Why the demand for realism....

[Zurai]

This thread was based on realism in 4e? Why was it moved to a non-4e forum?

Because you posted it in the 4E rules forum. It has nothing at all to do with 4E rules. You're discussing design principles.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

You've missed the point.

In a movie about outlaw street racers in underground Tokyo with fast cars and beautiful women (and beautiful cars and fast women), I would be surprised and confused to find Warwick Davis as Willow popping in to run through during the climax.

In a game about imagination, I can be surprised and confused when the rules tell me that I can't try and use you as a human shield because I don't have the right power. I mean, I can imagine it...why can't I do it?

4e doesn't fall into that trap too hard in that specific area, but I'd imagine it does in some areas for some people (though I haven't personally seen it yet).

 

[jdrakeh]

The problem is that most posters are using the word "realism" in entirely different ways. I've seen people here use it in the following contexts with regard to 4e and its apparent failure to deliver:

a) Realism as modeling of actual Earth physics.
b) Realism as modeling of actual Earth history.
c) Realism as internal consistency of rules.

Arguably, only C has any validity in the context of D&D, as the game has never modeled actual Earth physics or history with anything that could be considered accuracy.* That said, D&D has never been very internally consistent until D&D 3x and its unified core mechanic came along, either.

Ultimately, though, I think you're right.

D&D is a game and anybody who is genuinely upset that it fails to model the laws of physics perfectly or serve as a scholarly text on Medieval times is missing the point entirely. It seems that they're trying very hard to create issues where none actually exist in an effort to justify their dislike of D&D 4e to others.

The people complaining about internal consistency may or may not have a point, though that argument seems to be rather obscure compared to the others (I see a lot of people say something about internal consistency but then launch into a sermon about how X isn't realistic because Y doesn't happen that way in real life).

*Of course, there will always be some people who claim that providing stats for polearms makes D&D a Medieval simulation and that providing rules for weapon speed made AD&D melee combat an accurate simulation of real life melee combat.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not about realismn, but about things like believability and verisimilitude.

But actually, I don't think it helps.

It is believable that a man can fight a Dragon 10 times his size capable of breathing fire? Where's your verisimilitude here?

The only explanation that works is that this is a heroic character, way beyond what a real mortal can do. What such a man can do or can take, we can't relive in our real life.

Whatever hit points represent in D&D, they are most likely barely related to your physical body. They must represent a mix of heroic skill and stamina, divine luck, something that no one in real life has.

---

There are things where believability are important.
People act according to human nature. They love, they hate, they make mistakes, they are corruptible, they are brave, or they are cowards.

Societies work as you would expect them to work from our history and present - someone is in charge, be it by vote, by divine right, or by heritage. Someone is serving them.
There are tribes, clans, families, kingdoms, empires and republics. There are cops & robbers. There are loyalists and separatists. There are traitors and those giving their life for their home or country. There are the rich and the poor. There are traders, merchants, artisans, soldiers, mercenaries, peasants and slaves.

---
And if I may say, I think D&D sometimes feels in this regard.
A society of chaotic evils where everyone is out to kill his superior? When did such a violent society ever exist, and could work for long, and be considered as a strong power? A society where you can only advance if you kill all your "equals" in your area of expertise?
Political back-stabbing is one thing, but physical back-stabbing is quite another. (Yes, I am talking mostly about Drow.)

 

[cwhs01]

Actually i think you could argue that describing HP as something abstract started way back in the days of 1e. Is that 20 years or so to come up with good mechanics to support this? I say its about due. That they kept a few "sacred cow" naming conventions is fine.

The issue is that 4E (sometimes strongly) sacrifices believability in some areas in the name of simplicity.

The entire concept of healing, for example, is not. It's not healing if the PC never really gets damaged. So, on the one hand, we are led to believe that the PC is not really taking damage and jumps back to full capability between combats or after a good nights rest, and on the other hand, we have terms like Cure and Healing Surges and Damage.

That's not internally consistent.

And, what's most interesting is the extreme justifications and rationals concerning it.

It's merely a mechanic for ease of play. Rationalizing it doesn't work because the rationalizations are after the fact. The explanation did not come first, the mechanic came first. The WotC designers did not say "How can we emulate a willpower or morale type system"? Instead, they said "How can we speed up play?". Hence, these types of rationalizations are artificial and not internally consistent because the rule did not come from the explanation, the explanation came from the rule.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You've missed the point.

