Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[Pedantic]

Are you seriously taking the stance that realism is objectively not desirable to anyone? I can't begin to explain how wrong you about that. There is no advantage to telling people they are wrong about their wants and feelings.

No, definitely not. I'm, I think, significantly more sympathetic (perhaps even empathetic) to your feelings and viewpoint than anyone else here. I think we're running up against language concerns, where I'm suggesting that "realism" is not necessary/the underlying goal in creating the kind of independent, immersive setting you're talking about. I'm talking about what realism (in the sense of creating a mechanic that portrays a real world process or event) does and why, and where it fits in mechanically.

You've said yourself a few times that you accept hit points as an abstraction, right? That's prioritizing another goal over realism, one of the two cases I called out, and the other is eliding realism altogether and mapping a different norm for how injury works that reifies hit points in setting. What is the reason someone might prefer to use a "realistic" depiction of injury, say something like vitality/wound points instead of those two options, or an injury table or whatever instead of doing those first two things?

I'm positing that it's easier and naturally more complete. It requires less mental load to imagine a world that deviated from reality and/or less precise mechanical modeling (or projection from mechanics to setting) to figure out what happens when someone gets hurt, and what the larger role in the setting of injury is.

 

[Aldarc]

You've said yourself a few times that you accept hit points as an abstraction, right? That's prioritizing another goal over realism, one of the two cases I called out, and the other is eliding realism altogether and mapping a different norm for how injury works that reifies hit points in setting. What is the reason someone might prefer to use a "realistic" depiction of injury, say something like vitality/wound points instead of those two options, or an injury table or whatever instead of doing those first two things?

I'm positing that it's easier and naturally more complete. It requires less mental load to imagine a world that deviated from reality and/or less precise mechanical modeling (or projection from mechanics to setting) to figure out what happens when someone gets hurt, and what the larger role in the setting of injury is.

This is an interesting question. When you fall in D&D, you may take HP loss according to a chart for falling damage. But the general idea of sprains and broken bones? This rarely, if ever, comes up in the vast majority of D&D games. I'm sure some table care, but most don't. However, if we played a game like Fate, Cortex, or Blades in the Dark? We would "follow the fiction" and decide that a "Sprained Ankle" represents a Consequence or level of Harm that results, and now that "Sprained Ankle" exists in play for the character.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is an interesting question. When you fall in D&D, you may take HP loss according to a chart for falling damage. But the general idea of sprains and broken bones? This rarely, if ever, comes up in the vast majority of D&D games. I'm sure some table care, but most don't. However, if we played a game like Fate, Cortex, or Blades in the Dark? We would "follow the fiction" and decide that a "Sprained Ankle" represents a Consequence or level of Harm that results, and now that "Sprained Ankle" exists in play for the character.

I agree that a better wound system than hit points would be much more satisfying for me. The problem is, I have to ignore it because any such system in a D&D-like game is going to be more detrimental for the PCs, and my players won't stand for it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps a better way of saying it is that realism is not an end in itself. I don't think anyone wants realism just for the sake of realism, do they? They want it for the sake of something else that they value.

That gets back to what exactly you're referencing when using the term "realism". If you make it synonymous with "authenticity", I think a fair number of people want it to some degree at least.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What is the reason someone might prefer to use a "realistic" depiction of injury, say something like vitality/wound points instead of those two options, or an injury table or whatever instead of doing those first two things?

This seemed constructed a bit oddly in the post, so if I'm misunderstanding your point here, I apologize in advance:

I'd say because it feels more intuitive and maps more naturally to the way you see fighting going. Outside of superhero games, its honestly kind of my preference, even though I don't consider myself much of a simulationist any more.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree that a better wound system than hit points would be much more satisfying for me. The problem is, I have to ignore it because any such system in a D&D-like game is going to be more detrimental for the PCs, and my players won't stand for it.

This, by the way, is why I say some of your problems with various things is that you're fundamentally frustrated by having to deal with a game system that (as constituted) really doesn't suit you well because network externalities pretty much have walled off you getting what you really want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This, by the way, is why I say some of your problems with various things is that you're fundamentally frustrated by having to deal with a game system that (as constituted) really doesn't suit you well because network externalities pretty much have walled off you getting what you really want.

I agree completely. But, it is what it is. I make my games with as much verisimilitude as my players can stand. It's one of the reasons I enjoy reading games and discussing them over playing them sometimes.

 

[The Shadow]

That gets back to what exactly you're referencing when using the term "realism". If you make it synonymous with "authenticity", I think a fair number of people want it to some degree at least.

Well, sure, but was anyone in fact equating it with a loaded term like 'authenticity'? If they were, we certainly haven't been talking the same language!

 

[The Shadow]

Sure. What I value is verisimilitude, creating and interacting with a setting that feels real, that exists outside of the PCs and doesn't care about them for any reason outside of their in-game existence and the actions they take. I refuse to accept any argument predicated on the idea that this isn't  really what I want. I know my own mind, and the vast majority of the time that's what I want, over story or plot (though both are important) as a player or a DM. A consistent, PC-independent setting. I know I'll never get all the way there, but that's my goal, and I'll never stop trying for it.

This question isn't intended as rhetorical or leading at all, I really want to know the answer:

Is it the verisimilitude itself that you ultimately want? Or is it the aesthetic pleasure you take in the constructed world, in which you see verisimilitude as an important element? (Perhaps even the most important.)

Or is it, perhaps, something else, of which verisimilitude is an element?

 

[Umbran]

Are you seriously taking the stance that realism is objectively not desirable to anyone?

I don't know what stance they are taking, but I think I can see at least one place where folks might get confused.

So, you are playing RPGs, and say that simulation is your primary concern. Do I have that right? That brings a lot of questions to mind.

Most games out there are about people with swords and wizards doing battle, or superspies, or people flying around in spaceships fighting evil empires or other action-adventure stuff.

If realistic simulation is the primary goal, why aren't you choosing farmers? Agricultural simulation is a thing. Or lawyers? Or basic real-world soldiers - Advanced Squad Leader does a whole lot more in terms of realistic simulation of combat than D&D does. Civilization and SimCity have lots of more realistic simulation of things too.

Now, there's a bunch of reasons I can think of to play typical RPGs instead of those other things - but none of them are the simulation itself. RPGs are never as good at simulation as dedicated simulation games. In RPGs, the simulation is typically in service to other concerns - frequently supporting a desired narrative genre.

And that may be much of what people can get hung up on - if simulation is really the primary concern, RPGs seem a really odd choice.