Why is realism "lame"?

[Neonchameleon]

I hadn't said a thing about any particular 4e class? I had compared my experiences with 4e combat to earlier-e combat and found 4e combat to be overall a slightly more complex and fiddly experience than before, and gave a supporting point to illustrate why that may be the case for me, in the context of illustrating that different editions have been able to accommodate different levels of customization, while remaining overall quite customizable despite this.

And I gave a counter-example of something that's more fiddly than 4e has anywhere which you accepted. Defenders are fiddly tacticians. This I don't dispute. I do, however, dispute that they are all at the upper edge of the D&D fiddlyness stakes and gave a counter-example.

That's up to the individual group, I imagine. The system can be built in such a way that none of it is essential to play. For WotC's purposes, I don't imagine they'd stray far from the pen-and-paper heroic fantasy that is traditional for D&D, but there's no reason in my mind that they cannot allow for other tables to have their own interpretation of what "D&D" means to them, even if it becomes a space opera game about politics and intrigue played using a monopoly board and poker hands. That might not be my D&D or your D&D or Jeremy Crawford's D&D, or WotC's D&D, but there's little need to play gate-keeper to what that word could mean for every table out there, and lots of reasons not to.

I think your second sentence undercuts your first one here. If you see D&D as requiring a certain kind of HP rule, then HP in D&D are single-purpose only.

I see all D&D versions as having had hit points in which a second level PC can take a point blank shot from a crossbow and walk away even if it rolls (non-critical) maximum damage. I see this as incompatable with realism - to me realism is one of those things that needs to be applied consistently. If someone isn't realistic in their area of expertise (which includes taking a beating) then they aren't realistic.

I don't think HP in D&D are anything like a "major system," so I can see a lot of different ways to use it to accomplish a lot of different goals for a multitude of different tables who might never use HP in the cinematic way that you seem to feel it must be used in.

They are foundational to D&D combat and consistently behave this way across almost all editions. And there are multiple cinematic ways it can be used - indeed the 4e "Heroic comeback" hit point mechanics behave differently from the previous "Tougher than iron" versions. They can be used many ways up to and including wizards having forcefields (yes, I've done this). What they can't be used is "realistically".

 

[billd91]

I see all D&D versions as having had hit points in which a second level PC can take a point blank shot from a crossbow and walk away even if it rolls (non-critical) maximum damage. I see this as incompatable with realism - to me realism is one of those things that needs to be applied consistently. If someone isn't realistic in their area of expertise (which includes taking a beating) then they aren't realistic.

And yet people sometimes do survive grave injuries, including spikes through the brain, just like some people survive terminal velocity falls. Reality can be funny that way. Games typically, even the more realistic ones, bend the odds in favor of the PCs. I'm quite willing to have a game that has a significant nod to gritty, grim, and realistic while also including a certain amount of death resistance to the main protagonists.

One of the great elements of D&D is that the game changes at different level ranges. I can focus on grimmer and grittier at levels 5 and under. Dial up to less gritty but not too fantastic by focusing the game on 5-10. Or go much larger than life in the high level range.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So i think the argument that D&D is cinematic because HP, therefore the game should primarily be built around cinematic play, doesnt really make sense. That would be like arguing because the encumbrance rules try to place realistic limitsn what you can carry, the game is mainly about realistic play, so future editoins should be all about simulationism.

Realistic + Cinematic = Cinematic.

And simulationism isn't inconsistent with a cinematic world being simulated.

This is exactly the kind of argument that creates hostility between fans of different editions, because it denies people the experience they had with the game. I know lots of 4E fanshave trouble uderrstaning how I could find 4E healing and encounter powers highly unrealistic but find HP and old class powers believable enough, but I do.

That isn't in the top three ways of creating hostility between fans of different editions.

For the record:
1: Silly little putdowns. (3tards, 4vengers)
2: Outright lies.
3: Attempted denial that someone else's game is D&D - an attempt to entirely remove them from the conversation.

