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

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Which is the point of view that the people bent on "realism" take. It's not mine, btw, just trying to explain it.

The problem is not that some people want to imagine a world in which physics are way more complicated because of magic, the problem is that they want to fit magic into the currently understood laws of physics, and it simply is incompatible, just as the black body problem was totally incompatible with newtonian physics until quanta were thought of.

1.) I do not believe when people talk about "realism" they are refering to the fairly arcane and specific dogma of physicalism. I think that they mean is that things ought to conform to the PSR, (even though they probably don't know what the PSR is).

2.) That is precisely my point, but you're phrasing it as a reply rather than affirmation of something I've already said.

 

[p_johnston]

So in terms of Realism and Verisimilitude I thinks it more a matter of where you (and your group) draw the line then a hard yes or no.

We live in the real world. We all understand (to varying degrees) how it works. I know that most people can pick up a rock but not a car. I know that falling off a roof can break my leg but that falling off my couch won't (usually). Etc, etc.

In D&D we have dragons, magic, elves, and gods. We have all these fantastical magical things that are different then in the real world. But unless it's stated to be different somewhere we have to assume, to at least some degree, that most things still follow the same rules and logic as our real world. D&D still has gravity and buoyancy. We assume that Newtons laws still apply for the most part unless the world, rules, or GM state otherwise. We have to assume that such real world rules still apply, unless otherwise stated, in order to have a basic framework from which to work from.


I know that my wizard can cast firebolt (creating fire from thin air), I know that my druid can turn into a cat 1/10 his size. I know these exceptions to what is normally possible apply because they are specifically stated by the rules. Beyond that I can't assume really much of anything. It's up to each group to decide at what point the rules of reality stop applying.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem is not that some people want to imagine a world in which physics are way more complicated because of magic, the problem is that they want to fit magic into the currently understood laws of physics, and it simply is incompatible, just as the black body problem was totally incompatible with newtonian physics until quanta were thought of.

I want to fit magic into the currently understood laws of physics, or at the very least have it be able to seamlessly operate alongside said laws, and so I gave it some thought and came up with a few new laws of physics that apply in magical places of which - due in part to those same laws - real-world Earth is not one.

On that chassis I can build whatever I want.

=====

As for realism in general, two things:

First, the OP redefining the word "realism" to mean something other than reflecting real-world reality doesn't help the discussion one bit, as now we have to come up with a new term to fill in where "realism" just was: the idea that the game setting has a real-world (or at least real-universe) grounding and that, using the principle of specific overrides general, things work there as they do here unless something says otherwise. The advantage of this is that a whole bunch of very basic things can simply be assumed rather than written out, in that the rules only need to deal with - and be - the "something says otherwise" parts.

Someone upthread mentioned game-world gravity as being something that isn't realistic due to falling damage. I counter this by suggesting gravity in all ways other than falling damage works by default just like it does here, and that it's the rules-based abstraction of falling damage which is faulty.

Second, I think the underlying premise that says realism-simulationism-whateverism is simply an attempt to force reality into the game system is backward, in that it's assuming the game system takes priority and that when they come into conflict it's the in-setting reality that has to bend to suit it. I prefer to look at it the other way around: that the game system in its entirety is simply an attempt to model and abstract the in-setting reality and thus when there's a conflict it's the game system that has to bend to suit because the priority is to preserve the integrity of the in-setting reality.

Yes there will be unavoidable places where the in-setting reality cannot be reflected well by the abstracted game system and-or where the game system has to have its say in order to remain playable, and that's fine. But where there's a choice between system (or at-table convenience) and in-setting reality, I say go with the in-setting reality and in so doing make the whole thing more believable and consistent. A good and easy example is fireballs that conveniently pixellate themselves into 5' squares - sure this makes things easier at the table but as it makes no sense whatsoever in the setting I'd choose not to use this model.

Same thing with tracking rations, torches, ammo, etc. - yes it's convenient at the table to ignore these things but doing so violates setting integrity (and, IMO, good-faith play; but that's another issue entirely) and thus I expect at least some attempt at tracking them.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I agree with your conclusion that the realism arguments aren’t really about realism but about the direction of the game. However, I don’t agree that the desire for “realism” in races is necessarily, or even usually, about wanting race to allow for meaningful choices at character generation. In my experience, the people most invested in retaining character creation restrictions are the people least invested in the character building mini-game. Folks who get very invested in the character generation mini-game typically want their characters to be highly customizable, and choice of race hampering certain class options gets in the way of that customizability. I think the argument is less about whether or not D&D should move away from race being a meaningful build choice, and more about whether or not D&D should move towards being able to make whatever character you want, as you imagine it.

There’s also a culture war element to the argument. I don’t think we need to rehash it here, but I think it bears acknowledging.

