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

[Mordhau]

What if a new opponent enters the battlefield as a reinforcement in a later round? You get to use it on them then I take it?

It doesn't really work. The fact that you can come up with some sort of rationalisation or explanation that works most of the time doesn't change the fact that the mechanics are inherently dissociated.

You just need to look at Iron Heroes, as I mentioned earlier to see the difference in approach. In Iron Heroes your currency is specifically based on aiming at a particular target and gaining tokens to use on them to activate cool powers, to the extent that the class didn't really work as designed partly because it was too likely someone else would kill the target before the archer got to use their cool stuff.

A more modern approach would be to say the Archer gains tokens by aiming but gets to use them on anyone because the alternative sucks. If the player stops to ask how that makes sense you can just ask them "well would you rather suck?" and probably most players would be happy with the compromise, but it does mean the game is dissociated in a way Iron Heroes tried not to be (or perhaps more likely, given Mearls subsequent career, because it hadn't occured to him at that point that he could get away with not making the mechanics associated.)

Just coming back to this. I think it goes back to what I said earlier about modelling processes more than outcomes. In the 3.5 paradigm that martials use you would model someone being wise to a Fighter's tricks by giving them a Sense Motive roll the second time you tried to use a trick against them, and if you did it a third time they would probably get some kind of bonus.

People I think liked the general approach that 3e took in trying to simulate these processes and decisions. It is (I think rightly) considered a design failure now, but it was an approach that obviously had some appeal. The mechanics were deeply linked to what was happening in the fiction. Magic was less so, but there were quite a few attempts to actually do something of a similar nature with magic. Rob Schwalb wrote a few interesting variants on the magic system including a completely freeform variant that was used in the Black Company game.

 

[Oofta]

The first paragraph seems true. But the second seems false, at least if we push the consistency any further than surface-level expectations of the sort mentioned in the first paragraph.

The simplest example in this respect is the economics of Middle Earth. Rivendell is full of stuff. Who made it, and how did the Elves acquire it? The same questions can be asked of Bree and the Shire.

I'm failing to see why there's an issue. Do elves not make stuff or trade with people that do? Yes, they're isolated, doesn't mean they're all just sitting around singing songs all day. There's no reason they can't have a few trusted traders that are sworn to secrecy. Bree and the shire are farm communities.

The reason it doesn't have to be consistent, or make sense, beyond JRRT's surface-level presentation of it, is because it's just a literary backdrop. Much the same is true of (say) the social and political dynamics of the Forgotten Realms.

D&D economics is pretty glossed over. I try to give some high level thought to it in my campaigns, but most people don't really care

I do agree most visuals for fantasy do not include enough farmland, but that's a separate topic. It's glossed over because farms are boring.

It seems to me that if a player knows that their PC can never be surprised (Alertness), or as per what I've quoted can know how many hits from an ogre they can take without falling - bizarre sorts of knowledge that no one in the real world has about themselves - then a PC can also know that (eg) they can perform this particular bit of swordplay once per encounter.

Yeah, we just refer to it as spidey-sense. In a world with magic and other supernatural abilities, doesn't really seem that out of place.

Yet the whole "dissociation" argument is supposed to rest on the notion that that is too bizarre a piece of knowledge for a character to have.

 

[pemerton]

Just coming back to this. I think it goes back to what I said earlier about modelling processes more than outcomes. In the 3.5 paradigm that martials use you would model someone being wise to a Fighter's tricks by giving them a Sense Motive roll the second time you tried to use a trick against them, and if you did it a third time they would probably get some kind of bonus.

This reminded me of a radical change between AD&D and WotC-D&D that follows from this sort of "realism" but (i) doesn't seem especially realistic at all, and (ii) has tended to hose certain classes.

In AD&D thieves are the best PCs at hearing noise, because that's what they do. Rangers are the best at avoiding surprise. And fighters, from around name level, have some of the best saving throws because such Conan-esque figures are almost impossible to kill.

In 3E, and since, Listen/Perception gets changed into a skill. It has to be based on a stat, and so is WIS-based. And so it turns out that clerics, rather than thieves, are the best at hearing noise; and rather than rangers, are the best at avoiding surprise.

And similarly the classic saving throw array is replaced with a skill-system-style (ie base bonus + stat) approach, with no major saving throw based on STR, which changes the position of high level fighters in the saving throw hierarchy.

Is it "realistic" that having higher DEX makes you better at dodging lightning bolts? Maybe. Is it "realistic" that Conan-esque fighters are more vulnerable to lightning bolts than the thieves and assassins they hang out with? I'm not sure it fits the media.

My view about hearing noise, and surprise, vis-a-vis thieves, clerics and rangers is similar. And your Sense Motive example - which is fully consistent with the 3E design paradigm - would raise the same issue.

 

[pemerton]

I'm failing to see why there's an issue. Do elves not make stuff or trade with people that do? Yes, they're isolated, doesn't mean they're all just sitting around singing songs all day. There's no reason they can't have a few trusted traders that are sworn to secrecy. Bree and the shire are farm communities.

Bree and the Shire have very high levels of material wellbeing. Who is making all that stuff? Who are they trading with? Who is Rivendell trading with? The journey from the Shire to Rivendell is days and days through uninhabited wilderness.

And nothing in the accounts of Rivendell or Lorien suggests that the elves are doing anything else besides sing all day - except when they're forging (or re-forging) items of power.

It's a fairy-tale.

 

[Oofta]

Bree and the Shire have very high levels of material wellbeing. Who is making all that stuff? Who are they trading with? Who is Rivendell trading with? The journey from the Shire to Rivendell is days and days through uninhabited wilderness.

