Why is realism "lame"?

[KarinsDad]

I suppose it's worth saying that I feel it should be far tougher to take down something like a full grown dragon than it tends to be in most d20 games I have played.

In my 4E game, every Dragon gets a Class (or sometimes a Functional) Template right off the bat, and many of them have followers, traps, fortifications, etc. The one creature in the game that I make sure is never taken for granted is a Dragon, even if it is lower level than the party. The game is named Dungeons and Dragons after all.

 

[technoextreme]

Why is that? It can't be because of escapism. We do not live in a medieval/fantasy world so a "down to earth" setting would be equally effective in that.
And when you look back at the worlds history, especially at how other cultures than your own developed it is easy to see that a lot of interesting things happened there which would inspire your mind equally, if not more so than the usual fantasy cliches we get instead.

Actually if you look back at medieval time periods* you find that it is more bat crazy insane than even World of Warcraft could ever hope to be. At that point it actually becomes more fascinating to actually think about what the hell would have actually happened if even a small fraction of the crazy stuff that people like Newton, Honenheim, and god only knows who else believed it becomes a lot more interesting.
*I'm kind of stretching the definition of medieval a bit.

(My favorites are Bond's knife-in-a-briefcase and his exploding pen. I don't like invisible cars.)

Hahahahah.... You're slamming the most realistic aspect of the entire movie series is kind of sad. Invisible cars are probably one of the most realistic aspects of the bond movies. Its really kind of insane but its actually more grounded in reality than any of the other gadgets.

 

[Nytmare]

You're slamming the most realistic aspect of the entire movie series is kind of sad.

Most. Realistic? Aspect.

 

[technoextreme]

Most. Realistic? Aspect.

Surprisingly yes. It involves a relatively* new field of materials science that involves nanostructures which have optical properties that aren't common in nature. Basically it involves creating materials with index of refractions that are negative which are nonexistent in nature. In fact we have been able to make 2d claoking devices that work in the microwave range. Scaling it up towards the color range of light involves more engineering and advances in nanoscales materials. This happens all the time in engineering and science.

Admittedly, I know what the person meant is that it should be a bit more grounded in terms of gadgetry but then again absurd technology was something that was always a part of James Bond mythos.

*In a fit of irony I actually think most of the advances made in making said materials postdate the movie. Conceptually it actually is an old idea from 1967.

 

[Nytmare]

Surprisingly yes.

What I'm marveling at the fact that you're considering a scientifically sound, yet theoretical bit of engineering to be more realistic than a knife in a briefcase or a watch with a garrote wire.

 

[Balesir]

How many characters in fantasy novels are "mortally wounded", but make one last heroic act or goodbye speech before they die? That can't happen in D&D's health window. How many are scarred, or walk with a limp? How many battles are described by attrition, with the winner gradually injuring the loser until he can no longer fight? We can't have that in an rpg because it would be a "death spiral", as I understand, which is apparently bad.

Not only is it bad, it also seems to be "unrealistic". There is reasonable evidence that adrenaline makes sure that animals (including humans) are as little impeded by wounds as you could imagine (i.e. only affected by the actual biomechanical damage, not by any abstract "pain modifier") until such time as they become non-functional from a combat perspective. The point where they become non-functional varies enormously - it can be after the first, even relatively minor, wound or after taking severe physical punishment. The likelihood of early disablement can be affected by drugs, wound severity and type and the state of mind of the combatant. A clear theory of "hors de combat determinacy" doesn't exist, though - it might as well be essentially random.

Does every injury have to happen as frequently as in real life or as irreversibly? No. You can simplify things, make them abstract. It doesn't have to be all that realistic. But expanding the rules to cover some of the basic possibilities for "stuff that can happen when someone whacks you with a piece of metal" opens up a new world of game tactics and storytelling possibilities.

It certainly does, which is why I thoroughly agree with sometimes using rules that make elegant, creatively abstract use of such phenomenae.

On the other hand, it also closes off a (different) world of game tactics and storytelling possibilities - which is why I vehemently disagree with using such rules on all occasions.

 

[ggroy]

Because you now have one player riding the pines for several months while his character heals, while the other characters are doing all this fun stuff. Never minding, of course, that at low levels, it's pretty much impossible for any of the PC's to actually engage in any of those in-game activities. But, at the end of the day, I don't play D&D to be a spectator. And even half-way realistic healing would force far too many players to ride the pines far too often.