I’d argue that the people who want fixed ASI or inflexible character building rather than not caring about character creation it’s a matter of caring about verisimilitude of the world, and on the other side of things the people who want free character building don’t necessarily care about character creation they just want to play what they want to play with as little resistance to making their concept as mechanically effective as possible, because nothing actually stopped you from making your halfling barbarian or your 3.xE -INT orc wizard except from the player designing them’s intolerance of them not being quite as effective as a more predisposed race for those classes

I’d argue that the person who calls for more restrictions for character creation and then builds the character that goes against the grain anyway is the person most invested in character creation because they stick to their concept’s integrity despite the hinderances it is afflicted by.

 

[Umbran]

If you are looking holistically at the way your world works, it's not a question of category, energy should be energy whether it comes from "real world" physics or "magical" sources.

The First Law of Thermodynamics - energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed into other energy - is a modern (okay, technically 19th century) concept. Much of the mythology our games are inspired by predate it by centuries to millennia.

There should not be any reason for magic to be different, for a given consistent setting.

But, since it is MAGIC, there is no reason for it to be the same, either. It would seem to me that invoking magic is primarily done to have things that don't fit the norm happen. "People can't fly, so... magic!" If you are going to then turn around and re-impose non-magic... why did we bother invoking magic?

 

[Alzrius]

I think it was in one of the Kobold Guides (from the eponymous Kobold Press) where someone wrote "'realism' is usually just shorthand for internal logic and self-consistency in a setting."

 

[Mordhau]

Because D&D is completely indifferent to any concerns of realism you really should check with your GM about whether certain things apply. For example, does your character need to eat and drink? Do they need warm clothing in a cold environment? Do they need a boat to travel across the ocean or can they just walk across? All these are things which we can't take for granted as D&D is a fantasy game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My life has too much realism and verisimilitude as it is. Why would I want that in an escapist fantasy?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because D&D is completely indifferent to any concerns of realism you really should check with your GM about whether certain things apply. For example, does your character need to eat and drink? Do they need warm clothing in a cold environment? Do they need a boat to travel across the ocean or can they just walk across? All these are things which we can't take for granted as D&D is a fantasy game.

Don't forget the ravages of tooth decay. Do they brush? With what? For how long? Up and down or back and forth?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Know what can make D&D more realistic? Taxes! Nothing will immerse your character more then calculating how much of your loot is taxable!

 

[overgeeked]

Know what can make D&D more realistic? Taxes! Nothing will immerse your character more then calculating how much of your loot is taxable!

I used taxes as a joke once. The players immediately started scheming how to avoid them. Bury the loot outside of town. Bribe the tax collector. Hire bandits to rob the party at the edge of town so the townsfolk could see them get robbed. It led to way more cool quests and shenanigans that I expected.

 

[Mordhau]

Don't forget the ravages of tooth decay. Do they brush? With what? For how long? Up and down or back and forth?

Good point! Just because the DM describes an NPC as having poor teeth doesn't mean we should assume that's related to dental hygeine in any way. D&D is a fantasy game, so it's just as likely they're suffering from some magical curse. It may be worth spending and hour or two of game time investigating.

 

[Thunderfoot]

No, but....
Much like historical fiction the game CAN include elements of realism, reality or history in addition to elements of fantasy.

To say 'categorically' that D&D is anything is probably going to be wrong, usually, sometimes.

 

[Azzy]

The reality is that people who forget that it's just a game and meant to be enjoyed by everyone at the table are less fun than everyone else.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Azzy]

Interaction with people in places like this has also given me insights and new approaches to things.

It's given me new insights, that's for certain.

 

[Lyxen]

The First Law of Thermodynamics - energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed into other energy - is a modern (okay, technically 19th century) concept. Much of the mythology our games are inspired by predate it by centuries to millennia.

But that law still applied then, we just did not know that it applied.

But, since it is MAGIC, there is no reason for it to be the same, either.

And that is exactly my point, I find it strange that some people absolutely want real world physics to apply to worlds where magic clearly violates said laws in so many ways.

It would seem to me that invoking magic is primarily done to have things that don't fit the norm happen. "People can't fly, so... magic!" If you are going to then turn around and re-impose non-magic... why did we bother invoking magic?

The fact remains that D&D magic is extremely predictable and obeys some laws. My perspective is that not only are these laws are way too complex to be explained (just as relativity or quantum physics were way too complex to explain the phenomenons in antiquity), but that they don't match at all our real-world physics anyway, so trying to explain then is doomed to failure, there will always be things happening that do not make any sense from the perspective of the laws that we know.

 

[Lyxen]

1.) I do not believe when people talk about "realism" they are refering to the fairly arcane and specific dogma of physicalism.

I agree that they don't, and I certainly did not argue that they did, especially when discussing D&D where everything is clearly not physical.

I think that they mean is that things ought to conform to the PSR, (even though they probably don't know what the PSR is).

And I agree about this as well, my perspective is that even superficially D&D magic and the real world physics don't match, so layering pseudo-scientific concepts there will only make the mismatch more obvious.

2.) That is precisely my point, but you're phrasing it as a reply rather than affirmation of something I've already said.

