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

[Lyxen]

Psionics. Molecular Agitation, Molecular Manipulation and Molecular Rearangement. Mentions molecules, which don't happen without atoms. Heck, Body Weaponry in the 1e PHB mentions altering molecules as well.

Ah, OK, options that I don't care about, psionics is SciFi (except Dark Sun) and so are molecules. Nothing core, which is what I remember. It's all very round-about.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, OK, options that I don't care about, psionics is SciFi (except Dark Sun) and so are molecules. Nothing core, which is what I remember. It's all very round-about.

Technically psionics were core in 1e. They were in the PHB. And I may be wrong about 3e. I don't see those mentioning molecules. It changed to matter.

 

[Maxperson]

I was responding to those posters who did say it: @Maxperson, @Lanefan, @p_johnston (at least in relation to gravity), and maybe @Oofta (though I'm not 100% sure what Oofta includes in the "macro level").

I'm not saying it. The game is saying it. I'm merely pointing it out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only thing I can pull you up on is this - words don't mean anything by themselves. A word's meaning is determined entirely by how it is used. So if people use it to mean a thing, it means that thing, the "shape of the word" notwithstanding.

The rest of your post is, as far as I can tell, absolutely spot-on.

Okay, but like...I'm not talking about how people use it. I'm talking about what it looks like it should mean based on the etymology of the word, not based on its usage.

A facile reading of "realism" would lead one to think it is a belief, style, or behavior ("-ism," "a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice") which relates to things that materially exist ("real," e.g. def. 3 on Dictionary.com, "being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary"). That facile reading is incorrect based on usage, but it is a very common error.

Hence: problem word. You're right that humans invent words, but they have a context, a history. Word history, like that of any tool, is relevant but not determinative (thank God!) Usage isn't absolutely determinative either, it's just very weighty because the purpose of words is to communicate, and communication is more effective when it is accessible. Common usage for a chosen audience is not "correct," it is simply useful, because you'll reach the largest portion thereof. E.g., "irregardless" is a well-established word, albeit one coming (almost surely) from an accidental conflation between irregard(ful) and regardless, but it is unwise to use it in any kind of formal discussion, because it will either negatively draw attention (weaker communication) or confuse some portion of the audience (unclear). Usage, register, specific audience, context, and history (especially "visually apparent" history like "oh, this word contains the word "real" inside it, it must have something to do with reality) all play a part in what words mean.

"Realism" is an unfortunate word where its usage and its visible etymology are only very poorly related, which leads to confusion. Much better to use a different word that does not have such faults. I prefer "groundedness." It turns away from the truthiness issues with "simulationism" and "verisimilitude" (which both run afoul of having nothing to simulate), while preserving the key expectation from "realism," namely that things proceed or work out as one might rationally expect given ordinary human intuition and a solid but not necessarily complete basis of information about a situation.

The player doesn't "forget" an encounter maneuver after using it, of course - the defence has just seen it before and won't fall for it a second time.

Do keep in mind that the original presentation of "dissociated" mechanics specifically goes with this--to the point that it treats any such flavorful description of this sort of thing as "house-ruling," which I personally find patently ridiculous. (Anything which purports to conflate description of situation with altering the game's rules deeply, deeply confuses me.)

The quoted bit, though, seemed worth a comment because I find it so bizarre. I mean, it helps to know what you like and don't like, what sorts of things support your playstyle preferences and what sorts of things don't. Like, the amount of "crunch" in a game is a matter of preference, but you can still define what you mean by "crunch" and use that to evaluate whether certain mechanics will work for you or not. The whole bit is so strange I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I mean, I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just telling you that that isn't analysis or critique. It is self-reflection. That's certainly useful! But it isn't analysis. If that's all you're doing, cool, but there's nothing to discuss about that. There is only and exactly one possible expert on what you like: you. No one can speak more authoritatively on what you like than you, and no one can provide meaningful critique or analysis of your preferences or whether other games match those things.

