some reason.

 

[hong]

3E simulates the model of reality that 3E players have built in their heads. 4E fails to do this. Therefore, 3E is more realistic than 4E.

 

[lutecius]

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.

It seems we have different experiences because I have never heard such a claim :\

Can you give specific examples? KarinsDad's saying dnd cannot simulate but still model many real life aspects as well as fantasy is hardly conclusive. It's definitely not claiming "dnd is realistic" or "dedicated to accurate historical recreation" or "modeling of Earth's physics" anyway.

All I see is claims by some people (including wotc staffers) that 4e moves further away from realism and simulation.

 

[Fifth Element]

3E simulates the model of reality that 3E players have built in their heads. 4E fails to do this. Therefore, 3E is more realistic than 4E.

This post is very hongy. Is hongy a word? It should be. It is now - I just coined it.

And just to clarify, being hongy is a good thing.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

3E simulates the model of reality that 3E players have built in their heads. 4E fails to do this. Therefore, 3E is more realistic than 4E.

Oddly true.

Must now seek professional help for agreeing with Hong.

 

[BryonD]

A lot of 4e defenders have strongly promoted the virtue of 4E moving away from *the rules are physics*, *the rules apply the same whether PCs are there or not*, and *the rules apply to npcs the same as they apply to PCs*.

The idea is that discarding an attachment to these self-consistencies allows the game to be more simple to play.

Even Mearls stated something to the effect that if you liked world building then this version would likely be less appealing to you.

As it seems to me that the whole preference for more self-consistency as as goal POV is an issue to you, you may get better answers if you address the question to people who share your end preference but see the move away from "realistic" (very loaded word) as clearly present and, to them, a good thing.

 

[Fifth Element]

Oddly true.

Must now seek professional help for agreeing with Hong.

Nah, you just need to learn to bask in your new honginess.

 

[BryonD]

If you spend more time running a game than world building, this is a net gain.

Just a personal anecdote here:
My group gets together an average of 10-12 hours a month. I spend that much time running a game. If I switch to 4E, I'd spend 10-12 hours running a game every month. Staying with 3E/PF I'll game 10-12 hours every month. No system will change how much time my group has, therefore the system is irrelevant to time running a game. I'm kinda unclear on how this is different for other groups.

I expect I'd have a lot of fun if we played 4E for those 10-12 hours.
I know I'll have more fun playing 3E for those 10-12 hours than what I expect to have if we played 4E.

I spend a wildly variable amount of time world building. Some months it is zero hours, some months it might be up to 20+ hours. I enjoy that time as much as I enjoy playing, though in a very different way. If I spent all my time playing OR all my time world building, I wouldn't enjoy whichever I was doing as much as I do either when I have both going.

I'm convinced that 4E would be distinctly less satisfying to me when it came to the time spent on world building.

I currently have a lot of time going into 3E. The gaming time is excellent and the world building time is excellent. Based on what I have read on 4E and my experience with a lot of various RPGs over the years, I'm firmly convinced that my 4E gaming time would be good and my 4E world building time would be poor. I prefer to stay with the excellent and excellent I already own over the prospect of good and poor I'll need to buy.

This makes me a close minded "hater".

 

[Andor]

For me the problem with 4e is not that it is less realistic (whatever that means in the context of fantasy) it is that it is less internally consistant than any previous edition of D&D. A lack of internal consistancy disrupts my sense of immersion. It's that simple.

And on a completely unrelated note I'm pretty sure that the odds of survive a long fall have to be better that 1 in a million since I suspect less than a million people have fallen thousands of feet and yet I can think of 3 people off the top of my head who survived falls from airplanes. One was basically uninjured.