Why the demand for realism....

[med stud]

If you read the whole post you will see that I said as much myself. No earlier edition provides a character with anything other than stats. 4E is simply the first edition to turn those stats into a file format that can be modified, overwritten, and deleted.

I read the rest of your post. It's just that the statement was very bold and directed at just 4e.

I think the situation you describe becomes ridicolous because you describe it the way you do. If someone asked you to show how you killed the hill giants, you could show them how you did. My interpretation of your scenario would be that the fighter could show the groupie how he did it the first time. He doesn't train using it in a sharp situation anymore, that doesn't mean that he doesn't know the moves anymore. I can do roundkicks, split kicks and tornado kicks all day long. I can't use them in a competition anymore.

Your interpretation is as valid as mine but I think you are doing yourself and the game a disservice by interpreting the situation in the worst light possible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I read the rest of your post. It's just that the statement was very bold and directed at just 4e.

I think the situation you describe becomes ridicolous because you describe it the way you do. If someone asked you to show how you killed the hill giants, you could show them how you did. My interpretation of your scenario would be that the fighter could show the groupie how he did it the first time. He doesn't train using it in a sharp situation anymore, that doesn't mean that he doesn't know the moves anymore. I can do roundkicks, split kicks and tornado kicks all day long. I can't use them in a competition anymore.

Your interpretation is as valid as mine but I think you are doing yourself and the game a disservice by interpreting the situation in the worst light possible.

Yes the statement was directed at 4E and not you or anyone else who chooses to run it. My point is that this is the main reason I would be happy to play 4E as a tactical board game, I just wouldn't run my campaign with it. It is also the first edition that I would rather play a pregen than make up my own character.

 

[Psion]

in a game where a 200lb man (or 90lb woman) can slay a 70ft fire-breathing, armor plated, flying dinosaur using hand to hand weapons or by shooting lightning out of their fingertips? I mean really? Really?

The word of the month is verisimilutude, and every time I see it there is an inevitable follow up thread about how 4e is lacking it. I guess the line where physics hits the wall where dragons exist is different for everyone, but c'mon folks give some room for imagination. I guess I don't really have a point here, just wanted to share my thoughts about the comic irony of someone playing a game where literally anything is possible and thinking that it is not realistic enough.

Frankly, I don't want to play in a world where anything is possible. I want to play a game where certain things that may not be possible in the real world are possible. I firmly reject the notion that if I accept certain unrealities, I must accept any. That's a false dichotomy.

I want to play in a game even less where the laws of reality as enforced by the rules aren't backed up by the assumptions of the setting.

 

[Zweischneid]

I prefer cinematic realism.

As long as the world is as internally consistent as an over-the-top action flick, I'm satisfied.

McClane's Law, I believe it's called.

Yes, but I think there's similar debate about movies on what breaks or does not break suspension of disbelief in (action) movies. Jumping a Jet-fighter in Die Hard 4.0 has occasinally been cited as falling outside of the Die Hard 'reality', though it would likely been accepted in, say, a Matrix movie. Similarly, many people complained about the Nuke-fridge or the Aliens in the recent Indiana Jones, a character frequently tangeling with the supernatural.

I don't think versimiltude is an exact science, but rather a delicate art. A fine balance to walk as not to loose the suspension of disbelief in your tale.

Of course it is perfectly possible to just not care and throw versiimilitude out the window right away. But than of course, you'll be missing out the big magic of this hobby in the first place.

 

[xechnao]

Frankly, I don't want to play in a world where anything is possible. I want to play a game where certain things that may not be possible in the real world are possible. I firmly reject the notion that if I accept certain unrealities, I must accept any. That's a false dichotomy.

I want to play in a game even less where the laws of reality as enforced by the rules aren't backed up by the assumptions of the setting.

Well played there.

 

[Ydars]

Thanks for the info about Gary Gygax JohnRTroy. I am not saying that he wasn't a great DM or a great writer, just that his idea of realism is not the same as mine. I appreciate the detail that went into making Greyhawk, I just don't "believe" anything that Gary wrote in the way that I do Tolkien. He had a totally different cultural reference for Fantasy than I do, in fact most Americans have a different "cultural database" in their heads for fantasy than most Europeans it seems to me (one of the reasons that D&D is not as dominant in Europe as it is in the US).

In fact, I guess Gary struck me (from his writings) as an intellectual whereas Tolkien was more like an artist; his moved you with depth and a sense of history, even if it was psuedo-history. Gary also liked Fantasy writers that I detest; Moorcock and Vance, so I guess we just had different tastes; one mans meat is another mans poison I suppose!


ExploderWizard; the idea of re-training IS realistic. Even the best warriors and martial artists cannot keep all the moves they "know" combat ready all the time because muscle memory is limited. So you can only keep a few moves sharp enough to use in a life or death situation.

 

[delericho]

I would say that an unarmed man winning vs a grizzly bear isn't even theoretically possible IRL.

Really, it's impossible? You're absolutely sure? Remember, "truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction must make sense."

In that case it would be stupid to follow the rules. That problem exists in almost every roleplaying game.

In 3e, a coup-de-grace is an auto-hit, auto-crit (triple damage on that axe), with a Fort save to survive. And since he was already at very low hit points, he's not walking away.

In 4e per the RAW, the scenario I described is entirely plausible. (And before we get hung up on "it's not a combat encounter", let's recast just slightly: Stephen and Hamish are there to rescue their friend. Now it is a combat encounter. After all, when was the last time you saw a PC just go meekly to the slaughter?)

I would have thought that counts as "inherently less realistic".

That's only applicable if the DM decides that the rhino will sneak.

1) Develop "Speak with Animals" ritual (I bet it's going to be in PHB2).
2) Use "Speak with Animals" ritual - "we're going over there. Try not to be noticed."
3) Stealth Rhino.

Do I have to think of everything around here?

 

[ExploderWizard]

ExploderWizard; the idea of re-training IS realistic. Even the best warriors and martial artists cannot keep all the moves they "know" combat ready all the time because muscle memory is limited. So you can only keep a few moves sharp enough to use in a life or death situation.

I agree that skills degrade without practice in reality but thats totally different than a sudden "hot swap". If the designers meant to include the concept of skill atrophy then there would be a penalty to use a power that you still know but just haven't used in six levels. A character can make a dungeoneering roll at 1st level, never use it again until level 20 then make a BETTER attempt despite 19 levels of disuse. Nope. Not buying it.

 

[xechnao]

ExploderWizard; the idea of re-training IS realistic. Even the best warriors and martial artists cannot keep all the moves they "know" combat ready all the time because muscle memory is limited. So you can only keep a few moves sharp enough to use in a life or death situation.

In sword&sorcery I never thought of "moves" or something like that. It is not about athletes playing some sport (fencers). Nor about theocratic mystic traditions (shaolin). It is about fit dudes that know what they are facing: it is called combat experience and they are considered badasses or something like that.

Where muscle memory might be important instead is in coordination drills of group formations. But we are not yet there, are we?

 

[Mallus]

I agree that skills degrade without practice in reality but thats totally different than a sudden "hot swap". If the designers meant to include the concept of skill atrophy then there would be a penalty to use a power that you still know but just haven't used in six levels. A character can make a dungeoneering roll at 1st level, never use it again until level 20 then make a BETTER attempt despite 19 levels of disuse. Nope. Not buying it.

Which version of D&D featured realistic skill and training rules?

D&D models a universe where magic is learned by beating the snot out of orcs rather than studying in a library. In light of that, retraining is simply par for the course.