Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 4292324" data-attributes="member: 13892">The problem is that most posters are using the word &quot;realism&quot; 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&amp;D, as the game has never modeled actual Earth physics or history with anything that could be considered accuracy.* That said, D&amp;D has never been very internally consistent until D&amp;D 3x and its unified core mechanic came along, either. Ultimately, though, I think you're right. D&amp;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&amp;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&amp;D a Medieval simulation and that providing rules for weapon speed made AD&amp;D melee combat an accurate simulation of real life melee combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 4292324, member: 13892"] 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 [i]never[/i] 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 [I]game[/I] 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 [I]realistic[/I] because Y doesn't happen that way in real life). *[size=1]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.[/size] [/QUOTE]

Verification