In a movie about outlaw street racers in underground Tokyo with fast cars and beautiful women (and beautiful cars and fast women), I would be surprised and confused to find Warwick Davis as Willow popping in to run through during the climax.

In a game about imagination, I can be surprised and confused when the rules tell me that I can't try and use you as a human shield because I don't have the right power. I mean, I can imagine it...why can't I do it?

Many game systems don't have rules that would be able to "simulate" this. Some game systems would require special abilities, meaning you can't do it by default. Is this is a serious flaw? A minor flaw? Does it really matter?

D&D is a "role-playing game". Not a "role-playing simulation". Or a "world-simulation". The parts of "playing a role" and "game" are both important. If you remove the role-playing, we get a game. It's something like chess, or poker, or Need for Speed.
if we remove the game, we have acting or an psychological exercise or test.

A game always uses abstractions and simplifications to achieve a high playability, but also tries to be complex enough to be entertaining as a game. The "role-playing" part of role-playing games means that there is a little more to it then just following some obscure rules, though. We do stuff like talking in-character. We pretend the obscure rule artifacts mean something in the sense of persons and objects of a fictional world. We pretend that they are more then just rules objects.

Roleplaying is pretending to be an Elf. The game defines what Elves can do in a world full of Elves.

 

[Ydars]

I think when most people talk about "realism" in roleplaying, they are not talking about the real world, they are talking about what FEELS real, in a visceral sense. Something doesn't have to model reality to feel real; it has to trigger an emotional and visceral response that creates a "sense of realism"; rather like the way that certain smells or certain music can transport you back to a certain time in your life. The reason 4E probably fails for many people is that it completely fails to tap into our unconcious sense of the past, and this is where our sense of "realism" in gaming actually comes from.

We all have vast store of historical information in our unconcious minds that films and books draw on. Most of us are not aware of this information content at all. Tiny details often help to bring these things out and create a sense of "realism" by which I mean a state where we have sub-conciously "bought in" to something on an emotional level. I have always believed that a DMs primary job is to make the players believe in the story on a visceral level, yet I suspect the majority of D&D gamers don't care about this; they just want to kill things and feel powerful.

D&D (all versions) has always done a pretty bad job of tapping into our unconcious, although 4E is a step worse than 3.5E, because the rules and the gameplay are so obviously the reason for many things that affect the story. Yet this has always been the case; vancian magic anyone? I mean I completely get Vancian magic, but how many novels or other game systems actually used it? What about gold pieces; gold was never used as a currency and its use in D&D has always been a major flag of disbelief for me. Then there is the way magic is completely scientific and non-mysterious and the way the non-human races are portrayed..........it goes on and on.

Gygax hated the master of Vermisilitude; Tolkien and D&D has always been a pulp fantasy game as a result. Tolkien was a master at tapping into our sub-concious knowledge of history because he spent so long studying it; it is why LoTR and his other books FEEL so real. He spent more than 50 years crafting the names and backgrounds to his world until they almost took on a life of their own. Much of Tolkien's work is a clever tangent of reality; not quite history, almost "race memory" if you believe in such a thing. I know lots of people don't like Tolkien, but you see, most people do; LoTR has consistently been voted the most popular work of fiction in the English Language.

 

[pawsplay]

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?

Because that's awesome if it seems real, but lame if it seems fake.

 

[delericho]

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.

There's a wonderful quote in the new DMG to the effect that the game is better if the players are able to maintain their suspension of disbelief, and if the game feels like it's about real characters in a real fantasy world.

(It's in chapter 2, IIRC. I'll post the exact quote when I have access to the books.)

So, apparently even the designers of 4e recognise that 'realism' (or, rather, believeability and versimilitude) is important.

 

[med stud]

I'm with the OP, I think realism/believability died the second a normal man could kill a grizzly bear with his hands. That's unbelievable if you want to use RL explanations.

I don't think anyone in their right mind, and speaking from experience, few people in their wrong minds would believe that a naked man could kill a grizzly unarmed.

So what's it about is consistency, internal logic and immersion. You should feel that what happens in the game doesn't feel random and that you can draw conclusions on what will happen in the future if you do something now.

EDIT: I think the complaints about how 4e lacks versimilitude is mostly due to unfamiliarity. It's not inherently less "realistic" than earlier D&Ds, it's different and takes a while to get used to.