How is D&D of any edition realistic?

[Thunderfoot]

OK jd - here is your first definitive argument against you.

Using your initial quote/rant you stated that previous edition were MORE realistic than 4E. In this regard I can pull out hundreds of small details that can prove this statement. In fact I could easily state that every edition was more historically grounded than the one that followed. However, NONE of the editions are strictly historically accurate; that's why its called FANTASY role playing.

Now don't get me wrong, here, I'm not trying to be argumentative or even over the top (because reading this back it sure does look that way.) And I can say for certain that several trolls out there are just looking to get someone riled-up (you evidentially ).

However my 1AD&D books use historical references and names wherever possible, the armament is pulled directly from several periods of European history, from pre-historic (the club) to the Renaissance (the heavy crossbow(or arbalest)). Though the idea of a Thieves' guild is more Victorian, it still works on many levels. Gnomes have no mention of 'contraptions' there are no rules for steam-punk, none of the artwork involved was too far off period (with respect to clothing and such) and the general feel of the game could be altered to a decently historic game if you drop the magic and fantasy elements (it was, after all, derived as a set of miniature battles rules for the medieval period.

2EAD&D started to pull away from this aspect, especially after the release of Dragonlance and those reprehensible tinker gnomes. Suddenly the steam-punk influence had started to creep in, though if you read the blue DM splatbooks (specifically the Arms & Equipment Guide and the Castle Handbook) the historically details were still available. Also the green campaign books offered a way the game could be altered to where it was strictly historically based or where you could change the past a bit and make it a historically fantasy based campaign (such as the barbarian hordes that invaded Rome were actually marauding orcs or goblinoids and such.)

By 3.0 it was obvious that historical reference was getting in the way of a good story. Video game influence began to more strongly assert itself and when Lidda the halfling rogue looks like she pilfers in emo bondage gear, it is obvious that things are starting to depart from their roots. Gnome became the steampunk race of the hour and as a whole the fantasy aspects of the game were more prevalent than historic. Racial double weapons come screaming to mind and the wildly varying armor influences just kind of twist the history a little more than I would like. (And don't get me started on the equipment lists...) Though I am sure that it is possible, I wouldn't want to try to run a 3.X game that tried to stick to0 close to the history books; the amount of work involved to undo the artistic flavor injected into the PHB alone would take months of serious work to fix.

4E is just the natural extension of this trend. Having played the demos and seen the sneak peeks, I think I can safely say that I would find another system if I were to run a historically centered game. That doesn't mean however that the system is bad or broken, just more focused on its intended purpose.

Hopefully this answers your questions (or poses some more). If not, please feel free to point out where you disagree (or maybe even be enlightened.) I would love to either answer your further questions or continue the debate. But, overall, this is much ado about nothing, because honestly if anyone were to claim TOTAL historical accuracy, well that's just plain silly.

 

[Andor]

I think you'll have to be more specific here. Many people would argue exactly the opposite (for instance, hit points representing more than just physical damage, yet requiring magical healing to recover them).

More specific than what? In D&D greater power has always been linked to greater toughness, it's one of the central conceits of the system. Yet now in 4e we have 8th level angels of Valor with 88 hp and 21st level Angels of valor with 1. Same deal with orcs. Same deal with Ogres. Possibly the same thing will happen with Dragons and mammoths. We won't know till we crack the MM.

As far as HP becoming more abstract, I fail to see how that's a selling point. I've never bought the "HP are abstract" argument for an instant in my 29 years of gaming. And please don't bother quoteing the 1st ed DMG, I read that 20 years ago and I didn't buy it then. You won't convince me now.

Now I personally don't have a problem with the 4e healing mechanics. I have a mental model for what it means that I am comfortable with.

The minion rules however grab my sense of immersion, slam it into the wall and knee it repeatedly in the cojones until it vomits in pain.

Even worse however are the conjectures (made by 4e fans) that in 4e if you kill an group of orcs they will have no lootable gear related to what they were using, just what is the appropriate loot drop. The diablo model in other words. Perhaps you can rationalize the axe that an orc was just swinging at you being nothing more than a bunch of pixels in game that derezzed when he died, but I cannot.

 

[Fifth Element]

More specific than what?

More specific than a general statement, without specific examples.

In D&D greater power has always been linked to greater toughness, it's one of the central conceits of the system.

I've always thought of magic-users being fairly powerful. But they tend to be pretty frail when measured in hit points. Perhaps this means that hit points are not the only measure of toughness?

Perhaps also, that "level" means something a bit different in 4E? And that you can't just use the 3E definition to interpret it?

As far as HP becoming more abstract, I fail to see how that's a selling point.

My point was not that HP are becoming more abstract. My point was that HP have always been abstract, and that in 4E the rules involving HP are more consistent with this fact. You were arguing against internal consistency in 4E, I was pointing out a case of increased internal consistency.

And please don't bother quoteing the 1st ed DMG, I read that 20 years ago and I didn't buy it then. You won't convince me now.

I'm going to agree with you here. If Gary Gygax can't "convince" you of what hit points represent in the game he invented, then I'm certainly not going to be able to do it.

Even worse however are the conjectures (made by 4e fans) that in 4e if you kill an group of orcs they will have no lootable gear related to what they were using, just what is the appropriate loot drop.

Perhaps we can keep the discussion to things we know about 4E, rather than conjectures made by fans on the internet. We're notoriously unreliable. For instance, I heard that all feats were going to be named after a colour and an animal, and that warlords can force their allies to move against their will.

 

[hong]

Now I personally don't have a problem with the 4e healing mechanics. I have a mental model for what it means that I am comfortable with.

The minion rules however grab my sense of immersion, slam it into the wall and knee it repeatedly in the cojones until it vomits in pain.

