Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons

[Libertad]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111220

Monte talks about how the game of D&D has gotten progressively complex over the years.  From oodles of different weapon stats to the hardness of wooden and stone buildings, the world's oldest RPG seems to have a rule for every occasion.  Monte describes this as an "ode to realism," or the attempt to simulate a living, breathing world.  He also discusses acceptable breaks from reality, and how "too much realism" can hurt the game.

He then ends the article with a poll.  He asks gamers how much they care about realism in their games and how much they alter the rules to this extent.

The term "versimilitude" is a much better substitute for realism in discussions of fantasy RPGs.  Discussion of different forms of government and stats for various kinds of horses does not make the game "more realistic" if you've still got creatures defying the laws of physics and magic altering reality.  A complex ruleset can be very unrealistic.

Also, you don't need a "realistic setting" to simulate a living, breathing world.  You need consistency.  If there are rules to your world, you should adhere to them.  Example: if all angels in your setting are described as being vegetarians without exception, you better have a damn good reason if the PCs meet a Solar sitting down to a dinner of roast beef.  We want the world to make sense by its own definitions and standards.

Thoughts and opinions?

[bhu]

I keep hearing he's working on 5e and the polls are to decide if they want to go with a more simulationist or gamist approach with it.

[Unbeliever]

I keep on getting a sense that he's trying to justify some sort of rules-lite style approach.  Like, he's ruminating with an air towards persuading the reader of something, rather than just musing.

I'm not necessarily against rules-lite games, but D&D has a certain ... pedigree that such an approach would be at odds with.  Also, I kind of resent this attempt at preemptive buzz marketing or justification.  If I wanted to go back to playing a game like AD&D, where I had to wing it for everything, I can -- I still own AD&D itself, for instance.

Then again, as far as I can tell Monte Cook has no idea how to write rules.  So, maybe less rules will be a blessing in disguise for 5E. 

[Sirdanile]

Example: if all angels in your setting are described as being vegetarians without exception, you better have a damn good reason if the PCs meet a Solar sitting down to a dinner of roast beef.

It's a trap!

Or a devil/demon/illusion leading to an ambush or certain death room. *Shrug*

I think that Consistency is needed for "realism" in games and as long as the world is consistant nobody will question it. This is really useful to make illusions playable against for example.

Realism in general depends on the kind of game you want to run, political intrigue and stealthy assassin pcs wouldnt benefit much from the gods deciding to throw an apocalypse in there for no reason, whereas if you were running standard high fantasy game then that apocalypse would be a fun time.

[Keldar]

I think you've summed up my position quite well, Libertad.  D&D is fantastic, consistency and internal logic are what is important, not realism.  Realism is what lead to Fighters being a waste of space after all.    Too much is a bad thing.

[linklord231]

Whenever someone talks about "realism" in D&D, I automatically replace it in my head with "verisimilitude".  Unless someone is very clearly referring to literal realism, in which case I  .   

[ariasderros]

Whenever someone talks about "realism" in D&D, I automatically replace it in my head with "verisimilitude".  Unless someone is very clearly referring to literal realism, in which case I  .

+1

[Libertad]

I once debated a guy on The Gaming Den (shadzar) about realism in D&D.  He said that it had a place in areas and characters which did not have access to magic.

I disagreed with many of his points, but I saw where he was coming from.  The term "realism," as used by many gamers, seems to be "I assume things work the way they do in the real world unless it's spelled out otherwise in the game."  We assume that humans and elves are mammals, we assume that most peasants are farmers and grow crops, we usually "default" to real-world examples to have something to relate to for comparison.

It's near the bottom of the page, btw.

[linklord231]

The term "realism," as used by many gamers, seems to be "I assume things work the way they do in the real world unless it's spelled out otherwise in the game."  We assume that humans and elves are mammals, we assume that most peasants are farmers and grow crops, we usually "default" to real-world examples to have something to relate to for comparison.

That actually kind of makes sense, to a point.  But It's also important to consider the logical effect of the changes that are explicit.  For example, in a world that has a thriving subterranean ecosystem (aka the Underdark), there is no such thing as underground oil deposits because the biological material that would normally decay into oil instead is converted into other forms of energy for the inhabitants of the Underdark.  Because there is no oil, there is also no such thing as plastic or any other petroleum-based products.  Something to think about. 
So yes, some things should default to how they are in real life, but most things are probably going to end up changed either explicitly or implicitly. 

[Keldar]

The thing is, I've seen many people use the phrase "It's not realistic!" as an objection to many things with D&D.  Typically when anyone proposes giving the Fighter something that isn't swinging his sword (again).  There are people that clearly can't fully wrap their brain around the idea of it being a fantasy setting and thus its rules don't need to follow our own.

[veekie]

Well, consistency is more important on that end, especially given that a lot of the things often deemed impossible were once upon a time, part of basic martial training. Its less 'thats unrealistic' and more 'thats not how we used to do it', keeping in mind that for example, things like Deflect Arrows aren't too far out of the ordinary.

Every baseball, tennis or badminton player has deflected projectiles driven as swiftly as muscle can attain, and drive it towards a chosen target to boot. That plate mail weighs less and is easier to move in than a modern full field pack. That two-weapon combat is difficult or misconceiving what and how the second weapon is used. That tripping and grappling are unusual combat styles, rather than basic military training. The list goes on, and this is before the mystical aspects are brought into the equation.