Only after we've got those three absolutely conversationally toxic approaches out of the way (all three of which happen on ENworld although the do eventually crack down on the first) do attempts to tease apart and analyse why people like what they do come anywhere close to being conversationally annoying by comparison.

 

[billd91]

That isn't in the top three ways of creating hostility between fans of different editions.

For the record:
1: Silly little putdowns. (3tards, 4vengers)
2: Outright lies.
3: Attempted denial that someone else's game is D&D - an attempt to entirely remove them from the conversation.

You forgot being totally dismissive of someone else's opinion and/or telling them that opinion is wrong... another attempt to remove them from the conversation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do, however, dispute that they are all at the upper edge of the D&D fiddlyness stakes and gave a counter-example

This isn't a contest for the Most Fiddly Game Mechanic Ever In D&D History. It's just a statement that I find 4e combats personally more fiddly than combat in previous editions. If you think that's a fair opinion that a reasonable person could have, then we're on the same page.

I see all D&D versions as having had hit points in which a second level PC can take a point blank shot from a crossbow and walk away even if it rolls (non-critical) maximum damage. I see this as incompatable with realism - to me realism is one of those things that needs to be applied consistently. If someone isn't realistic in their area of expertise (which includes taking a beating) then they aren't realistic.

Some people have always seen that as a flaw. Some people have always worked against escalating hit points. Some people have used special rules to add lethality and grittiness to their games. Those people were playing D&D, still, and D&D can make it easier to play like that than it has.

They are foundational to D&D combat and consistently behave this way across almost all editions. And there are multiple cinematic ways it can be used - indeed the 4e "Heroic comeback" hit point mechanics behave differently from the previous "Tougher than iron" versions. They can be used many ways up to and including wizards having forcefields (yes, I've done this). What they can't be used is "realistically".

They can also not be used at all, used in lower amounts, used with rules enhancing overall lethality of the game, etc.

If you're just looking at the rule as a pure function of what they do at the table during play, HP are a combat pacing mechanism, nothing more. Some people want a faster pace, some people want a slower pace, some people want back-and-forth, others want all-or-nothing. There's no reason D&D can't allow for all these styles. A particular combat pace is something that should be easily allowed to change with the preferences of the group playing.

And to make the example concrete, this was easier to change in a game like 1e than it was to change in a game like 4e. In 1e, you decide that everyone has 1d4 hp and that never increases, and you're done. The game is grittier. No one survives a sword wound. It's not balanced, but 1e is comfortable with imbalance. In 4e, you make that choice and you need to interface with healing surges, and the leader role, and Second Wind, and healing potions, and monster recharge abilities, and the "bloodied" status, that's only if you don't care about toppling that carefully built house of cards that is 4e encounter design or about being "gritty" in other ways (such as with death saves). But none of that really needs to stop you, it just makes it a bigger hump to get over. And it's nowhere near the hump you might need to get over if you wanted to strip magic items out of your 3e game (which 4e makes comparatively quite simple!).

Which is just to show that you can make design decisions with a game that encourage or discourage tinkering with it in certain ways, and that there's no reason that D&D cannot be designed to be tinkered with in EVERY way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Realistic + Cinematic = Cinematic.

No. When something deviates from what is realistic and attempts to emulate movie physics it becomes cinematic. It is a question of realism makes something gritty and how much deviation from realism makes it cinematic. Having a few unrealistic mechanics in the game doesnt make it a cinematic rpg.

And simulationism isn't inconsistent with a cinematic world being simulated.

That depends on what defintiion of simulationism you are using. I am not using the forge's definition. I used it to mean a realistic game system in this case. A realistic game system and a cinematic one are in tension with one another.

That isn't in the top three ways of creating hostility between fans of different editions.

For the record:
1: Silly little putdowns. (3tards, 4vengers)
2: Outright lies.
3: Attempted denial that someone else's game is D&D - an attempt to entirely remove them from the conversation.

