Why is realism "lame"?

[CroBob]

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).

The entire system is focused on combat. There are other aspects of the game, but let's not fool ourselves about one of those aspects getting nearly as much focus. The base mechanic for determining how combat is won or lost is how many HPs remain on each side of the combat. It's not a semantic argument, it's mechanically the foundation of the game, most other aspects of combat focusing on removing or restoring HPs. There are exceptions (save-or-die, stat damage, and such), but, well, they're exceptions, not the norm. About half the classes don't even have access to those exceptions through class mechanics anyhow, and some are explicitly prohibited from of them entirely. It's not like HPs are this obscure, hardly used rule, they're the basis of combat! This has nothing to do with semantics, it's about how the game mechanics function!

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.

Well, since that's not the case, it's irrelevant.

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.

They're also the exception to the norm, only available to the extremely powerful of a limited set of characters and villains. EVERY character has HPs, EVERY character has abilities to remove HPs from their enemies.

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.

... No. Cinematic is about it being like in movies. While 4E codified the mook as "minions", they were still around in previous editions as less powerful, well, minions of the bosses. Or every single fight could be like the big bad boss. Whichever way you did it, the goal was excitement and entertainment, the same goals of the cinema (hence cinematic).

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.

Okay, fine. The rules were written to be cinematic, following the advice found in the DMG led to cinematic...

To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good
role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play.

Are staged plays not cinematic, or, at least, should they not be?

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.

Epic fantasy is cinematic! You're just focusing on an ambiguous term to make your semantic argument, the very sort of argument you claim you dislike. I don't blame you for disliking them, but please don't claim others are doing it when it's clearly you. Frankly, I'm done using "cinematic". It's too ambiguous to be practical, here. I'll instead use words like "exciting", "entertaining", or "dramatic".

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the argument over cinematic is clouding the discussion a bit. It is a term with a bit of baggage.

The problem I am having here is it feels like we are being presented with a false choice between 100% realism and absolute disregard for any believability. This is much more of a spectrum. The game has parts of it that gloss over realism. I can accept that. I think the game works well wth HP as they function. But just because there are dragons, just because heroes are tougher than their real life counter parts, that doesn't mean we have to accept anything that intrudes even more into our suspension of disbelief. So while I can accept many of the flaws of HP, many of which are not immediately apparent until you reflect on things a bit, something like mundane instant, or one day heals, present a problem for me because they are so hard for me to ignore i can overlook a lot of the problems with HP because they just dont jump out at me all the time. Non magical super fast heals, or non magical combat moves I can do just once an encounter stand out for me (and. Belive many others).

 

[Bedrockgames]

... No. Cinematic is about it being like in movies.
".

This is a meaningless definition and not what most people mean by cinematic play. The Godfather is a movie. Rosemary's Baby is a movie. Turner and Hooch is a movie. Rainman is a movie. Sophie's Choice is a movie. I could make a super realistic game that plays like rainman. That wouldnt make it cinematic.

 

[CroBob]

Double post, somehow. Sorry.

While I'm here, though, I'll say that, yes, this "cinematic" talk is useless and clouding the issue, as I pointed out in my last post. Also, a large chunk of that reason is because there is no clear definition of "cinematic". While we all understand it to be something like "fantastic, dramatic action", that's not what the word actually means. If we're going to discuss this in any objective sense, we're going to have to use words with clear definitions, hence my dropping "cinematic" from my discussion from here out.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, fine. The rules were written to be cinematic, following the advice found in the DMG led to cinematic...

2E is my favorite edition. I still play it. It isnt cinematic. It is terrible for cinematic play. The rule bookk embraced the zeitgeist of being cinematic and emphasizing story, but to get their they had to tell people to ignore the rules. The passage you quoted is what I had in mind in my post. If they have to tell you to ignore the mechanics of the game to achieve cinematic resuluts, that strongly suggests the game is not good at being cinematic.

Are staged plays not cinematic, or, at least, should they not be?

".

