D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

[Maxperson]

What does it even mean to reverse the laws that govern the moon's orbit of the earth in a 50' radius, 100' high cylinder?

Up to the DM, but the laws of gravity are in D&D to some degree of approximation.

Does D&D have atoms, and particles within them?

It explicitly did in 1e, 2e and 3e. I don't see why that would change for 5e.

If it does, what happens when the gravitational force that contributes to their interactions is reversed? D&D has never tried to answer that sort of question.

I doesn't need to, but if the question arises and the DM has to figure it out, starting with the laws of gravity is good bet since the DM knows that they exist in 5e.

 

[Mordhau]

I think magic sort of gets around the whole dissociated thing to some extent because anything can be associated if it corresponds to something in the setting. (Although if you compare 1e to 5e you can see the mechanics of magic are now dissociated when at one point they weren't - although many people actually preferred to treat them as if they were).

Luck points are usually seen as dissociated because it's assumed that they are basically unrelated to anything in the game world, but something that purely exists on the player/mechanical level.

But if instead they represent say, someone's level of favor with the god of fortune and the character actively calls upon them by praying to the god and also knows when they are skating on thin ice and the god is running out of patience with them, then they wouldn't be dissociated.

This certainly makes magic a lot easier to design if you care about avoiding dissociated mechanics. Although see Earthdawn where they do an end run around the whole issue by just saying high level fighters are magic too. (In Earthdawn everything is associated - even your class and level are actively things your characters can discuss with each other in the game world.)

I also think the idea that the concept is purely an edition war weapon is a bit uncharitable. A more charitable explanation would be that it was basically an attempt to put into words one particular element of 4e's design that people found they bounced off of. It obviously resonated with people.

 

[Aldarc]

That's what I said. Familiarity and tradition excuse even serious "dissociation," while unfamiliarity and novelty invite thorough vetting for even trace amounts of it. D&D has used "dissociated" mechanics from birth; this only became a problem when people wanted to reify their dislike of an edition (4e) as an objective fault of its game design. If one can say that "dissociation" is sometimes okay (since it's been grandfathered in), that its use as an evaluative standard is personal and about taste rather than design, and that at its very core the concept carries an inherent pro-caster bias, then one has admitted to basically everything I've claimed. Doing so makes arguments on the basis of "dissociated" mechanics very weak though, which is why most fans of the concept will not do so.

In short, the Alexandrian's "dissassociated mechanics" argument was souped up case of special pleading against 4e.

2. I don't think the distinction "unfairly targets non-magical characters." I prefer non-magical characters and also prefer associated mechanics for them.

It implicitly does in how he constructed his argument, which discusses an American football player forgetting a special move or maneuver that they perform X number of times per day before forgetting it. He uses this to target the idea of the At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers of Martial characters in 4e D&D. It is not levied against classes of other power sources. Only Martials.

 

[Mordhau]

I don't really get why it's an issue with the concept of dissociated mechanics that it tends to favour magic (in practice, not in theory).

It's just a matter of competing priorities. If we believe balanced characters is a higher priority than associated mechanics, then that's fine.

But for many it may not have been the higher priority as a lot of people went on to play Pathfinder. I mean people did specifically choose to not play a system that threw out more associated mechanics for martials in order to better balance them with casters in favour of continuing playing the game they already had.

There may be one of those pick any two lists to be had here eg, balanced, simple, associated, pick any two.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1. I think everyone (including Justin) "admits" that every version of D&D has had dissociated mechanics.
2. I don't think the distinction "unfairly targets non-magical characters." I prefer non-magical characters and also prefer associated mechanics for them.
3. My preference for associated mechanics is a preference. Justin allows that it's a preference and states explicitly that players can have a variety of good reasons for enjoying dissociated mechanics.
4. I think it's very useful as an "analysis tool" despite being a preference. I don't know what you mean by "objectivity" in this context or why it would be important.

(1) I have yet to see anything that indicates that "dissociated" mechanics are acceptable to him to any degree, and have seen numerous things where he explicitly rejects them as unacceptable components of roleplaying games. Indeed, IIRC, he said something to the effect of "dissociated" mechanics being antithetical to roleplay itself: "All of this is important, because roleplaying games are ultimately defined by mechanics which are associated with the game world." (Emphasis in original, section "What is a roleplaying game?") And a bit later: "If you are manipulating mechanics which are dissociated from your character – which have no meaning to your character – then you are not engaged in the process of playing a role."

(2) Sure it does. As I said, magical things literally cannot, even in principle, be "dissociated," because there's nothing to "dissociate" from. Magic works the way the author tells you, you have no grounds for disputing it--even if the rules fail to be consistent, because "it's magic." The article makes a token effort to deny it, but it's clearly right there. He literally only uses the words "magic" and "magical" once each, the former when using the spell name magic missile, the latter to say, "Conversely, of course, just because something is magical doesn’t mean that the mechanic will automatically be associated."

