How is D&D of any edition realistic?
- Thread starter jdrakeh
- Start date
Thunderfoot
Hero
Wow, so much to say, so many opinions, so little good it will do....
There was a thread about a month back that asked about the perfect system and I pretty much showed that a 'perfect' system doesn't exist, because you either sacrifice time for realism or fun for function (kind of an x - y axis circle graph. (yeah get out your trig functions folks)).
I can say for certain that no amount of realism injected into a game will equally cause the game to stall during combat. Likewise no amount of function in a game will equate to fun.
For example, you as a DM want to run a historical campaign that mirrors the events of Medieval Europe, with certain elements of fantasy introduced. You come up with a system and you gather some players. One of the players wants to play and elvish ranger (having just seen the second installment of the LotR movies) and can't wait to take a Feat in Shield Surfing so he can pull off that move from the Helm's Deep battle. Obviously there is going to be a disconnect - Real world physics say that that stunt cannot be performed during that time period for several reasons, Architecture was too irregular, shields of that period in Europe were all curved to deflect blows, the arm straps of the shield would be in the wrong location and surfing had not yet been invented. So the DM get his realism and the player gets to frown at having to perform Medieval flanking movements in battle.
OR
The DM wants a quick battle system that takes less time away from his dramatic story-telling so he implements fast rules. Meanwhile one of his players has been dying to use a new system that recreates real physical trauma on the damage dished out by his historically accurate portrayal of his Duetsche Zwei-hander. The DM looks over the rules and realizes that the cross checking of the charts is going to take the steam right out of that quick combat and vetoes it, at the next session the other players complain and the DM relents, therefore slowing down combat. The players are ecstatic and the DM wonders if there are any good books he can read during the combat sequences.
Obviously both of the scenarios are hyperbole, but the do illustrate the point; you can't have all of the greatness in one system, you have to move along the axises and the best you can hope for is mediocrity.
That's not to say that some DMs can't fake it one way or another, or that some rules cannot be changed to move it in a direct more suitable to what you need, but frankly, its FANTASY. I don't care how much you train, a Chinese Kung-Fu artist cannot fly through the air kicking multiple opponents over a half mile line of flight (ala the latest batch of martial arts movies) and though great for a special effect sequence, surfing a shield is both stupid and impractical and shooting a very thick rope with a single arrow isn't going to make it cut in half (Newton, Hawking and whole host of other physicists would like to explain how that works in real life.) Sure there are accounts of people falling hundreds and thousands of feet and surviving, but there are more accounts of people falling 10 feet or less and snapping their necks. It just isn't heroic.
Yes, 4E is probably less 'realistic' than 3.X, but 3.X was less 'realistic' than 2AD&D, and so on and so on...But the real question is, is it more fun? Frankly, I don't know the answer to this, I haven't played enough to know yet. But at the same time, I know what I like and what I don't. I have seriously thought about scraping my 3.5 game because there are far too many 'cool' rules in them. YMMV and to each their own, really, does any of it matter?
There was a thread about a month back that asked about the perfect system and I pretty much showed that a 'perfect' system doesn't exist, because you either sacrifice time for realism or fun for function (kind of an x - y axis circle graph. (yeah get out your trig functions folks)).
I can say for certain that no amount of realism injected into a game will equally cause the game to stall during combat. Likewise no amount of function in a game will equate to fun.
For example, you as a DM want to run a historical campaign that mirrors the events of Medieval Europe, with certain elements of fantasy introduced. You come up with a system and you gather some players. One of the players wants to play and elvish ranger (having just seen the second installment of the LotR movies) and can't wait to take a Feat in Shield Surfing so he can pull off that move from the Helm's Deep battle. Obviously there is going to be a disconnect - Real world physics say that that stunt cannot be performed during that time period for several reasons, Architecture was too irregular, shields of that period in Europe were all curved to deflect blows, the arm straps of the shield would be in the wrong location and surfing had not yet been invented. So the DM get his realism and the player gets to frown at having to perform Medieval flanking movements in battle.
OR
The DM wants a quick battle system that takes less time away from his dramatic story-telling so he implements fast rules. Meanwhile one of his players has been dying to use a new system that recreates real physical trauma on the damage dished out by his historically accurate portrayal of his Duetsche Zwei-hander. The DM looks over the rules and realizes that the cross checking of the charts is going to take the steam right out of that quick combat and vetoes it, at the next session the other players complain and the DM relents, therefore slowing down combat. The players are ecstatic and the DM wonders if there are any good books he can read during the combat sequences.
Obviously both of the scenarios are hyperbole, but the do illustrate the point; you can't have all of the greatness in one system, you have to move along the axises and the best you can hope for is mediocrity.
That's not to say that some DMs can't fake it one way or another, or that some rules cannot be changed to move it in a direct more suitable to what you need, but frankly, its FANTASY. I don't care how much you train, a Chinese Kung-Fu artist cannot fly through the air kicking multiple opponents over a half mile line of flight (ala the latest batch of martial arts movies) and though great for a special effect sequence, surfing a shield is both stupid and impractical and shooting a very thick rope with a single arrow isn't going to make it cut in half (Newton, Hawking and whole host of other physicists would like to explain how that works in real life.) Sure there are accounts of people falling hundreds and thousands of feet and surviving, but there are more accounts of people falling 10 feet or less and snapping their necks. It just isn't heroic.
