Why is realism "lame"?

[CroBob]

My Moderator Senses are tingling!

There are some arbiters of rudeness around here. Are you sure you want to invite our review of exactly who is being rude here, and how?

How about I give folks a little chance to correct themselves before I do that. I'll come back to this thread tomorrow, and see how it is progressing...

I actually would like to see what someone neutral to the discussion thinks is rude, if only out of curiosity.

 

[CroBob]

On the topic of "consistently cinematic";

How frequently do HPs get used as a basic mechanism for the game? At least in almost every single fight there is and in other situations where people might get hurt, but which isn't a fight. You could play games of D&D where there are no fights and no damage dealt ever, but let's face facts and admit that D&D is and always has been an action oriented game, focusing a lot of the rules on combat and damage. Even a mere one fight per gaming session means HPs are relevant in every single gaming session. HPs are a consistent part of the game, and they're cinematic. Thus, the game is consistently cinematic.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I actually would like to see what someone neutral to the discussion thinks is rude, if only out of curiosity.

I'm "neutral" in the sense that I haven't had what I'd consider a prolonged discussion in this thread. Personally, I haven't chimed in more because this discussion looks entirely unproductive. That's because I find you needlessly aggressive, Neonchameleon aggressively dismissive (which I'd consider rude), and Bedrockgames aggressively defensive (which I think has come off as rude in a few posts).

But that's just me. I'm a sucker for civility, and I just don't see it happening here. Too many people have to "prove" their side Correct (you, Hussar, and Neonchameleon on one side, with KM, Elf Witch, bill91, and Bedrockgames on the other), with some posters being much more divisive than others (in my view). Not my cup of tea. As always, play what you like

 

[Bluenose]

Most people understand simulationist to mean an attempt to simulate reality.

Really? I'd have thought most people use simulationist to mean something that's "right" for the particular game settting in question, regardless of how closely that setting cleaves to reality. Pendragon is "simulationist" for the Arthurian literature that inspired it, despite being horribly implausible for the reality of the time period "Arthur" may have lived in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the topic of "consistently cinematic";

How frequently do HPs get used as a basic mechanism for the game? At least in almost every single fight there is and in other situations where people might get hurt, but which isn't a fight. You could play games of D&D where there are no fights and no damage dealt ever, but let's face facts and admit that D&D is and always has been an action oriented game, focusing a lot of the rules on combat and damage. Even a mere one fight per gaming session means HPs are relevant in every single gaming session. HPs are a consistent part of the game, and they're cinematic. Thus, the game is consistently cinematic.

This argument doesn't really work. I think it sounds like a convincing argument, but when you really think about it, it breaks down. Combat is consistent a feature of the game, combat does include HP (whoch are arguably cinematic) but combat itself is not consistently cinematic as a result of HP, and too many any other things in the game work against it being cinematic.

there is also the issue that the mere presence of something throughout a game, doesn't neccesarily definethe game's feel.

Lots of other things feature in the game consistently that are not cinematic. It doesnt make the game those things. Travel and treasure are consistently part of the game, therefore encumberance comes up pretty consistently. That is a pretty reaslistic part of the game. Doesn't make the game realistic. Cinematic play isnt just about having something vaguely cinematic in the game consistenlty. It is about having a number of different aspects of the game being cinematic enough to produce something that feels cinematic to most players. It isnt enough for characters to just be able to take lots of damage, and say that makes the game cinematic.

The use of a cinematic mechanic on a regular basis doesn't make the game consistently cinematic. There are many aspects of the game where it is consistently not cinematic as well. A lack of "hero points" makes the game ery uncinematic. This was a big issue in the 90s when they were promoting a more cinematic playstyle but the game simply didn't support it. You literally had to cheat on a regular basis to make the game feel more cinematic.

Or what about all the gritty save or die effects in older editions? There is enough of that in the game to counter any sense of cinematic D&D. And those feature prominently in the game: do they make it gritty? Of course not, because the way HP works fights against the gritty elements of the game.


