Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9179238" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Except that, if we assume that Shield works the way it has for the past fifteen years, the <em>reason</em> it works is because it is fast. "Hey! I've just been hit. So I'm going to stop, draw a pentagram, light wax, and chant for three minutes to protect myself from the incoming blow" doesn't work.</p><p></p><p>You can go back to the old "shield is like Mage Armour" paradigm - but that's fundamentally different from the modern Shield spell.</p><p></p><p>No it isn't. It's an attempt to understand a festering garbage-fire of an edition warring article that showed nothing more than that the author was entirely trapped in his own paradigm and invented problems because of it.</p><p></p><p>Indeed. And what is being said is "I can't be bothered to understand why 4e does things the way it does so I'm gong to invent edition warring jargon".</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile pretending 3.0 and 3.5 are the same edition rather than 3.0 being the shortest lived edition in history and 3.5 a shameless cash grab is simply false. </p><p></p><p>Applecline is only partly right; <em>plenty</em> of people (myself included) played using a mix of the two parts at the same table. And you literally could not use 3.0 with 3.5 in the same way with no real issues when the classes had e.g. different skills and literally hundreds of spells were changed. The analogy does not hold.</p><p></p><p>So no I don't think you were right. I think that this is a rare case where Applecline was outright incorrect. And that the backlash against the different design paradigm in Essentials is comparable to the different design paradigm in The Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords - which was sometimes used with no issues at all in 3.5 games, while a lot of people decried it as "The Book of Weaboo Fitan Magic"</p><p></p><p>There's even a mini edition-war inside 5e with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and a group that refuses to accept that and a minor fracture there.</p><p></p><p>And the simpler and less pedantic method is to treat the earth as flat. This doesn't make it correct. 3.5 worked (despite selling less than 3.0) because it allowed the 3.5 designers to resell PHBs and all the splatbooks in a way that was incompatible enough. Meanwhile Pathfinder once again worked by allowing the designers to resell PHBs and a collection of new splatbooks.</p><p></p><p>A better metric would be to say that 3.X got three editions.</p><p></p><p>Despite the fact that the fighter is literally healing themselves out of thin air - while the warlord is allowing people to spend their own resources. Somehow magical healing out of thin air breaks peoples versimilitude while encouraging people to dig deeply into their own resources and take inspiration from others <em>to use their own stamina</em> doesn't. And yes, a lot of this problem is that healing surges were poorly explained. While the other part is the "D&D versimilitude" crew almost entirely caring about D&D's tradition and not what people in the real world or in fiction do.</p><p></p><p>Versimilitude was never all encompassing. It was always a proxy for familiarity that never in many of the cases where it was brought up made any sense when compared with the real world. If it had been anything other than a mix of familiarity and feeling then the simple fact that the 4e fighter has to pace themselves when the 3.X fighter is an untiring robot, spamming the same attacks again and again would have had the versimiltiude people on the side of 4e. Those that didn't go over to a different game entirely (like GURPS or Rolemaster or any one of the dozens of other games that did things better this way than D&D).</p><p></p><p>And yet I have demonstrated how and why and a an example. You are not engaging with the example. Simply using "versimilitude" as your excuse with no actual evidence and no tie to real world situations. This is because versimilitude is and has always been a proxy for familiarity.</p><p></p><p>In short you want a safe space to edition war in peace? And not have your incorrect examples pointed out has being incorrect.</p><p></p><p>There are <em>plenty</em> of areas where 4e didn't do well. For one the combat is far too slow. For another it surrendered much of the bonus of a class based system. It wasn't that the characters were samey - but the pacing and type of engagement pre-essentials could be. But when you start claiming versimilitude for the pre-4e video game style hit points with consequence free damage (or even the related "fighters can spam the same moves all day") then you are going to get disagreed with.</p><p></p><p>Off the top of my head:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It changed a <em>lot</em> and a lot of people liked the old way - with the most invested in the old way being the most invested.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It was a complex game with a lot of modifiers and in a different way to 5e. I for one don't really miss hanging five paperclips off a model's sword.