My argument is: by what metric could you possibly make these mechanics not "associated"? Magic works the way magic works. It's only non-magical things, like his "one-handed catch" pseudo-example, that permit an argument derived from practical analysis of how real people take actions--or in your own example, spending that bennie token to reveal a previously non-existent non-magical relationship to an NPC. Magic is by definition "associated" because the only information you and your character could have about it is exactly the same. I think it's extremely telling that no one ever presents examples of "dissociated" magic mechanics.

(3) Sure he does. He denies that "dissociated" mechanics can exist in a roleplaying game: the instant you're using them you aren't roleplaying. As already quoted, he explicitly says that to use "dissociated" mechanics is to cease roleplaying completely. That's very clearly more than just a preference: he is declaring people who enjoy "dissociated" mechanics don't enjoy roleplay, period. He allows a carve-out exception before play (such as character creation), but as soon as play has begun, they are verboten.

(4) How can it possibly be an analysis tool if understood as merely a matter of taste? Such a thing does not aid in the identification of effective design. At absolute best all it does is give a label. It does not help us to determine whether a particular mechanic actually achieves the goals for which it was designed. But it is masquerading as such a thing! It is openly declaring that the goal of all RPG design--not just D&D, but literally anything purporting to let one play a role--requires mechanical "association." From this, he concludes that games which feature "dissociated" mechanics in the course of play are not merely not to his taste, they are badly-made roleplaying games. That's what I mean by my references to claims of objectivity. His claim is not, and never was, a simple expression of taste. It is not, and never was, a claim about his sentiments, of the form, "I don't like 'dissociated' mechanics." Instead, it is, and has always been, a claim about the inherent nature and character of "dissociated" mechanics: "'Dissociated' mechanics contradict roleplay." That is a claim about an objective fact, an inherent logical relation between "dissociated" mechanics and roleplaying games.

It's not that complicated. When I play RPGs, I enjoy being immersed in my character's PoV. I'm not all woo-woo about it, but I enjoy immersion. Mechanics that map what I'm doing as a player to what my character is thinking/doing/experiencing "in the fiction" (to borrow a phrase) are a better fit for how I like to play than mechanics that require me to engage with the game in a way that doesn't map to my character.

Sure. They fit your taste, and you front-and-center make that clear. "I like cake, and don't much care for cupcakes." You aren't engaging in critique or analysis: neither looking for design errors (critique) nor evaluating a design for how effectively it achieves its goals (analysis). In which case, I'm not talking about people like you, and never have been. I have been very specifically talking about cake-lovers who are trying to critique cupcakes for not being cakes.

By contrast, I can enjoy highly abstracted mechanics just fine, because none of this has anything to do with abstraction.

That there is mapping is how it has to do with abstraction. Mapping of any kind, whether to the character or not to the character, IS abstraction. That's quite literally what abstraction is. But "dissociation" relies on a selective set of abstraction's elements, chosen in a pretty arbitrary way to exclude some things that are (as stated) familiar or accepted but not include other things that aren't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think magic sort of gets around the whole dissociated thing to some extent because anything can be associated if it corresponds to something in the setting. (Although if you compare 1e to 5e you can see the mechanics of magic are now dissociated when at one point they weren't - although many people actually preferred to treat them as if they were).

Luck points are usually seen as dissociated because it's assumed that they are basically unrelated to anything in the game world, but something that purely exists on the player/mechanical level.

But if instead they represent say, someone's level of favor with the god of fortune and the character actively calls upon them by praying to the god and also knows when they are skating on thin ice and the god is running out of patience with them, then they wouldn't be dissociated.

This certainly makes magic a lot easier to design if you care about avoiding dissociated mechanics. Although see Earthdawn where they do an end run around the whole issue by just saying high level fighters are magic too. (In Earthdawn everything is associated - even your class and level are actively things your characters can discuss with each other in the game world.)

Yes, that's pretty much my critique of the "dissociated" mechanics WRT magic. Magic has an unfair advantage: it is whatever the author tells you is. I'm curious what it is about 5e magic that you think is "dissociated," since the Alexandrian article (and the author's comment replies) seem to indicate he does not see them as "dissociated." Could you explain?

I also think the idea that the concept is purely an edition war weapon is a bit uncharitable. A more charitable explanation would be that it was basically an attempt to put into words one particular element of 4e's design that people found they bounced off of. It obviously resonated with people.

I mean, it's not purely that, and I never meant to say otherwise. But if you're gonna use it without any other comment whatsoever, you shouldn't be surprised if someone takes it in the explicit context from which it arose. Particularly when, as noted, the article explicitly name-drops 4e as the demonstrator of a problem, and specifically launches into it to explain why there is dislike--not simply that there is, but to give it an objective grounding, i.e.: "see, we had to feel the way we did, because 'dissociated' mechanics oppose the very idea of roleplay!"