And nothing in the accounts of Rivendell or Lorien suggests that the elves are doing anything else besides sing all day - except when they're forging (or re-forging) items of power.

It's a fairy-tale.

They're trading with people that are not mentioned because it's not pertinent to the story. Same way that I assume they also have to occasionally pee but privies or outhouses are never mentioned. Why would they talk about the day jobs of the people and mundane activities that are not central to the story?

This is just an odd complaint to me. The LOTR is epic fantasy, not a city council's guide to business opportunities and trade partners.

 

[Mordhau]

This reminded me of a radical change between AD&D and WotC-D&D that follows from this sort of "realism" but (i) doesn't seem especially realistic at all, and (ii) has tended to hose certain classes.

In AD&D thieves are the best PCs at hearing noise, because that's what they do. Rangers are the best at avoiding surprise. And fighters, from around name level, have some of the best saving throws because such Conan-esque figures are almost impossible to kill.

In 3E, and since, Listen/Perception gets changed into a skill. It has to be based on a stat, and so is WIS-based. And so it turns out that clerics, rather than thieves, are the best at hearing noise; and rather than rangers, are the best at avoiding surprise.

And similarly the classic saving throw array is replaced with a skill-system-style (ie base bonus + stat) approach, with no major saving throw based on STR, which changes the position of high level fighters in the saving throw hierarchy.

Is it "realistic" that having higher DEX makes you better at dodging lightning bolts? Maybe. Is it "realistic" that Conan-esque fighters are more vulnerable to lightning bolts than the thieves and assassins they hang out with? I'm not sure it fits the media.

My view about hearing noise, and surprise, vis-a-vis thieves, clerics and rangers is similar. And your Sense Motive example - which is fully consistent with the 3E design paradigm - would raise the same issue.

Realistic in some ultimate sense? Probably not. Fitting with the sense people had at the time about how things should work? Probably.

An awful lot of 3.0s design I think can best be understood that almost noone at the time was doing class based systems. From my memory they were widely seen as archaic and entirely arbitrary - point buy was basically considered state of the art, and 3.0 takes a huge amount from that (and this I think created a lot of the problems that D&D still has).

 

[Mordhau]

An elf may defecate in the woods, but if you see him doing so the magic is lost and he disappears from the world forever.

 

[Lanefan]

So, Alertness(1) is dissociated. Second Wind(2) is dissociated. Using a hit die during a rest(3) is dissociated. Hitpoints(4) are dissociated. Extra attack(5) is dissociated. Sneak attack(6) is dissociated. All of these are dissociated. Is it useful to you to appreciate this, and what steps might you take to address your dislike of these mechanics?

1. you cannot be surprised. No one wants to be surprise. The PC isn't choosing to not be surprised. Actual fiction doesn't matter here at all, either.
2. what is the PC doing here that grants hp back? Why can't the do it whenever? Why is this only a fighter ability?
3. What is the PC doing here that grants HP? Why can't they do that anytime they want without limit?
4. I mean, hitpoints, right? The easiest here is that the PC isn't attacking the enemy to remove some ablative plot armor, but to injure, maim, or kill. The result of "no fictional change" doesn't really track.
5. The PC choosing to go all out looks different at certain only mechanical breakpoints. The reasons that classes other than fighter never get more than one of these, or even none of these (most common) has no fictional basis that makes sense. It's a purely mechanic differentiation to allow fighters to not completely suck due to no magic.
6. Sneak attack has the same problems extra attack does -- why not let everyone do this?

Some of those aren't nearly as dissociated as others as they can so easily be explained in the fiction:

1. Explained by extra training and study in being aware of one's surroundings.
2. Dubious. Explainable if used on self as simply taking a breather, maybe.
3. Dissociated, as is the entire "hit dice" mechanic in 5e.
4. Dubious; the more one sees hit points as meat, the less dissociative they are. If they were split into body (meat) and fatigue (vitality) points the dissociation would lessen greatly. Where the dissicoation really rears its ugly head is at the 0 (down) and 1 (fully functional) point; an area that's needed help since the dark ages.
5. Explained by specialized training in faster/more efficient combat techniques.
6. Explained by specialized training in stealthy combat techniques; training only available to the "right" people (a.k.a. Thieves and Rogues).

 

[Micah Sweet]

The first paragraph seems true. But the second seems false, at least if we push the consistency any further than surface-level expectations of the sort mentioned in the first paragraph.

The simplest example in this respect is the economics of Middle Earth. Rivendell is full of stuff. Who made it, and how did the Elves acquire it? The same questions can be asked of Bree and the Shire.

The reason it doesn't have to be consistent, or make sense, beyond JRRT's surface-level presentation of it, is because it's just a literary backdrop. Much the same is true of (say) the social and political dynamics of the Forgotten Realms.

It seems to me that if a player knows that their PC can never be surprised (Alertness), or as per what I've quoted can know how many hits from an ogre they can take without falling - bizarre sorts of knowledge that no one in the real world has about themselves - then a PC can also know that (eg) they can perform this particular bit of swordplay once per encounter.

Yet the whole "dissociation" argument is supposed to rest on the notion that that is too bizarre a piece of knowledge for a character to have.

You get away with literary backdrop in literature. You really can't in a TTRPG as granular as D&D. This why RPGs based on licensed games tend to have so much more world detail than the original material showcased. They were created for different purposes.

 

[Azzy]

"Tell me,” the great twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked a friend, “why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?” His friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going around the Earth.” Wittgenstein responded, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

Well, Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.