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It was released before it was ready (they had a 24 month development cycle and went back to the drawing board after 10 months because Project Orcus was bad). <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A big consequence of this was that pre-Essentials combat hhad exceptionallly flabby monsters</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A second big consequence was some things were not fit for purpose at launch (Skill Challenges)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A third was a lot was badly explained</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The first adventure (Keep on the Shadowfell) was a truly awful introduction; once you reach the Keep itself it's 17 chained fights in a row in bland rooms with nothing between them. And you never get a second chance to make a first impression. For that matter most of the early adventures were pretty bad.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There were two major playstyles missing; the simple "I hit it" fighter (which was fixed by Essentials) and the "I win in prep time" wizard (which was deliberately left out).</li> </ol><p>And it didn't have to be shelved "so quickly" - it lasted longer than 3.0 and about as long as 3.5. It, like 3.5, had a full round of splatbooks for all the classes and a period nearer the end for weirder splatbooks. It didn't have (the almost certainly lossmaking) two dozen books for each of Eberron and the Forgotten Realms.</p><p></p><p>If your issue is that I am pointing out that you are misrepresenting what you call narrative mechanics, and using versimilitude in a way that appears to be entirely a proxy for familiarity and that makes no sense to anyone not steeped in D&D traditions then perhaps it would be best to stop both.</p><p></p><p>Or possibly you'd be able to come up with counter-examples where versimilitude leads to you <em>rejecting</em> the familiar.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying "your preferences are wrong". I'm saying "your description doesn't match your preferences". And your attempt to pretend the two are the same is the threadcrapping.</p><p></p><p>And I am engaging with your attempt to explain things - and pointing out that they do not actually match what you are saying. Your "explanations" are not Word of God. They are a potential explanation that doesn't actually match up with what you are saying what the issue is. And that you consider your explanations so untouchable that you consider a critique pointing out that your explanations are inaccurate in significant places to be "sabotage" is telling.</p><p></p><p>People like familiarity. And familiarity helps build shared worlds. This is not complex. Making it something more than that however means that the "more" can be investigated and critiqued.</p><p></p><p>Just out of curiosity what would have changed about your argument if you'd written "familiarity" in your OP every time you wrote versimilitude? Sections 2-4 would have been identical - and you wouldn't have borrowed and then discarded a dictionary word.</p><p></p><p>Is this a question based on not knowing the AD&D experience and hit point charts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9179238, member: 87792"] Except that, if we assume that Shield works the way it has for the past fifteen years, the [I]reason[/I] it works is because it is fast. "Hey! I've just been hit. So I'm going to stop, draw a pentagram, light wax, and chant for three minutes to protect myself from the incoming blow" doesn't work. You can go back to the old "shield is like Mage Armour" paradigm - but that's fundamentally different from the modern Shield spell. No it isn't. It's an attempt to understand a festering garbage-fire of an edition warring article that showed nothing more than that the author was entirely trapped in his own paradigm and invented problems because of it. Indeed. And what is being said is "I can't be bothered to understand why 4e does things the way it does so I'm gong to invent edition warring jargon". Meanwhile pretending 3.0 and 3.5 are the same edition rather than 3.0 being the shortest lived edition in history and 3.5 a shameless cash grab is simply false. Applecline is only partly right; [I]plenty[/I] of people (myself included) played using a mix of the two parts at the same table. And you literally could not use 3.0 with 3.5 in the same way with no real issues when the classes had e.g. different skills and literally hundreds of spells were changed. The analogy does not hold. So no I don't think you were right. I think that this is a rare case where Applecline was outright incorrect. And that the backlash against the different design paradigm in Essentials is comparable to the different design paradigm in The Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords - which was sometimes used with no issues at all in 3.5 games, while a lot of people decried it as "The Book of Weaboo Fitan Magic" There's even a mini edition-war inside 5e with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and a group that refuses to accept that and a minor fracture there. And the simpler and less pedantic method is to treat the earth as flat. This doesn't make it correct. 