Why is realism "lame"?

[billd91]

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).

It's a serious injury that doesn't happen to kill the target. It could be a spike in the head, a blade thrust that deeply penetrates the thigh but misses the artery. A central conceit of hit points and gaining more is that the PC gets better at turning injuries that would be lethal into ones that are not. The blade that would have severed the femoral artery is dodged or blocked enough that it just cuts deep.

Now to go back to context, you were also talking maximum, not critical, damage. Maybe you really do need (or even should need) a critical to have the chance of one-shotting that PC because that's what turns that high rolling damage from being a severe injury into and even higher damage mortal one. Ultimately, this is part of the fun of the random roll, both for hit points and for damage. Some people can't take the punishment as well as others. Some injuries are worse than others. Make the recovery of those hit points slow, and you can have plenty of grim and gritty fun even while PCs take a few shots to actually kill.

 

[Umbran]

Realistic + Cinematic = Cinematic.

You speak as if the world of games is digital, and Cinema is dominant - by this logic, having a *single* cinematic mechanic means the entire game is cinematic. That being a bit extreme means the logic fails at some point

It is more likely a continuum, and the various mechanics all stack together to reach some end result standard play state. And exactly how cinematic that feels to people will depend, in large part, on the people.

 

[CroBob]

You're right, but I think we may have different definitions of "simple." IMO, if you're talking about 4e's skill system, okay, it's simple. If you're talking about 4e's combat system...then it is lousy with fiddly bits with great meaning and meaningless bits that seem significant. IMXP, of course.

I'm talking about the system itself. basically everything that happens follows all the same general rules. While there's wiggle room, everything that happens is basically a combination of the same variables with different values, which was not true in older editions, especially pre-3E. Back then, magical fear could have any number of different effects, for example. While those variables tended to pile up, the problem was more in keeping track of them after their application, which can be done easily on whatever note card you're keeping track of combat on in the first place.

This is part of why I'm a big supporter of the OGL. The best way to ensure that someone can find a suite of options that suits their own table well is to ensure that there is an ecosystem of options that are more diverse than any one person will ever functionally need. Let everyone make modifications to your base system, and it is going to wind up adapted to EVERY niche, even the ones you've never thought of or the ones you personally don't have any interest in. The OGL enabled things like roleplaying in fantasy Africa, detailed rules for fictional sex and romance, a 300+ page compendium of historical weapons and armors, telekinetic flying jellyfish as a PC race, and more. I might not care about any of those personally, but a plentiful ecosystem makes it more likely to find what I DO care about. At least one "gritty" d20 variant has already been mentioned in the thread, and there's at least a dozen more where that came from.

This does make sense. However, at the same time, there doesn't need to be a book on the topic in order for someone to change the game in the way they want it changed. It's not like they need permission from publishers to play the game with house-rules or variations on the game's innate rules, or something. The only thing these options being printed really does is offer suggestions as to how to do it. I don't see how major changes being done by yourself would take much longer than poring through a bunch of OGL products/online references to figure out how other people did it, except with the disadvantage of the work's results being less directly proportional to how much effort you put into it, but rather depending on how much work other people already did on that particular thing.

WotC doesn't need to provide everything (though they might want to provide some of the most common desires). They just need to provide a platform -- an engine -- that can run anything, and to give everyone permission to do anything they want with it. The magic of the OGL is, in part, that it supports the natural way that people play the game anyway.

So would you advocate churning out a very basic game, with very core mechanics, providing very little flavor or specific functionality, and then pumping out books which are more specific to particular genres? Frankly, I wouldn't mind that at all. It could be called "D20 Core", or something, and then pump out a bunch of D&D products for it, or even things labelled something entirely different, but which still functions on those very basic mechanics. I'd go so far as to call it a good idea.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

There's quibbles, but I think we're pretty much on the same page as long as you agree that I can find 4e combats more fiddly than previous e combats and not be disingenuous or insulting.

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?

I think this kind of interfaces with branding and how people tie up intimately with "D&D" in a way that they don't with other brands, but I don't see any reason we need external gatekeepers to tell us when "D&D" ends and when some other game begins. Is d20 Call of Cthulu D&D? How about [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate]? OSRIC? Mutants and Masterminds? Gamma World? Birthright? Adventurer Conqueror King? For me, the answer to that is: "Well, is it D&D to you? Then it's D&D. Even if it's Star Wars d6."

I don't think anyone needs to cut down strict dividing lines. In a lot of ways, it's like putting down strict dividing lines in genre. Is Star Wars space opera? Sci fi? Science-Fantasy? Is this kind of music post-punk, post-rock, indie, noise-fusion, instrumental, or experimental? Well, it's a subjective, academic distinction that has no real authority outside of an individual's understanding.

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.