And lets be clear here, HP do not always produce cinematic results. Opponents also have high HP. A tenth level PC fighting a 10th level NPC doesnt get any special treatment for being "the star".


i am not saying D&D is devoid of the cinematic. There are elements of it. But their are other aspects of the game that shatter any full sense of cinematic play. I could maybe see an argument that 4E was a much more cinematic game. But to say D&D has always been consistently a cinematic game, simply because it includes the arguably cinematic HP (and HP are used consistently) is not an argument I find persuasive.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Bedrockgames aggressively defensive (which I think has come off as rude in a few posts).

That is fair. I think this is an accurate assessment of my posts. I have been getting frustrated with these discussions and have been posting in anger.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Really? I'd have thought most people use simulationist to mean something that's "right" for the particular game settting in question, regardless of how closely that setting cleaves to reality. Pendragon is "simulationist" for the Arthurian literature that inspired it, despite being horribly implausible for the reality of the time period "Arthur" may have lived in.

To me that is emulation. When I encounter simulationsist, it usually just refers to the simulation of real world physics. This is a bit beside the point being debated and more of a side issue.

 

[CroBob]

The use of a cinematic mechanic on a regular basis doesn't make the game consistently cinematic.

... Yeah? It's cinematic... on a consistent basis... but is not consistently cinematic? Do you define "consistently" as "more total time spent this doing the relevant thing than not"? That's not what consistent means.

There are many aspects of the game where it is consistently not cinematic as well. A lack of "hero points" makes the game ery uncinematic. This was a big issue in the 90s when they were promoting a more cinematic playstyle but the game simply didn't support it. You literally had to cheat on a regular basis to make the game feel more cinematic.

Sure. I disagree on the "hero points" and "cheating to make it cinematic" things, but so what?

Or what about all the gritty save or die effects in older editions? There is enough of that in the game to counter any sense of cinematic D&D.

I'm not so sure that counts as gritty. I'm not getting in the "save-or-die is a bad mechanic" argument right now, so I'll just grant this. Okay, save-or-die effects are gritty... therefore the aspects of the game which are regularly cinematic don't count?

And lets be clear here, HP do not always produce cinematic results. Opponents also have high HP. A tenth level PC fighting a 10th level NPC doesnt get any special treatment for being "the star".

It's not about the star getting the spotlight. That's not why HPs are cinematic. HPs are cinematic because instead of just getting stabbed and being done fighting, you last a while. You take several hits and keep going, continue the exciting battle. Enemies also having a bunch of HPs means only that the fight has more total cinema. There's no point where HPs aren't cinematic, as they're the very measure of someone's ability to keep going.

i am not saying D&D is devoid of the cinematic. There are elements of it. But their are other aspects of the game that shatter any full sense of cinematic play. I could maybe see an argument that 4E was a much more cinematic game. But to say D&D has always been consistently a cinematic game, simply because it includes the arguably cinematic HP (and HP are used consistently) is not an argument I find persuasive.

Good for you. I don't find your arguments persuasive either. And me saying that is totally an argument against your points, not just me not adding anything to the conversation. And yeah, 4E is definitely the most cinematic version of the game so far, but to claim the other editions aren't is getting fairly silly. I think you may have modified your games to be less fantastic than the base rules for so long that you forgot what the base mechanics actually were. We're talking about a game where people regularly get in battles with liches, demons, werewolves, and other such fantastic creatures, using magical weapons and spells, healing injuries through prayer, and becoming kings and heroes. Lower levels, sure, they're a bit less cinematic, but they're also the levels leading up TO the high levels where magical fantastic epicness is the norm. In every edition. And, yes, you can play the game in a way that it's less fantastic and cinematic and more dangerous, but that's not supported by the standard rules or the fluff.

