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

[Mezuka]

This is my answer to the 'simulationist vs gamist' debate. Solved!

 

[Ondath]

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!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

str 5
int 13
wis -3
dex 4
con 1
cha 0

edit can I live with no charisma and a negative wisdom score by rules? or should I assume a 3 min for all of them?

 

[Oofta]

Hmm ... something tells me that the author based this on measurements that would make them look good. Can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Hmm ... something tells me that the author based this on measurements that would make them look good. Can't quite put my finger on it.

one of the guys in my tuesday night group saw this somewhere and claimed a 24 str and 21 dex... I didn't do the math out but I think when he takes his glasses off he is a super hero

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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 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.)

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. Under this paradigm, anything and everything can be "realistic," up to and including ridiculous feats of magic and reality-warping, so long as there is a feeling of grounded consistency and continuity, more-or-less so long as the reader can feel like they understand what is going on, or is able to "predict" future fictional states based only on knowledge of the present state and the laws (natural, magical, or otherwise) of the world. This sort of "realism" is violated as soon as an established pattern (whether or not it was explicitly established) is broken, especially if it is broken for seemingly arbitrary reasons, e.g. Gwen Stacy's spine was only subject to the kinds of G-forces it would experience IRL for one comic and, for basically everything else, Spider-Man's rescue is never going to put anyone in danger.

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.

Because a person can fluidly (and sometimes unknowingly) shift between these two often-contradictory senses of "realism," essentially any discussion of "realism" in fiction generally, let alone gaming specifically, is guaranteed to run into problems. The standards are constantly being shifted in contrary directions and thus no possible headway can be made. Someone can cry for "realism" in a game about riding dragons because fire breath should be capable of setting things on fire because that's what fire does IRL, and then an instant later roll their eyes at some pedant talking about how there's no way people could be flying like that without a much sturdier and more heavily strapped-in saddle, yet battles can begin on a moment's notice.

 

[Alzrius]

Requisite reminder that the old "divide your IQ by 10 to get your D&D Intelligence" idea is based on the now-obsolete Stanford Binet test. To convert a character's Intelligence score to IQ using the newer Wechsler model, check out this blog post:

D&D and IQ

I first started playing RPGs about two decades ago with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Back before 4th edition finally defaulted to a point...

simantics.blogspot.com

 

[Ondath]

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.)

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. Under this paradigm, anything and everything can be "realistic," up to and including ridiculous feats of magic and reality-warping, so long as there is a feeling of grounded consistency and continuity, more-or-less so long as the reader can feel like they understand what is going on, or is able to "predict" future fictional states based only on knowledge of the present state and the laws (natural, magical, or otherwise) of the world. This sort of "realism" is violated as soon as an established pattern (whether or not it was explicitly established) is broken, especially if it is broken for seemingly arbitrary reasons, e.g. Gwen Stacy's spine was only subject to the kinds of G-forces it would experience IRL for one comic and, for basically everything else, Spider-Man's rescue is never going to put anyone in danger.

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.

Because a person can fluidly (and sometimes unknowingly) shift between these two often-contradictory senses of "realism," essentially any discussion of "realism" in fiction generally, let alone gaming specifically, is guaranteed to run into problems. The standards are constantly being shifted in contrary directions and thus no possible headway can be made. Someone can cry for "realism" in a game about riding dragons because fire breath should be capable of setting things on fire because that's what fire does IRL, and then an instant later roll their eyes at some pedant talking about how there's no way people could be flying like that without a much sturdier and more heavily strapped-in saddle, yet battles can begin on a moment's notice.

Well put! And this is actually a big problem in literary theory, with which I had a few sparring sessions in the process of my PhD. For instance, the distinction you're making between two different senses of Realism implies that what is real in the real world and what's real in the fiction can be separate. In contrast, Dr. Stacie Friend argues that we subconsciously adopt what she calls The Reality Assumption, which means that "everything that is (really) true is fictionally the case, unless excluded by the work." If we take this to be what's behind the notion of realism in fiction, then two senses of realism that you just described melt into one: Realism does mean "looking and behaving like the real world", except when the work explicitly adds different assumptions, in which case realism means "being well-grounded in established rules that do not change for light and transient reasons".

The problem with the Reality Assumption is that I hate it and how sturdy it is. It made my PhD thesis's work way harder than I thought it would be, and although I feel like there are obvious cases where we do not just assume everything in real life translates to all works of fiction unless stated otherwise, it's a really solid theory that is really difficult to disprove. And as long as it is difficult to disprove, it looks like the two senses of realism must be blended to a certain extent. Which might also be why I value verisimilutude over realism when it comes to fiction — verisimilutude explicitly interests itself with a feeling of things being plausible instead of conforming to reality.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, I really and sincerely don't, but this was pretty funny.

 

[Maxperson]

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!

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.