It is a bit of side issue, but plays are not at all cinematic in opinion. Cnematic impies visuals and kinetic energy. Plays handle drama and dialogue well. They don't handle stuff like james bond well.

 

[CroBob]

I think the argument over cinematic is clouding the discussion a bit. It is a term with a bit of baggage.

The problem I am having here is it feels like we are being presented with a false choice between 100% realism and absolute disregard for any believability. This is much more of a spectrum. The game has parts of it that gloss over realism. I can accept that. I think the game works well wth HP as they function. But just because there are dragons, just because heroes are tougher than their real life counter parts, that doesn't mean we have to accept anything that intrudes even more into our suspension of disbelief. So while I can accept many of the flaws of HP, many of which are not immediately apparent until you reflect on things a bit, something like mundane instant, or one day heals, present a problem for me because they are so hard for me to ignore i can overlook a lot of the problems with HP because they just dont jump out at me all the time. Non magical super fast heals, or non magical combat moves I can do just once an encounter stand out for me (and. Belive many others).

HPs are said to be, in explicit and unambiguous terms and in almost every RPG I've ever played, not merely physical injury. In 4E especially, you're not even bleeding until you've already lost half of them. A "mundane" man can't catch his breath and recover from some superficial bumps and bruises all on his own? It's not like he has gigantic wounds, here. He's banged up a bit, and that's all. That doesn't stretch my imagination at all, let alone thinly. How is it so difficult for you to imagine a guy taking a breather after a strenuous fight?

 

[CroBob]

2E is my favorite edition. I still play it. It isnt cinematic. It is terrible for cinematic play. The rule bookk embraced the zeitgeist of being cinematic and emphasizing story, but to get their they had to tell people to ignore the rules. The passage you quoted is what I had in mind in my post. If they have to tell you to ignore the mechanics of the game to achieve cinematic resuluts, that strongly suggests the game is not good at being cinematic.

Within context, it's advice to be descriptive and not to think of the game as only the rules, but as the adventure it's detailing, not to throw the rules away to make combat exciting. Grab out your DMG and read that entire four or five paragraph section. I don't feel like posting a wall of text.

 

[billd91]

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.

It's both or at least either depending on the context. Superhero games simulate comic book genres, but some rule structures within may also simulate reality as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The entire system is focused on combat. There are other aspects of the game, but let's not fool ourselves about one of those aspects getting nearly as much focus. The base mechanic for determining how combat is won or lost is how many HPs remain on each side of the combat. It's not a semantic argument, it's mechanically the foundation of the game, most other aspects of combat focusing on removing or restoring HPs. There are exceptions (save-or-die, stat damage, and such), but, well, they're exceptions, not the norm. About half the classes don't even have access to those exceptions through class mechanics anyhow, and some are explicitly prohibited from of them entirely. It's not like HPs are this obscure, hardly used rule, they're the basis of combat! This has nothing to do with semantics, it's about how the game mechanics function!
".

this argument strikes me as very semantic in nature. It relies on a definition of cinematic then turns on making HP=cinematic and then claims HP are the foundation of the game. You cannot get much more semantic than that in my opinion.

i dont think combat tis the focus of the game. It is a huge part of the game but exploration and role play are also enormous parts. Combats may feature prominently into a dungeon or hex crawl but the goal itself is the exploration not simply to engage in combat. And exploration can often be quite gritty, very uncinematic.

Save or die, deadly traps and spells that turn you to stone are not all that rare in the game. Lots of characters die in unheroic, uncinematic ways in D&D.

There are lots of elements of the game that oppose a cinematic feel. Okay HP are a big part of combat, but they are not universally cinematic. Look at a low level party. Try running a normal game using earlier editions and see how many characters die. Dying from stray arrows, as many love to point out is not cinematic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's both or at least either depending on the context. Superhero games simulate comic book genres, but some rule structures within may also simulate reality as well.

This is because they are simulationist of reality. It is possible to call them simulationist and claim the of reality should be implied. Or you can just call them realistic.