Elegance is overrated, IMO. If you want an elegant game mechanic, flip a coin. The way to capture attention and to initiate flow is to have complexity with significance in areas that you're interested in, and to have the game constantly turning you back to those areas. Since different people are interested in different areas, there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Some folks are interested when combats are quick and deadly. Some folks are interested when combats are cinematic and tactical. Some folks want one for one game and one for the other. There doesn't need to be an authority pronouncing one or the other to be What D&D Is. It can be up to the individual table.

While there's wiggle room, everything that happens is basically a combination of the same variables with different values, which was not true in older editions, especially pre-3E.

Aye, that's true. At the same time, some folks like those unified mechanics, others don't.

However, at the same time, there doesn't need to be a book on the topic in order for someone to change the game in the way they want it changed. It's not like they need permission from publishers to play the game with house-rules or variations on the game's innate rules, or something. The only thing these options being printed really does is offer suggestions as to how to do it. I don't see how major changes being done by yourself would take much longer than poring through a bunch of OGL products/online references to figure out how other people did it, except with the disadvantage of the work's results being less directly proportional to how much effort you put into it, but rather depending on how much work other people already did on that particular thing.

I think it's a feature of there being different kinds of players with different needs. I'm a homebrew machine, you can't STOP me from tinkering with rules. But not everyone is. Some folks would rather get a book on roleplaying in fantasy Africa than to have to research African myths and legends and compose unique classes and abilities themselves. Personally, I'd rather pay someone who is already smart about those things to make game rules for me than have to make them myself, just as I'd rather pay someone to make me a chair than go harvest and chop and sand the wood myself and make a chair.

So would you advocate churning out a very basic game, with very core mechanics, providing very little flavor or specific functionality, and then pumping out books which are more specific to particular genres? Frankly, I wouldn't mind that at all. It could be called "D20 Core", or something, and then pump out a bunch of D&D products for it, or even things labelled something entirely different, but which still functions on those very basic mechanics. I'd go so far as to call it a good idea.

Kinda. I'd probably package it a little differently, but that's what it'd be.

I'd package it as a basic fantasy game for anyone who wants to pretend to be an elf for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon (ie: include a simple skeleton of rules that is stripped-down, basic D&D: fighter/wizard/cleric/dwarf/elf/human, GO), combined with a bunch of pages of extra options (ie: include the most common additions that people will want: halflings, gnomes, dragonborn, paladins, thieves, warlocks), and maybe even some more advanced options just to see what's possible (tweaking hp, tweaking how common magic items are, tweaking the magic system) in the DM's guide.

And in that book would be the basic core rules and math that any DM could use to tweak their games for their own tables...and, ideally, that any potential publisher could use to make their rule systems for others to gather up if they choose.

 

[CroBob]

Elegance is overrated, IMO. If you want an elegant game mechanic, flip a coin. The way to capture attention and to initiate flow is to have complexity with significance in areas that you're interested in, and to have the game constantly turning you back to those areas. Since different people are interested in different areas, there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Some folks are interested when combats are quick and deadly. Some folks are interested when combats are cinematic and tactical. Some folks want one for one game and one for the other. There doesn't need to be an authority pronouncing one or the other to be What D&D Is. It can be up to the individual table.

I can neither strictly agree nor disagree with this sentiment. While it should be a game design objective to make the game as simple as possible, it must also be as simple as possible while retaining the design goals you have for it. And therein lies the problem with designing a new iteration of D&D specifically. So many people have such differing opinions about what makes it D&D, that you either try to please everyone and create a clunky beast that alienates new players, or you design an elegant game and turn people off to it for being unfamiliar. Frankly, it wouldn't be difficult at all to design a game based on flipping a coin instead of dice rolls. I just got a vague idea for one just now, in fact. The problem is that it may be just too simple, not allowing for enough variation or randomness. Maybe. It really depends on how it's implimented and how varied the non-random rules are. This only supports the idea of having a very basic core set of rules, with other books utilizing them in different ways, I think. For D&D, anyhow. Other games have their specific niche and are thus easier to design to fill it.

I think it's a feature of there being different kinds of players with different needs. I'm a homebrew machine, you can't STOP me from tinkering with rules. But not everyone is. Some folks would rather get a book on roleplaying in fantasy Africa than to have to research African myths and legends and compose unique classes and abilities themselves. Personally, I'd rather pay someone who is already smart about those things to make game rules for me than have to make them myself, just as I'd rather pay someone to make me a chair than go harvest and chop and sand the wood myself and make a chair.

Understandable.

Kinda. I'd probably package it a little differently, but that's what it'd be.