If your suspenders of disbelief are apparently robust enough that they can handle the rules assigning a nontrivial probability of survival to falling 1000 feet, they are certainly robust enough to handle a no-name orc dropping from 1 hit.

 

[Doug McCrae]

However my 1AD&D books use historical references and names wherever possible

You mean spell names like ESP? Dictionary.com's first reference for this term is 1934.

 

[Mister Doug]

O
However my 1AD&D books use historical references and names wherever possible, the armament is pulled directly from several periods of European history, from pre-historic (the club) to the Renaissance (the heavy crossbow(or arbalest)). Though the idea of a Thieves' guild is more Victorian, it still works on many levels. Gnomes have no mention of 'contraptions' there are no rules for steam-punk, none of the artwork involved was too far off period (with respect to clothing and such) and the general feel of the game could be altered to a decently historic game if you drop the magic and fantasy elements (it was, after all, derived as a set of miniature battles rules for the medieval period.

Of course, the rules include items of questionable historical accuracy in defining armor types and weapons, mixes armor and weapons available only in the late middle ages after the advent of black powder weapons, etc. So historical accuracy was clearly secondary to cool factor... and the fact that the thieves' guild is a direct reference to the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, which is a nod to cool factor....

AD&D was always less historical and more fun factor. Thus the development of games such as Runequest and Chivalry and Sorcery around the same period to focus on "realistic" ancient and medieval style combat (with mixed success) and more period views of magic and religion.

AD&D was always a hodge-podge of popular culture fantasy tropes, filtered through the author's personal interests. Those tropes changed, the authors changed and D&D changed along the way, just like it will continue to do. But realism has always been left behind in the process.

Not that I think there's a big problem with that.

 

[Mister Doug]

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.

Obviously, if you ask Hero or GURPS or Rolemaster players or whatever else you choose, many would not choose to describe D&D as realistic.

But D&D players have invested time in learning the system and adapting it. They have learned to tweak and to adjudicate around the rules to make what they want to happen happen.'

I think the perception of realism, simulation, and modeling reality actually happens in the realm of where DMs have learned to create a sense of internal consistency in judging around the rules. I think that's why the old grognards still believe that the less-defined rules of OD&D and AD&D, for instance are more realistic than the very defined rules of 3.x -- there is a lot of space for creating consistency.

3.x players have learned how to adapt defined rules to their interpretation, and the system of house rules, adjudication, and rules applications. That feels consistent, thus feels like a model, and thus feels realistic.

4e is unknown, and breaks the rules noted above, even though in essence most of the consistent and realistic parts of those in the eyes of players and DMs is actually occurring outside of the framework of the rules.

All IMNSHO, of course.

 

[Andor]

I actually think that they're worse than what I hypothesized earlier, given that roughly 13,322 people a year die from falls of less than 60 feet in distance (per the National Safety Council) and that proportionately few people in recorded history have survived a fall of more than 100 feet relatively intact.

But don't take my word for it.

This is actually a very good example of the "I've heard of a few documented cases, therefore it must be a common occurance" leap in deductive reasoning that I mentioned earlier in the the thread. If you stop and think about it, logically, even a hundred or so suvivors in the whole of recorded history isn't very many survivors.

I'd imagine that the odds for survival are actually far worse than 1:1,000,000 -- though you're welcome to jump out of a plane sans parachute to test your theory

[Edit: On a related note, if you're falling onto a non-solid surface, it seems that skill may play a role in diminishing damage -- but only up to a point.]

Um... The article you cited listed 13 people who survived long falls. None of whom by the way were the 3 I was thinking of, so that's 16 examples. Here is another, here are a few more, here are two more, and on that same site he puts the odds at about 1 in 300,000 although given that we have now got a population of about 20 survivors within the last 50 years I'm guessing that that's actually errs on the side of conservatism.

Is falling a long distance a brilliant idea? Nope. As you mentioned people managed to kill themselves in falls of 10'. And some survive falls of hundreds of feet onto concrete. What does that mean for hit points? Probably only that they are no worse than any other system for trying to quickly model any system as fantastically complex as injury and healing. I mean look at the battle at kruger for god's sake, that's a young calf survivng a tug of war between a croc and a lioness and it still lived. Clearly it wasn't a minion.

 

[Thunderfoot]

You mean spell names like ESP? Dictionary.com's first reference for this term is 1934.

Actually I would argue that the entire concept of 'spells' other than the slight of hand parlor tricks used to scare the masses is all part of the fantasy side and therefore not subject to any historical accuracy. And of course I said, wherever possible, not always.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Of course, the rules include items of questionable historical accuracy in defining armor types and weapons, mixes armor and weapons available only in the late middle ages after the advent of black powder weapons, etc. So historical accuracy was clearly secondary to cool factor... and the fact that the thieves' guild is a direct reference to the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, which is a nod to cool factor....

AD&D was always less historical and more fun factor. Thus the development of games such as Runequest and Chivalry and Sorcery around the same period to focus on "realistic" ancient and medieval style combat (with mixed success) and more period views of magic and religion.

AD&D was always a hodge-podge of popular culture fantasy tropes, filtered through the author's personal interests. Those tropes changed, the authors changed and D&D changed along the way, just like it will continue to do. But realism has always been left behind in the process.

Not that I think there's a big problem with that.

Oh, I totally agree. I never said it was THE historical re-creationist dream, but it did evolve from that. All fantasy has that 'coolness' factor of which you speak, that's one reason it calls to us still today. I would say that the most realistic of any of the system was Rolemaster as pertains to weapons and damage and the above mentioned C&S to actual overall period re-creation. But I think my point still stands, as the system has moved forward the past has been left behind. . . so to speak.