The thing is that I think we agree, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. The physics of D&D worlds do not match those of the real world (simplest example is gravity), I just accept that that these worlds have their own physics that resemble nothing of ours and if I'm looking a logical factors, I use the paradigm of those worlds, not ours.

For example, the air that D&D character breathe are just stuff from the elemental plane of air, not 78% O2, 21% N2 and a smattering of other things, as there are only four fundamental elements, not a complete periodic table. There are no atoms, and when a wizard conjures a fireball, it's stuff from the elemental plane of fire, not a real combustion, as this would simply not work in terms of compounds, residue, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

The physics of D&D worlds do not match those of the real world (simplest example is gravity), I just accept that that these worlds have their own physics that resemble nothing of ours and if I'm looking a logical factors, I use the paradigm of those worlds, not ours.

For example, the air that D&D character breathe are just stuff from the elemental plane of air, not 78% O2, 21% N2 and a smattering of other things, as there are only four fundamental elements, not a complete periodic table. There are no atoms, and when a wizard conjures a fireball, it's stuff from the elemental plane of fire, not a real combustion, as this would simply not work in terms of compounds, residue, etc.

All of which is fine, but are you going to be the one who sits down and writes this all up in detail* such that players can have a reasonable expectation of how everything works in the setting? Further, are you then going to expect-insist your players to not just read these books but to internalize and normalize them to the same extent they have for real-world physics? Yeah, didn't think so.

Yet without that, or using real-world physics as a stand-in, the players have no clue how physics in the setting differ from real-world physics for even the simplest of things; which if nothing else would act as a pretty large barrier to immersion as it becomes difficult if not impossible to form a coherent picture in one's mind of the PC and its surroundings.

* - I mean, you could write entire chapters on detailing how and why in-setting gravity allows falls that don't do much damage but doesn't allow a commoner to do moon-jumps and in which things still weigh what they do...or you could just fix falling damage to better reflect reality and have done with it.

 

[Asisreo]

If you are looking holistically at the way your world works, it's not a question of category, energy should be energy whether it comes from "real world" physics or "magical" sources. The real world makes no distinction for example, a stone falling is converting potential energy into cinetic energy, and the two are really different category of energy. Or look at E=mc2, it's exactly the same thing, energy just converts from one "category" to another. There should not be any reason for magic to be different, for a given consistent setting.

I don't do this as a means to make D&D simulationist, but I often do have a semi-cohesive structure to magic and science in my worlds. Look too close and it, of course, breaks down, but I'm only making sufficient explanations such that someone researching magic isn't as nonsensical as someone predicting whether a fair coin will read heads-or-tails.

There's many ways I've fit magical models into my games. From them being an extension of divine beings, with Arcane magic being their power converted into a more generalized form. To magic being within a different spacial dimension that gets projected onto our third dimension through oscillation.

I obviously don't write entire proofs or theses of the magical energies of every given universe, but knowing how magic works to a certain degree does help me with consistency.

 

[Lyxen]

All of which is fine, but are you going to be the one who sits down and writes this all up in detail* such that players can have a reasonable expectation of how everything works in the setting? Further, are you then going to expect-insist your players to not just read these books but to internalize and normalize them to the same extent they have for real-world physics? Yeah, didn't think so.

The thing is that it's not needed, never been needed. The world and its system are consistent enough that players have never needed detailed explanations about the composition of air to know how things work in the setting and run epic adventures. Do they need that in your world ? Do you implement the silliness of OotS with Molybdenum elementals, or do you stick with the standard elementals of the game, air, fire, earth and water ?

Yet without that, or using real-world physics as a stand-in, the players have no clue how physics in the setting differ from real-world physics for even the simplest of things;

The thing is that the differences are not that intense in terms of "simple things". And gravity is not even logical in D&D, it's not physical in any sense of the term. A commoner always dies falling from 30 feet up and a hero never dies, is not even seriously injured. Nothing physical here, it's just story oriented.

which if nothing else would act as a pretty large barrier to immersion as it becomes difficult if not impossible to form a coherent picture in one's mind of the PC and its surroundings.

Again, never been a problem, because it's generally simply consistent, at the story level, like in most stories of the genre. Lok at Brandon Sanderson, a bridge is destroyed by sabotage, lots of people fall down, who survives ? The two heroes, Kaladin and Shallan...

And this is from an author that has extremely detailed systems, just not standard physics one.

* - I mean, you could write entire chapters on detailing how and why in-setting gravity allows falls that don't do much damage but doesn't allow a commoner to do moon-jumps and in which things still weigh what they do...or you could just fix falling damage to better reflect reality and have done with it.

Or you could, you know, just don't worry about it because falling damage works fine as it is, has been working fine for almost 50 years, and no-one at our tables is worried by it.

Of course, if your players abuse it by jumping down chasms for fun, you might want to change the system. It happened to us in the AD&D past, but once or twice only, due to annoying players, and it was enough to explain to the annoying players that it was silly to abuse the system than to change a perfectly good system, that works well for the type of stories that we are telling.