I don't really get why it's an issue with the concept of dissociated mechanics that it tends to favour magic (in practice, not in theory).

It's just a matter of competing priorities. If we believe balanced characters is a higher priority than associated mechanics, then that's fine.

Because most people who are very positive about the concept either deny that there is an imbalance, or claim that there is zero problem with making balanced, "associated" mechanics even if there currently happens to be an imbalance. That is, either they just deny that there's a problem despite the significant (and ongoing) evidence that there is, or they deny that pursuing "associated" mechanics could have any impact on solving whatever problems might exist. Pointing out that there is an inherent bias rejects both claims. If you, personally, do agree that forcing characters to use "associated" mechanics comes at (at least potential) cost to balance, then you are significantly different from most people I've known who are extremely positive about "dissociated" mechanics.

But for many it may not have been the higher priority as a lot of people went on to play Pathfinder. I mean people did specifically choose to not play a system that threw out more associated mechanics for martials in order to better balance them with casters in favour of continuing playing the game they already had.

That's a pretty tough area to argue about, and I don't really think it's worth dragging that component into the discussion. So, if you are willing, I would prefer to leave it at "there are lots of reasons people went with Pathfinder and not all of them have anything to do with whether mechanics are 'dissocated' or not nor whether the game is balanced or not." Because a LOT of people will still, to this day, claim that there's no balance issues between casters and martials in PF. Even though the designers themselves admitted there were such things, and that they couldn't fix those problems while maintaining continuity, the rules were simply too unbalanced at a fundamental level.

There may be one of those pick any two lists to be had here eg, balanced, simple, associated, pick any two.

It's possible. I, personally, favor balance first (because it is a cooperative game among peers, so it should be the case that each participant's contributions are on par with everyone else's despite being distinct, perhaps dramatically so, in the details of how they contribute), followed by simplicity (simpler rules retain more players, it's simply pragmatic), followed very distantly by "association" (since, as I've said repeatedly, there are plenty of heavily "dissociated" mechanics people are fully able to tolerate solely because they're familiar; tradition and familiarity have a place, but they should not get in the way of attempting to find highly effective game design for a game's goals.)

 

[Mordhau]

Yes, that's pretty much my critique of the "dissociated" mechanics WRT magic. Magic has an unfair advantage: it is whatever the author tells you is. I'm curious what it is about 5e magic that you think is dissociated, since the Alexandrian article (and the author's comment replies) seem to indicate he does not see them as dissociated. Could you explain?

In 1e it was explicit how a magic-user gained his spells. He memorised each one individually and basically put it in his brain. You even had rules for how long it took him to memorise each individual spell. It seemed pretty clear that the forgettiing that took place was an explicitly magical form of forgetting. Basically each specific spell that would be cast was prepared individually and later cast off that preparation.

In 5e you prepare a certain selection of spells but it's completely unconnected to how many spells you can actually cast. It's not even particularly clear what preparing actually means. You then cast a specific number of spells per day but there's no explicit reasoning for the limit, any more than there was for a 4e Fighters Dailies, (or a Barbarian's rages in any edition). The implication may be that there's a certain number of spells you can cast before you get tired but that doesn't really correspond to how the spell slot system works in any clear way. If exhaustion was the limiter it would make more sense to have some kind of spell point system to represent that, rather than an arbritrary limit on the number of spells of each particular level per day. Why can I get too tired to cast any more regular Shatter spells but not too tired to cast Fireball (or a higher level version of Shatter)?

Now thinking about it you may be able to make the argument that some of the limitations on the amount of spells of each level in AD&D you could memorise were equally dissociated, but it seems at the very least, if only because memorising a whole bunch of stuff in short amounts of times feels fairly ritualistic and programmatic. In any case, I don't think it really matters.

 

[Lanefan]

What does it even mean to reverse the laws that govern the moon's orbit of the earth in a 50' radius, 100' high cylinder?

Does D&D have atoms, and particles within them? If it does, what happens when the gravitational force that contributes to their interactions is reversed? D&D has never tried to answer that sort of question.

Neither have I, because it's not until reading this that I even thought to ask it.

And so, now I have something to think about between now and the next time Reverse Gravity rears its head. Thanks.

(side note: the ridiculous thing about Reverse Gravity in most editions is its duration - the intent has always been that things affected "fall" upwards several tens of feet and then crash back down, but the duration in at least one edition (I forget which) would send those things into the stratosphere if cast outdoors on Earth at sea level and using typical falling speeds.)

 

[Lyxen]

It explicitly did in 1e, 2e and 3e. I don't see why that would change for 5e.

Out of curiosity, where did you see these explicitly ?

 

[Lyxen]

Reverse Gravity is the poster child for "gravity" in D&D being nothing more than the tendency of things to fall to earth.

But it is that to what, even 99.9% of the people on earth today ? And it was that to absolutely 100% of people in the medieval times.