Only after we've got those three absolutely conversationally toxic approaches out of the way (all three of which happen on ENworld although the do eventually crack down on the first) do attempts to tease apart and analyse why people like what they do come anywhere close to being conversationally annoying by comparison.

that isn't how it works. People dont get to continue being rude because they feel a list of other greivances haven't been addressed. I have not once in this thread said 4E isnt D&D. I have not made use of put downs like 4vengers. I have not made any outright lies. So pointing to these things when I complain about people dismissing my experience of the game adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Speaking only for myself, I understand it. Where I part ways is that I think 4e's healing surges and encounter powers make for a better game, and I'm vastly more interested in the "game" angle than the "simulation" angle when I'm sitting down at a table with my friends, pretending to be elves.

-O

And I am totally fine with that. If 4E gives you a better game, more power to you. Play it and enjoy. If healing surges and encounter powers are part of what makes it better for you, then you should use them. My only point is that many of us didn't like them and had some issues with them in terms of believability. They were simply a step too far. I dont need a game to be a full simulation of reality, but for my tastes 4E was a bit too oriented around the game at the expense of suspension of disbelief. I am fine with someone agreeing with this assesment but believing it produces a better game, as I am fine with someone who believes 4E doesn't have any issues around believability. What tends to aggrivate me is folks trying to deconstruct my position, using Socratic questioning to "prove" my experience of the game is wrong. To me that is dismissive and it's sophistry.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And yet people sometimes do survive grave injuries, including spikes through the brain, just like some people survive terminal velocity falls.

This is why I am talking about maximum damage rather than minimum.

This isn't a contest for the Most Fiddly Game Mechanic Ever In D&D History. It's just a statement that I find 4e combats personally more fiddly than combat in previous editions. If you think that's a fair opinion that a reasonable person could have, then we're on the same page.

And I'm differentiating the combat from the combat rules. 4e IMO starts with simpler rules than previous editions and uses them to build a complex game. The only part that the rules are harder is round healing surges (for which there is no equivalent) - but you can make some very fiddly characters out of simple building blocks. I also don't think the fiddliest are as fiddly as the fiddliest in previous editions (which is one of my points) but the baseline characters have more things that are included actually mattering.

We aren't actually disagreeing here as far as I can tell.

Those people were playing D&D, still, and D&D can make it easier to play like that than it has.

And this is two interesting questions. How much hacking can you do before D&D stops being D&D? And is playing D&D for its sake a good thing when there are better games to get the effect you want?

Which is just to show that you can make design decisions with a game that encourage or discourage tinkering with it in certain ways, and that there's no reason that D&D cannot be designed to be tinkered with in EVERY way.

The way to design a game to be tinkered with is to isolate parts of it. Which leads to clunky rather than elegant rules because they are all bolted on and can be almost trivially removed so there's less of a sense of a coherent whole.

No. When something deviates from what is realistic and attempts to emulate movie physics it becomes cinematic. It is a question of realism makes something gritty and how much deviation from realism makes it cinematic. Having a few unrealistic mechanics in the game doesnt make it a cinematic rpg.

Hit points are designed to emulate movie physics - explicitely the swordfights and swashbuckling of Erroll Flynn. Having a few cinematic mechanics designed to emulate cinema makes it cinematic.

That depends on what defintiion of simulationism you are using. I am not using the forge's definition. I used it to mean a realistic game system in this case. A realistic game system and a cinematic one are in tension with one another.

Then use "realistic" please. Using idiosyncratic language when there are commonly agreed meanings of those terms within the roleplaying community does nothing but harm communication.

[Conversation from here on in cut due to mod suggestion.]

 

[billd91]

This is why I am talking about maximum damage rather than minimum.

A spike through the head is minimum damage, equivalent to the barest graze of an arm or shoulder? Or is it significant damage delivered in a way that doesn't happen to kill the target? Frankly, I find the latter a more satisfying answer.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A spike through the head is minimum damage, equivalent to the barest graze of an arm or shoulder? Or is it significant damage delivered in a way that doesn't happen to kill the target? Frankly, I find the latter a more satisfying answer.

If a spike through the head is maximum damage then it is not possible for a spike through the head to kill a certain (healthy) PC. Frankly I find that an even less satisfying answer (although prefer the GURPS approach which combines damage with death saves if you want to model this).