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

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, sure because most DMs enjoy creating worlds with no logical sense and no correlation to the real world. From 42+ years of experience, I've NEVER met a DM that had created such a world, nor actually heard of those except from people who apparently want to justify making rules for others using the hypothesis that they might exist to justify... justify what exactly ?



And there is no current rule that says that gunpowder does work. It's actually the opposite, gunpowder weapons and explosive are an option in the game, so RAW they don't exist, and neither does gunpowder. And "inventive" (snort) players who think that they could be clever by having their character suddenly become a genius for inventing it out of the blue have no place in our campaigns.

So yes, there are rules that say that gunpowder does not existe / does not work, unless you put in place a specific option.

First, I don't assume something doesn't exist because the book doesn't mention it.

Second, guns are in the DMG, albeit optionally, so they are literally RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

We know that, in D&D, things dropped or otherwise unsupported fall to earth. But is that due to the same force that explains (among other things) why moons orbit planets and planets orbit suns? Do moons in D&D even orbit planets in the way they do in our (real) world? Not in Gygax's example in his DMG, which has a PC flying to the moon on a pegasus!

Yes. Or Reverse Gravity would not function.

Also, page 195 of the 5e PHB, "For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."

And page 48 of the DMG, "The Ethereal Plane also disobeys the laws of gravity; a creature there can move up and down as easily as walking."

Page 61 of the DMG, "Limbo has no gravity, so creatures visiting the plane float in place."

Page 175 of the DMG, "Until you or another creature uses an action to push the button again, the rod doesn't move, even if it is defying gravity."

 

[el-remmen]

But that is "realism", or "verisimilitude", as a downstream consideration in designing a system, not as a reason to incorporate that system in the first place.

Care to elaborate? Because I am not following.

 

[see]

That doesn't actually follow. You have to go down the rabbithole of what those hit points are supposed to be doing in those ten spear stabs to come to any conclusion there (and as anyone who's ever participated in a hit point discussion can tell you, there's damn near nothing even with a family resemblance to consensus about that).

Well, sure, but you also have to go down the rabbithole of what hit points/points of damage represent to decide how much damage falling should "realistically" do. And when you do that, it's not likely that the resulting answer is "scale up falling damage"; it's probably more like "we're going to ignore hit points entirely and have you make a saving throw with a DC based on distance".

 

[Lyxen]

First, I don't assume something doesn't exist because the book doesn't mention it.

But the books DO mention it, as you point out below, as an OPTION, meaning that they are not in the core game and therefore, by default not in any setting that does not mention them specifically.

So, by default, in the rules, they don't exist.

Second, guns are in the DMG, albeit optionally, so they are literally RAW.

As options, and therefore by default not available unless the DM specifically allows them.

 

[Lyxen]

Whatever you think about the elevating hit point model for use as a combat mechanism (I'm not that big a fan but that's neither here nor there), it looks really odd as soon as you get it into other places.

But it's because HP are not a combat mechanism, they are a story-telling mechanism and represent plot protection, nothing more.

 

[Voadam]

But it's because HP are not a combat mechanism, they are a story-telling mechanism and represent plot protection, nothing more.

How do you reckon they are not a combat mechanism?

I can see thinking of them as plot protection, but they seem definitely to be combat mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, sure, but you also have to go down the rabbithole of what hit points/points of damage represent to decide how much damage falling should "realistically" do. And when you do that, it's not likely that the resulting answer is "scale up falling damage"; it's probably more like "we're going to ignore hit points entirely and have you make a saving throw with a DC based on distance".

I wouldn't even argue with that. But once you do, you have to start doing that with a lot of other things potentially.

But then, I'm used to games with fixed hit points, so...

 

[Mordhau]

Well, sure, but you also have to go down the rabbithole of what hit points/points of damage represent to decide how much damage falling should "realistically" do. And when you do that, it's not likely that the resulting answer is "scale up falling damage"; it's probably more like "we're going to ignore hit points entirely and have you make a saving throw with a DC based on distance".

100ft fall = 1d4+1d6 Exhaustion Damage.

That gives you around about 42% survival rate, but the survivors will probably be in a mess for a while.

 

[Lyxen]

How do you reckon they are not a combat mechanism?

Because they are not used only in combat, they are used for resilience every time damage is dealt, and damage is not restricted to combat. For example, as demonstrated, falling.

I can see thinking of them as plot protection, but they seem definitely to be combat mechanics.

Not only, see above.