 

[Bedrockgames]

... Yeah? It's cinematic... on a consistent basis... but is not consistently cinematic? Do you define "consistently" as "more total time spent this doing the relevant thing than not"? That's not what consistent means.

you are making a semantic argument here that obscures what isreally going on in the game. A mechanic with the property of X featuring into the game consistently does not make the game itself consistently property x. Save or die is gritty. It features in the game pretty consistently. But D&D clearly isnt s consistently gritty games. You cant reduce the judgment of whether D&D is consistently cinematic to a single mechanic. You have to account for the entire system. I would even argue that HP, while they can be cinematic, for them to be truly cinematic, require a host of other things (for example minion or minor player rules like you have in 4E or Savage Worlds).

Sure. I disagree on the "hero points" and "cheating to make it cinematic" things, but so what?

it is important. If the game couldn't do cinematic even when the deigners clearly wanted it to, then that suggests the system was not all that cinematic.

I'm not so sure that counts as gritty. I'm not getting in the "save-or-die is a bad mechanic" argument right now, so I'll just grant this. Okay, save-or-die effects are gritty... therefore the aspects of the game which are regularly cinematic don't count?

they count but it diminishes any cinematic feel they might produce. Te bigger point is to how x ing in the game consistently doesnt automatically make the game X.

It's not about the star getting the spotlight. That's not why HPs are cinematic. HPs are cinematic because instead of just getting stabbed and being done fighting, you last a while. You take several hits and keep going, continue the exciting battle. Enemies also having a bunch of HPs means only that the fight has more total cinema. There's no point where HPs aren't cinematic, as they're the very measure of someone's ability to keep going.

Cinematic is all about the stars getting special treatment. A rule that bestows cibematic immunity by making characters dificult to kill isnt very useful for that purpose if opponents have it as well. In a cinematic fight you mowdown the bit players and only a handful of key villains pose ny real challenge. Are HP unrealistic? Yes. But cinematic does not equal unrealistic.

Good for you. I don't find your arguments persuasive either. And me saying that is totally an argument against your points, not just me not adding anything to the conversation. And yeah, 4E is definitely the most cinematic version of the game so far, but to claim the other editions aren't is getting fairly silly. I think you may have modified your games to be less fantastic than the base rules for so long that you forgot what the base mechanics actually were. We're talking about a game where people regularly get in battles with liches, demons, werewolves, and other such fantastic creatures, using magical weapons and spells, healing injuries through prayer, and becoming kings and heroes. Lower levels, sure, they're a bit less cinematic, but they're also the levels leading up TO the high levels where magical fantastic epicness is the norm. In every edition. And, yes, you can play the game in a way that it's less fantastic and cinematic and more dangerous, but that's not supported by the standard rules or the fluff.

i am sorry but i dont see previous eitions of D&D as all that cinematic. The GM can wirk to make it more cinematic, and the game certainly hasa few vaguely cinematic elements, but at the end of the day previous editions really had their feet in multiple ponds. At times the game could be cinematic, but it could also be gritty andit could also be quite gamey. It was a compromise between many styles of play, not predominantly cinematic.

Epic magic, fantastic elements, tough heroes, none of these make the game cinematic. They make it epic fantasy. TORG and Savage Worlds are very cinematic (and great games IMO). The new Dr. Who Game is very cinematic. Having attempted cinematic campaigns of D&D in the past, i just do not see it as a cinematic game.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I'm "neutral" in the sense that I haven't had what I'd consider a prolonged discussion in this thread. Personally, I haven't chimed in more because this discussion looks entirely unproductive. That's because I find you needlessly aggressive, Neonchameleon aggressively dismissive (which I'd consider rude), and Bedrockgames aggressively defensive (which I think has come off as rude in a few posts).

But that's just me. I'm a sucker for civility, and I just don't see it happening here. Too many people have to "prove" their side Correct (you, Hussar, and Neonchameleon on one side, with KM, Elf Witch, bill91, and Bedrockgames on the other), with some posters being much more divisive than others (in my view). Not my cup of tea. As always, play what you like

It's not just you. I have been quietly reading this thread and my impression of it matches yours.