As soon as you start doing that thing though--discussing with others what the characteristics of a game are, what purposes games should have, and whether games do or don't meet those purposes effectively--you actually have a discussion....and you actually start engaging in critique and analysis. But to do that, you had to leave mere self-reflection behind and start talking about the nature and teleology of RPGs. That's where the pursuit of objectivity (whether a veneer of it or actually having it) factors in.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not going to respond to the rest of it. Y'all seem to really want me to edition war, and I just can't. I didn't play 4e. I've played PF twice -- the "We Be Goblins" one-shots. I really don't know or care how mean Justin Alexander was to 4e back in the war. I will say that, while I don't believe the term "dissociated" was used, these discussions were happening back on .advocacy in the 90s. So I get why it's become all about Justin Alexander and 4e, but I'm just not interested.

The quoted bit, though, seemed worth a comment because I find it so bizarre. I mean, it helps to know what you like and don't like, what sorts of things support your playstyle preferences and what sorts of things don't. Like, the amount of "crunch" in a game is a matter of preference, but you can still define what you mean by "crunch" and use that to evaluate whether certain mechanics will work for you or not. The whole bit is so strange I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I think I've said it before, and it seems like it's getting through, but I'll say it again: My preference is to avoid dissociated mechanics. I find this easier when I know what dissociated mechanics are, how they differ from abstracted mechanics, and why they push back against my preferred playstyle. I'm not trying to prove objectively that "dissociated mechanics are bad," whatever in the world that might actually mean. Others will have different preferences. Dissociated mechanics clearly don't bother some players at all. In the context of non-magic-users specifically, some players really want a robust selection of class abilities and resources to manage, and they don't care if the resulting mechanics are dissociated. I get that. That's valid. Find your happiness.

Two things. First, it's hard to use personal preferences as an analysis tool because they don't transfer. As such, they only really apply to you, and so anything you present with that lens (your preferences) isn't very useful to others without some kind of attachment to something objective. I don't like green beans, but I can say why and it's attached to a reason others might be able to use. For example, I'm a supertaster and green beans have a concentration of the class of chemicals that trigger the extra bitter receptors I have, so to another supertaster that hasn't tried green beans, me saying I don't like green beans because I'm I supertaster has meaning attached. For others, this is fairly meaningless and seems just a taste issue. When we look at "dissociated mechanics" though, there is no objective tacking that works. And that's because of....

2) 5e is chock full of dissociated mechanics, even if we set all the magic aside (where the thin fig leaf of "it's magic" excuses everything). HP are massively dissociated, many class abilities are dissociated, many feats are dissociated, etc. So, if one is going to say they dislike dissociated mechanics, it should be expected that they would have strong criticisms for 5e's set of dissociated mechanics and/or champion other games that have worked on these issues (and that are games that were created specifically to address these kinds of dissociation within 5e). This usually isn't at all paired with complaints about dissociated mechanics. In fact, almost all complaints of dissociated mechanics are pointed at anything that isn't already part of D&D -- the new. As such, the arguments about dissociated ring often ring very hollow because they're used hypocritically against new ideas while not being used against existing ones.

 

[Greg Benage]

what purposes games should have

Objectively speaking, right?

I'm at a loss and I surrender. Good luck with your analysis!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Dissociated mechanics has nothing to do with realism/verisimilitude, the topic of this thread.

Really don't think they're as separated as you want them to be here. Very often, the reason people don't like dissociated mechanics is because they violate people's sense of verisimilitude.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Objectively speaking, right?

I'm at a loss and I surrender. Good luck with your analysis!

I'm not making any claims about what games should do here. The Alexandrian did. That's my whole point. You are invoking an argument that is explicitly and inherently about the purposes RPGs should have, objectively. That's literally why it was posted, and why people talk about it.

I get that you aren't interested in objective purposes. But if you aren't, you shouldn't use an argument that's fundamentally built around doing so.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Promising article, but regrettably I am deducting two stars for insufficient Don Henley commentary.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not making any claims about what games should do here. The Alexandrian did. That's my whole point. You are invoking an argument that is explicitly and inherently about the purposes RPGs should have, objectively. That's literally why it was posted, and why people talk about it.

I get that you aren't interested in objective purposes. But if you aren't, you shouldn't use an argument that's fundamentally built around doing so.

No one here cares about your crusade against Alexandrian. Some of us however find 'disassociated mechanics' as somewhat useful descriptor, which helps discussing games.