3.5 worked (despite selling less than 3.0) because it allowed the 3.5 designers to resell PHBs and all the splatbooks in a way that was incompatible enough. Meanwhile Pathfinder once again worked by allowing the designers to resell PHBs and a collection of new splatbooks. A better metric would be to say that 3.X got three editions. Despite the fact that the fighter is literally healing themselves out of thin air - while the warlord is allowing people to spend their own resources. Somehow magical healing out of thin air breaks peoples versimilitude while encouraging people to dig deeply into their own resources and take inspiration from others [I]to use their own stamina[/I] doesn't. And yes, a lot of this problem is that healing surges were poorly explained. While the other part is the "D&D versimilitude" crew almost entirely caring about D&D's tradition and not what people in the real world or in fiction do. Versimilitude was never all encompassing. It was always a proxy for familiarity that never in many of the cases where it was brought up made any sense when compared with the real world. If it had been anything other than a mix of familiarity and feeling then the simple fact that the 4e fighter has to pace themselves when the 3.X fighter is an untiring robot, spamming the same attacks again and again would have had the versimiltiude people on the side of 4e. Those that didn't go over to a different game entirely (like GURPS or Rolemaster or any one of the dozens of other games that did things better this way than D&D). And yet I have demonstrated how and why and a an example. You are not engaging with the example. Simply using "versimilitude" as your excuse with no actual evidence and no tie to real world situations. This is because versimilitude is and has always been a proxy for familiarity. In short you want a safe space to edition war in peace? And not have your incorrect examples pointed out has being incorrect. There are [I]plenty[/I] of areas where 4e didn't do well. For one the combat is far too slow. For another it surrendered much of the bonus of a class based system. It wasn't that the characters were samey - but the pacing and type of engagement pre-essentials could be. But when you start claiming versimilitude for the pre-4e video game style hit points with consequence free damage (or even the related "fighters can spam the same moves all day") then you are going to get disagreed with. Off the top of my head: [LIST=1] [*]It changed a [I]lot[/I] and a lot of people liked the old way - with the most invested in the old way being the most invested. [*]It was a complex game with a lot of modifiers and in a different way to 5e. I for one don't really miss hanging five paperclips off a model's sword. [*]It was released before it was ready (they had a 24 month development cycle and went back to the drawing board after 10 months because Project Orcus was bad). [LIST=1] [*]A big consequence of this was that pre-Essentials combat hhad exceptionallly flabby monsters [*]A second big consequence was some things were not fit for purpose at launch (Skill Challenges) [*]A third was a lot was badly explained [/LIST] [*]The first adventure (Keep on the Shadowfell) was a truly awful introduction; once you reach the Keep itself it's 17 chained fights in a row in bland rooms with nothing between them. And you never get a second chance to make a first impression. For that matter most of the early adventures were pretty bad. [*]There were two major playstyles missing; the simple "I hit it" fighter (which was fixed by Essentials) and the "I win in prep time" wizard (which was deliberately left out). [/LIST] And it didn't have to be shelved "so quickly" - it lasted longer than 3.0 and about as long as 3.5. It, like 3.5, had a full round of splatbooks for all the classes and a period nearer the end for weirder splatbooks. It didn't have (the almost certainly lossmaking) two dozen books for each of Eberron and the Forgotten Realms. If your issue is that I am pointing out that you are misrepresenting what you call narrative mechanics, and using versimilitude in a way that appears to be entirely a proxy for familiarity and that makes no sense to anyone not steeped in D&D traditions then perhaps it would be best to stop both. Or possibly you'd be able to come up with counter-examples where versimilitude leads to you [I]rejecting[/I] the familiar. I'm not saying "your preferences are wrong". I'm saying "your description doesn't match your preferences". And your attempt to pretend the two are the same is the threadcrapping. And I am engaging with your attempt to explain things - and pointing out that they do not actually match what you are saying. Your "explanations" are not Word of God. They are a potential explanation that doesn't actually match up with what you are saying what the issue is. And that you consider your explanations so untouchable that you consider a critique pointing out that your explanations are inaccurate in significant places to be "sabotage" is telling. People like familiarity. And familiarity helps build shared worlds. This is not complex. Making it something more than that however means that the "more" can be investigated and critiqued. Just out of curiosity what would have changed about your argument if you'd written "familiarity" in your OP every time you wrote versimilitude? Sections 2-4 would have been identical - and you wouldn't have borrowed and then discarded a dictionary word. Is this a question based on not knowing the AD&D experience and hit point charts? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")
Top