D&D General So, you want realism in D&D?

[EzekielRaiden]

We're giving serious answers? Okay.

Of course. It's a pretend elfgame forum. Taking things ten thousand percent more seriously than anyone could ever logically justify is our culture.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course. It's a pretend elfgame forum. Taking things ten thousand percent more seriously than anyone could ever logically justify is our culture.

Serious Elf

 

[Charlaquin]

As humourous as this is, I think neither side in simulationism vs. gamism debate really wants realism. Otherwise dragons wouldn't be able to fly due to their wings being unable to lift their weight. What simulationists would want would be verisimilutude, which is merely the sentiment that what happens in the game world seems to follow its own laws and logic - and you can definitely have that without demanding realism!

The thing is, I’m pretty sure most people who would describe themselves as gamists also want verisimilitude. They just have different tolerances for the degree of abstraction that they’ll accept and in what contexts.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem is that "realism" means two really extremely painfully different things, and people use the two meanings almost completely fluidly. They often do so without even realizing that they mean two things that can be completely contradictory (but are not necessarily so).

On the one hand, "realism" means "looking and behaving like the real world." When applied to something that features dragons, as you note, then this form of "realism" is impossible. However, a LOT of people have a sort of instinctive, pre-rational expectation that anything you don't really explicitly tell them doesn't work like IRL physics/chemistry/etc. absolutely MUST work so. This is where, for example, you get people complaining that dragonborn can't possibly have belly buttons or breasts, because they're reptiles, reptiles don't have those traits!!! (Never mind the fact that the text is explicitly clear that dragonborn children do in fact suckle after hatching, because they are sort of the logical inverse of a monotreme, "reptile-like mammals" being my preferred term--they look like reptiles on the outside but are internally mammalian.)

Personally, I’m opposed to mammalian dragonborn not because of realism, but because of rule of cool. A sapient species of oviparous reptiles is way more interesting than dragon ladies with boobs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Realism is a scale. Realism =/= mirrors reality. That's merely one extreme end of the scale. Swords being primarily made out of steel is realism. Swords doing slashing or piercing damage is realism. Falling is realism. Birds having feathers is realism. Fire burning is realism. There is a ton of realism in D&D already, but for some of us we want to slide some aspects of it further down the scale towards the "mirrors reality" end of the scale.

IOW, selective realism.

 

[Charlaquin]

But let's make no mistake. 'Verisimilitude' is usually used as a cudgel to remove fantasy elements that aren't discreet magic with dubious understanding of the reality they're trying to ape. See also: plate armor is super heavy and makes you a sad turtle man'.

In my experience armor being heavy and making you slow is generally chalked up to a gameplay concession rather than a realism one. Realistically, there would be no reason anyone couldn’t wear whatever armor they can afford and no drawback to wearing full plate armor other than its cost, and maybe heat if you’re bothering to model that. But, that would make armor choice a matter of what you can afford rather than an aesthetic or build choice. So we suspend realism for the sake of gameplay.

 

[Maxperson]

IOW, selective realism.

Selective or not, it's still more realism than the base game offers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Your character is a peasant. Make a Constitution save to avoid dying of plague.

I assume the characters are supposed to be protagonists in a Howard story or Tolkien-knockoff novel, depending on subgenre.

Technically an IQ test is supposed to have average 100 and SD 15, whereas 3d6x10 has average 105 and SD 30. But there's no reason characters should be randomly drawn from the population--maybe they really are likely to be that one-in-a-million genius (or strongman, or acrobat, or politician, etc.) The point is that characters are supposed to be exceptional.

There is, say, Ryuutama where you play a baker or shopkeeper off on an adventure, but that's a different game with different mechanics to reflect that.

DCC uses pretty similar mechanics to D&D, and it explicitly pushes players to play ordinary people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The thing is, I’m pretty sure most people who would describe themselves as gamists also want verisimilitude. They just have different tolerances for the degree of abstraction that they’ll accept and in what contexts.

My ideal game is about 2/3 process simulation, 1/3 gamist. I very much want verisimilitude.

 

[Lanefan]

On the one hand, "realism" means "looking and behaving like the real world." When applied to something that features dragons, as you note, then this form of "realism" is impossible. However, a LOT of people have a sort of instinctive, pre-rational expectation that anything you don't really explicitly tell them doesn't work like IRL physics/chemistry/etc. absolutely MUST work so.

On the other hand, "realism" means "being well-grounded in established rules that do not change for light and transient reasons." When applied to something that features dragons, this definition of "realism" has no problems whatsoever--dragons can be quite "realistic" in this sense, so long as they obey any rules established about dragons.

But, as I hope the preceding paragraphs have established, these two senses of "realism" are, in some sense, exactly reversed from each other. The only thing they share in common is a desire for consistency, but one is an absolute stickler of only looking like the real world, while the other couldn't care less if it looks like the real world so long as it works like it was some world.

Where I see the two 'realisms' as working hand in hand, co-operatively rather than in opposition.

The first gives a player a setting that can most easily be related to and-or imagined - it looks and works just like Earth except hey, there's a Dragon flying over those trees, the sun is orange, and someone just made those trees grow 100' in a hurry. A DM who thinks it all through can even come up with a homebrew underlying model of game-world physics that accounts for and seamlessly blends magic with real-world physics, on which you're all set.

Once the first is established, the second - the consistency piece - just makes sure it keeps working the same way all the time.

Thus, when I speak of realism I'm including both types above.