Back in the day, I played in some games where the DM did things so slow that it would take many sessions (or over a month in offline time) for characters to heal up.

What ended up happening was the "riding the pines" players just spent all their game session time doing something else like: watching television, reading a book, playing video games, etc ... They only responded whenever the DM asked them. Otherwise they were largely disengaged and just "biding time".

After awhile, some players just stopped showing up altogether until their characters were fully healed up. Apparently they saw no point in showing up at all when their characters were just "riding the pines".

 

[Ahnehnois]

It certainly does, which is why I thoroughly agree with sometimes using rules that make elegant, creatively abstract use of such phenomenae.

On the other hand, it also closes off a (different) world of game tactics and storytelling possibilities - which is why I vehemently disagree with using such rules on all occasions.

My gripe is that the rules of the most popular rpg don't even have language or structure to describe any type of meaningful injury, merely a counter that runs out and causes you to die. I certainly agree that the decision to actually use such rules is a complex one, and that they are more appropriate for some circumstances than others.

Personally, I use much more realistic injury rules when playing CoC than when playing D&D, because I think the former game's style benefits more from it.

Not only is it bad, it also seems to be "unrealistic". There is reasonable evidence that adrenaline makes sure that animals (including humans) are as little impeded by wounds as you could imagine (i.e. only affected by the actual biomechanical damage, not by any abstract "pain modifier") until such time as they become non-functional from a combat perspective. The point where they become non-functional varies enormously - it can be after the first, even relatively minor, wound or after taking severe physical punishment. The likelihood of early disablement can be affected by drugs, wound severity and type and the state of mind of the combatant.

Indeed, this is a very difficult situation to create game rules for. As it is, all editions of D&D that I am aware of have a predictable "death window", a small period of time when characters become unconscious and lose hit points and die. I think a greater variety of possible outcomes would be beneficial, though modeling all the factors that determine those outcomes and estimating their relative probabilities is likely unfeasible. Given the fluidity of the situation, I think the ability to persevere through severe wounds is a great venue for extending the capabilities of the martial classes, not necessarily more realistic per se.

 

[Balesir]

Indeed, this is a very difficult situation to create game rules for. As it is, all editions of D&D that I am aware of have a predictable "death window", a small period of time when characters become unconscious and lose hit points and die. I think a greater variety of possible outcomes would be beneficial, though modeling all the factors that determine those outcomes and estimating their relative probabilities is likely unfeasible. Given the fluidity of the situation, I think the ability to persevere through severe wounds is a great venue for extending the capabilities of the martial classes, not necessarily more realistic per se.

For more realistic wounding and recovery I just use HârnMaster (or the variant "GunMaster" that was done for it) without counting penalties for IPs during combat. It fits the requirement almost exactly.

D&D I think just doesn't work at all well for that style of game, so I'm not really interested in modifying it in what seems to me to be a doomed attempt to make it fit something it's fundamentally unsuited to.

The heroic, movie-esque (and yet totally unscripted) type of play that "realistic" wounds and recovery effectively shut down, however, I think D&D - especially 4E - does surpassingly well. So I use it for that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not only is it bad, it also seems to be "unrealistic". There is reasonable evidence that adrenaline makes sure that animals (including humans) are as little impeded by wounds as you could imagine (i.e. only affected by the actual biomechanical damage, not by any abstract "pain modifier") until such time as they become non-functional from a combat perspective. The point where they become non-functional varies enormously - it can be after the first, even relatively minor, wound or after taking severe physical punishment. The likelihood of early disablement can be affected by drugs, wound severity and type and the state of mind of the combatant. A clear theory of "hors de combat determinacy" doesn't exist, though - it might as well be essentially random.


ilities - which is why I vehemently disagree with using such rules on all occasions.

I am not sure I buy this argument. I think whether you have wound penalties or not is more a matter of taste than anything else, but I have never really regarded them as simple "pain" modifiers. They are meant to simulate injuries that impede function as well as pain.

Wound penalties are not a perfect simulation of real combat, but I do personally find them more realistic than ignoring the effects of physical damage entirely (until the person falls). Whether they are better for a given game, is a different matter. For D&D I dont think they fit the kind of play it is designed for.