Yes, 4E is probably less 'realistic' than 3.X, but 3.X was less 'realistic' than 2AD&D, and so on and so on...But the real question is, is it more fun? Frankly, I don't know the answer to this, I haven't played enough to know yet. But at the same time, I know what I like and what I don't. I have seriously thought about scraping my 3.5 game because there are far too many 'cool' rules in them. YMMV and to each their own, really, does any of it matter?
Of course noone will come out and say that they have misunderstood something. If they did they wouldn't really have misunderstood it, would they?
Myself I like minions as a game concept for combats. Discussing whether they are realistic or not is to me a bit absurd. Yes they die from any hit that does damage. And in any battle it is kind of realistic that some people/monsters/angels/puppies will die from the first hit. Which is exactly what a minion means to me. An opponent that is potentially dangerous but that the heroes can handle quite easily because of their own abilities.
So how is it realistic that this big baddie has only one hit point? And what was that absurdity I mentioned? The thing is, the minion only has 1 HP in one particular scene. At that moment in time, that individual is easy to kill. And it will only be a 1 HP monster against heroes that are strong enough for that to be possible.
So lets say this demon minion flees from the epic heroes into a group of city guards. Suddenly the demon is no longer easy to kill, and can withstand more or less anything the guards can throw at it. Hit points are abstract, and actually in some cases are different in relation to what you are fighting. How many HP does the demon have outside of an encounter? None. HP as a game mechanic has no relevance if there is no danger.
If D&D were a computer simulation, then minions would be unrealistic and bad. But it is not. It is a game of scenes, planned and improvised. The minion system makes it possible to create scenes that you really can't make without them. Realistic? In a way, yes. Because in a game about heroes it helps the DM let the players be heroic. And as a game mechanic it helps show that combat is deadly, without making it swingy or boring.
Minions are unrealistic if you use them wrong. If you misunderstood what they are about you will probably always use them wrong. So the solution is simple. If you think they are unrealistic, just don't use them. Then you won't do anything wrong.
Myself I like minions as a game concept for combats. Discussing whether they are realistic or not is to me a bit absurd. Yes they die from any hit that does damage. And in any battle it is kind of realistic that some people/monsters/angels/puppies will die from the first hit. Which is exactly what a minion means to me. An opponent that is potentially dangerous but that the heroes can handle quite easily because of their own abilities.
So how is it realistic that this big baddie has only one hit point? And what was that absurdity I mentioned? The thing is, the minion only has 1 HP in one particular scene. At that moment in time, that individual is easy to kill. And it will only be a 1 HP monster against heroes that are strong enough for that to be possible.
So lets say this demon minion flees from the epic heroes into a group of city guards. Suddenly the demon is no longer easy to kill, and can withstand more or less anything the guards can throw at it. Hit points are abstract, and actually in some cases are different in relation to what you are fighting. How many HP does the demon have outside of an encounter? None. HP as a game mechanic has no relevance if there is no danger.
If D&D were a computer simulation, then minions would be unrealistic and bad. But it is not. It is a game of scenes, planned and improvised. The minion system makes it possible to create scenes that you really can't make without them. Realistic? In a way, yes. Because in a game about heroes it helps the DM let the players be heroic. And as a game mechanic it helps show that combat is deadly, without making it swingy or boring.
Minions are unrealistic if you use them wrong. If you misunderstood what they are about you will probably always use them wrong. So the solution is simple. If you think they are unrealistic, just don't use them. Then you won't do anything wrong.
Arnwyn
First Post
Of course it has to do with the rules in the context of his post.LostSoul said:
He is indeed discussing people who don't want the same things out of the game and the rules to achieve those different things. If people want different things out of a game, it is reasonably likely that they'll choose different rules to meet their needs.
His point is concise and correct - there is no "perfect" rules system because, as he clearly noted, different people want different things.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Arnwyn said:
What I'm saying is that the problem was there before they decided to use any rules. One guy wants to play one way (a heroic, shield-sliding way) and another guy wants to play in a more realistic way.
Whatever rules they use, it will break for them, because they don't want to do the same thing.
Arnwyn said:
But different people can want the same thing. When that's the case, then you can start looking at the rules and asking if they are going to be a good match for what you want.
Brown Jenkin
First Post
LostSoul said:
I think that is the point. Some people on these boards want a type of game that 3.x models the way they want to play. Some people on these boards want a type of game that 4E models the way they want to play. The sooner everyone realizes and accepts this the sooner we can all stop argueing over which rules system is better. They are both good rules system that do different things. We can then start evaluating both systems based on what matters to each of us individually instead of pushing our individual game styles on others.
That's simple not true. You don't have to trade off time for realism or fun for function unless the game you're looking at is already perfectly designed for its goals. We could easily, for instance, make D&D more realistic and less complicated at the same time.Thunderfoot said:
Similar Threads
