Why the demand for realism....

[Spenser]

Kamikaze Midget had a great point back there about The Fast and the Furious and Warwick Davis. D&D isn't about realism, it's about genre consistency.

In D&D's case, the rules are built around the genre of pulpy cinematic fantasy. The further you stray from that, the less well-suited the rules get.

Change "pulpy" to "historically accurate", and you can still play, but the rules fit less well. Weapons are wrong, the economy doesn't make sense, etc.

Change "cinematic" to "gritty", and you can still play, but the rules fit less well. Characters are way too resilient, martial characters can do all these tricks that "real" fighters can't do, etc.

Change "fantasy" to "science fiction", and... you can probably still play just fine, as long as you reflavor everything properly so that you're playing cinematic, pulpy science fiction. After all, 4e evolved from Star Wars Saga, so there you go. But 4e would be a bad fit for a game set in (the new) Batttlestar Galactica universe.

 

[CleverNickName]

In 4e, a helpless opponent does not lose their Dex bonus to AC, and a coup de grace is not an automatic hit. And so, the following is very possible:

The King's Justice hushes the crown. "The prisoner wishes to say a word."

Wallace struggles against the pain. With a supreme effort he gathers his breath. His voice carries clear in the silence.

"Freeee-dom!"

There is a pause, as everyone digests this. The King's Justice ponders. He knows he shouldn't, but he decides to show mercy. He nods to the headsman. The axe comes down...

The dice spins...

"Damn! I missed!"

"You're kidding?"

"No. His AC is <10 + half level + Dex or Int bonus> minus 2 for combat advantage. The headsman is only 4th level, so only has a +8 to hit. I'll try again."

The headsman raises his axe a second time.

"Got it. That's 23 damage. You're dead."

Mel speaks, "Um... actually I'm not quite dead. My character is only down to -22 hit points. He doesn't die until -30. And the damage wasn't enough to kill me outright - you needed 30 to do that."

"Of for the love of..." Hamish says.

Stephen adds, "A Scotsman, an Englishman and an Irishman go to an execution..."

The headsman raises his axe again...

"I'll just roll my saving throw," Mel says. The dice bounces, and comes up a 20.

"No way!"

"What does that mean?"

"I'm going to try to slip my bonds!"

"Dude, your intestines are hanging out!"

"So, I've got fifteen hit points. I'll be fine."

"You have got to be kidding me..."

"I love this game!"

And then there's the 'Stealth Rhino'...

Oh man...that is the funniest thing I've read all week. Sure, it is as improbable as it is exaggerated. But it does a good job of capturing my frustration with trying to narrate newer game editions.

I wouldn't say that I "demand" realism, I just prefer it because it is easier to explain. I consider myself a storyteller first and a gamer second, and it is hard to describe some of the mechanics in a way that makes sense to the story. Like in the above hypothetical situation...if William were to use a healing surge or second wind to restore/ignore his damaged body, my head would explode.

It seems that each new edition moves its focus farther away from the story and more to the mechanics. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (it is a game, after all), it just isn't my style. Sure, I could change my story to fit the new mechanics, I suppose. But the story is the most important part of my game...I would much rather change the mechanics to fit my story. Either way is the "right" way to do it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

None ever did, or needed to, or does need to IMHO.

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.

I have no problem with the concept of improving character performance through adventuring activities. I just see a character that completely loses his mind at every level to have the same substance as cotton candy and will play it as such.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Because it is only in the realm of the mundane that the magical has meaning.

The more realistic/plausible an environment is, the more the exceptions stand out. If everything is handwaved 'because it's a game' then it just reinforces the arbitrary nature of the activity. If you're playing Candyland, that's fine, but RPGs are supposed to offer something more.

 

[Arnwyn]

I guess the line where physics hits the wall where dragons exist is different for everyone,

And there we go.

Started and ended in the same post!

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D powers are all universal, even when they don't make sense.

For example, a rules question on a forum asked if Gelatinous Cubes could be knocked prone, and what that would look like. The answer: just treat them the same as anyone else who is prone, even if the character can't see a difference -- gameplay system trumps reality.

That probably does a better job at capturing both the good and bad of 4e's reach pretty well.

The thing is, in most cases, I'm for this. Which is probably why 4e doesn't frustrate my verisimilitude too badly. But I can see how it certainly would for those used to how earlier editions made sure the rules made sense within the context of the world (undead don't have vital systems, so sneak attacking them doesn't make sense!), even if those often lead to some of the more frustrating hang-ups in earlier editions (great, my rogue is useless!).

 

[Remathilis]

It can be said that all characters are just collections of abilities and this is true to some extent. 4E is the first edition where a character of level 15 could be completely unrecognizable from its level 1 stats. With enough swapping out of powers the higher level character could retain nearly none of the abilities that it once had. The following situation could actually happen in a 4E game:

Or, in a 3.5 game.

Peasant: Hennet! Your the sorcerer that helped save the burgomaster a while back. We need your help!

Hennet: Sure. What do you need?

Peasant: Well, you have that really cool ability to spider climb, right? My cat is stuck up in that tree, and...

Hennet: Um... actually, I found I rarely used that ability, so when I learned 3rd level magic, I swapped it out for something more useful to my adventuring career...

Peasant: So, you can't climb up and rescue my cat?

Hennet: No, but I know burning hands! We can burn the tree down...

 

[AllisterH]

Personally, I find these discussion to be code for,

"Let's screw over the non-spellcasters". Nobody seems to ask if it is realistic to be able to shapechange, summon demons et al.

So why would combat be the bloody same?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Peasant: Hennet! Your the sorcerer that helped save the burgomaster a while back. We need your help!

Hennet: Sure. What do you need?

Peasant: Well, you have that really cool ability to spider climb, right? My cat is stuck up in that tree, and...

Hennet: Um... actually, I found I rarely used that ability, so when I learned 3rd level magic, I swapped it out for something more useful to my adventuring career...

Peasant: So, you can't climb up and rescue my cat?

Hennet: No, but I know burning hands! We can burn the tree down...

See, I find that kind of acceptable. Put in the in-character parlance, Hennet says that the magic in his blood is often unpredictable and goes through strange mutations. He has lost the ability to spider climb, but he's picked up 3rd level magic, so maybe now he has the ability to FLY!

Or, given that 3e's rules were simulationist:

#1: He hits the cat with a Magic Missile, killing it.
#2: When it falls out of the tree, on his next turn, he uses a potion of Cure Light Wounds on it (which is, of course, conveniently available at the nearest magic shoppe!)
#3: SUCCESS!

 

[Remathilis]

Personally, I find these discussion to be code for,

"Let's screw over the non-spellcasters". Nobody seems to ask if it is realistic to be able to shapechange, summon demons et al.

So why would combat be the bloody same?

There is this inherent belief that fighters are "realistic" because any schmuck can put on armor and swing a long sharp piece of metal at another person. Indeed, we have 3000 years of recorded history about it. But we have no record verifiable accounts of what the parameters of magic is. Ergo, magic is whatever the game/group/writer decides it to be.

The result of this thinking has been, of course, the complete dominance of the wizard and cleric classes alternately throughout D&D's history with the fighter and rogue classes starting with dominance but fading into obscurity (without their own "magic", be it prestige classes or magic items).

Sadly, D&D has trained many of us to think "fighter = do the same boring thing over and over again" and the "wizard = do one awesome thing once then stop." The concepts of wizards having magic at-will and fighters having limited access to martial maneuvers seems inconceivable.