I'd package it as a basic fantasy game for anyone who wants to pretend to be an elf for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon (ie: include a simple skeleton of rules that is stripped-down, basic D&D: fighter/wizard/cleric/dwarf/elf/human, GO), combined with a bunch of pages of extra options (ie: include the most common additions that people will want: halflings, gnomes, dragonborn, paladins, thieves, warlocks), and maybe even some more advanced options just to see what's possible (tweaking hp, tweaking how common magic items are, tweaking the magic system) in the DM's guide.

And in that book would be the basic core rules and math that any DM could use to tweak their games for their own tables...and, ideally, that any potential publisher could use to make their rule systems for others to gather up if they choose.

I don't really like that idea. Including the options in the same book as the very core mechanics insinuates that those options are higher-order, or more important than any of the other options that come out later and in different books.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I think HP are there for many reasons, but at theend of the day, to me they very much look like mechnics that arose to facilitate gameplay, not neccessarily to emulate cinema (even if deignshavepointed to ciato help explain them. But even if that isnt the case, having a fewcinematic mechanicsi the game doesnt make the game cimematic. The system would need to produce conistently cinematic play for it to beso.

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.

No. You do not get to dictate what terms can beused here. Most people understand simulationist to mean an attempt to simulate reality. The forge definition is not widely accepted as an agreed upon meaning. Themenipng I am using has been in use for a long time and has wide acceptance.

Rudeness is relative. To me, attempting to divert a conversation into your personal grievances (as you did) because you are unable to support your opinions is incredibly rude. My response was merely to point out the house discussion style of enworld and what is considered acceptable behaviour here - rudeness is all relative. And enworld permits some quite thunderous rudeness of the types I listed.

i am fully able to defend my position andhave done so here, as well as on other occassions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not dismissing your experience of the game. I'm dismissing an experience that isn't backed with evidence as anything other than an experience that isn't backed with evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data. If you had presented some actual analysis and reasoning (the way KM does) I would have engaged with that. However literally your second post to me in this thread was to say "This is exactly the kind of argument that creates hostility between fans of different editions" - i.e. to accuse me of heating up an edition war that is continually near the boil on ENWorld for reasons far more direct than the ones you were complaining about. I am a fan of an edition that many on ENWorld dislike - I expect my opinions and statements to be challenged unless I can back them to the hilt (which I normally can). I therefore have little time for people here who are complaining that it's rude to challenge opinions, statements, and the causes of experiences.

What part of my opinion do you take issue with. I am happy to explain my position and justify. I just wont play into any semantic games.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There's quibbles, but I think we're pretty much on the same page as long as you agree that I can find 4e combats more fiddly than previous e combats and not be disingenuous or insulting.

I can.

I think this kind of interfaces with branding and how people tie up intimately with "D&D" in a way that they don't with other brands,

I really disagree here. I've never seen D&D defended to the degree e.g. football teams are. It is merely one of the two brands in tabletop roleplaying with much size at all - and White Wolf have pretty much fallen.

but I don't see any reason we need external gatekeepers to tell us when "D&D" ends and when some other game begins.

I don't see how it's meaningful to talk about D&D under your definition then. Or rather it means that you need to work to establish a common language before there is meaningful conversation on an individual basis. And D&D is a brand name - there are points you can look at.

Elegance is overrated, IMO. If you want an elegant game mechanic, flip a coin.

Simple isn't the same as elegant. Elegant is simple enough to fit the purpose and no simpler.

There doesn't need to be an authority pronouncing one or the other to be What D&D Is. It can be up to the individual table.

For some people D&D is not the preferred game. ANd for some games it isn't the best option.

I'm a homebrew machine, you can't STOP me from tinkering with rules. But not everyone is. Some folks would rather get a book on roleplaying in fantasy Africa than to have to research African myths and legends and compose unique classes and abilities themselves. Personally, I'd rather pay someone who is already smart about those things to make game rules for me than have to make them myself, just as I'd rather pay someone to make me a chair than go harvest and chop and sand the wood myself and make a chair.

Snap.

And in that book would be the basic core rules and math that any DM could use to tweak their games for their own tables...and, ideally, that any potential publisher could use to make their rule systems for others to gather up if they choose.

Ugh. I'd far rather a more tightly focussed game - I have a couple of dozen games on my shelves, all of which are good ones (I had some bad ones - they get given away when I moved house) - and in many cases the vast differences in what they are trying to do mean that the same core wouldn't work for them. Cortex+ (i.e. Leverage, MHRP, or Smallville) works well for games where who you are is more important than what you are currently holding - but I can't do the same things with it I can do with GURPS, or even a D&D retroclone or 4e (and when the older Cortex games tried they were horrible). I'd far rather a game was the best there is at what it did than a skeleton that can be tweaked to do most things badly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

[Conversation cut due to mod suggestion.]

 

[Umbran]

Rudeness is relative.

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...