[RobbyPants]

I agree that consistency is more important than realism in a world with magic. If you want non-casters to be viable past 5th level, you need to stop worrying about realism so much. Alternately, all non-casting classes would need something like a hard 5th level cap so the game could progress.

[oslecamo]

Every baseball, tennis or badminton player has deflected projectiles driven as swiftly as muscle can attain, and drive it towards a chosen target to boot.

-The leg muscles are considerably stronger than arm muscles. Altough arm-thrown balls can reach roughly 100 mph, kicked balls can go over to 147 mph. And it can't be kicked faster simply because the ball will burst after that.
-Considering " 45º arc as high and far as you can" as a "target" doesn't sound very belieaveable.

That plate mail weighs less and is easier to move in than a modern full field pack. That two-weapon combat is difficult or misconceiving what and how the second weapon is used. That tripping and grappling are unusual combat styles, rather than basic military training. The list goes on, and this is before the mystical aspects are brought into the equation.

Well, then we're in luck that D&D is an adventure game and not a basic military game right? Because yes, in most fantasy triping and grapling are pretty common tactics.

I agree that consistency is more important than realism in a world with magic. If you want non-casters to be viable past 5th level, you need to stop worrying about realism so much. Alternately, all non-casting classes would need something like a hard 5th level cap so the game could progress.

Meh, I say rule of cool should beat both.

Because even in the real world strange things happen all the time. A hole in your head should kill you right? Yes, yet we've got plenty of documented cases of people that survived with bullets if not whole iron bars driven inside their brains. And then walked themselves to the hospital.

Similarly pretty much every fantasy story is built around bizzarre events, individuals that are diferent and other things out of the norm.

So if all angels are vegetarians and you find one eating beef, it's not an incosistency. It's a plot hook.

[veekie]

^^
The idea being its at least partially possible with 'real' levels of skill, given absurd skill(a real analogue for example, a robot programmed to return shots at specific angles), these feats can be extended. Either way, you do need SOME internal consistency, so that exceptions are possible, but uncommon enough that they are that, exceptions. Most people do need a solid framework to operate in.

[oslecamo]

No, they don't. 40K for example is massively popular, and its fans actualy gloat about how incosistent the setting is, where power-armored mutants are shot down by medieval mook arrows and there's no less than two whole factions that run on "lol magic did it".

[Unbeliever]

This has come up before, and obviously I think that internal consistency in the setting is the important part. 

However, I think people pin too much on it.  I think we shouldn't pin too much on the realism of the mechanics of the game, or their implications, b/c at some points realism is going to be sacrificed for the sake of the game, ease of play, and so on.  The way combat works, and the way damages are calculated, may be extremely unrealistic, but it's there to support a certain kind of gameplay -- e.g., having multiple encounters in a short period of game time, a mechanic where you can injure people without making them cease being fun to play.  D&D's "economics" and the reason why some spells are higher level than others are other examples. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I figure the Gritty Heroic -type game
could rather easily be almost "realistic".
A 10 year-old Harry Potter -type game can fit
side by side with this style. 

Jackie Chan vs. short young Harry ... I pick Harry (and I don't care).
Jackie Chan with Boots Of Springing vs. Harry + whatever babe he's snogging behind the scenes = Harry again.

[bhu]

People complain about realism vs rules balance depending on what they want out of the game.  Some people are turned off by balance because it so violates their sense of disbelief that they just have a mental block about participating in the exercise.   They were looking for something to simulate a specific world archetype, and should be playing something other than dnd.  They don't mind if certain options are more optimal than others because 'thats the way it really works'.  People looking for rule balance don't give a shit how it would look in real life just as long as fighters and wizards are somehow on par, i.e. 'everything is magic.'


Players are supposed to be professional adventurers by default anyway, why not just change fighters so that after a certain level they're gishes without multiclassing?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

But but ... D&D is all things to all people 

Turning a fighter into a gish at some point --- probably a good idea.



(sticking with my post two back)
I got dragged to the last Harry Potter movie.
Don't ask why ... 

There's a big fight going on, with a Whirlwind-type
effect right on top of Harry, Hermione and 3rdwheel.
Hermione grabs their hands and they Teleport away
to a safety spot.  3e can do this no problem.
4e has one EpicD that could do this only at level 30.
And there'd be a debate about whether the Ritual
could be interrupted or not, within nasty combat.

That's a whole giant market of possible D&D-ers
who have no problem at all, with mid level 3e magic.

[cvar]

No, they don't. 40K for example is massively popular, and its fans actualy gloat about how incosistent the setting is, where power-armored mutants are shot down by medieval mook arrows and there's no less than two whole factions that run on "lol magic did it".

Yea but 40k did it on purpose.  It was very tongue in cheek and never meant to be taken seriously.

(click to show/hide)

What's the second LOLMAGIC faction?  I know there's Chaos, but the others don't get to yell WARP WARP WARP as an explanation.  Necrons, Tyranids and Tau are all LOLSUPERSCIENCE, Eldar/Dark Eldar are the ANCIENT INSCRUTABLE SUPER ALIENS, Space Marines and Guard are HUMANITY FUCK YEA.  Orks maybe?

-Considering " 45º arc as high and far as you can" as a "target" doesn't sound very believable.

I think Veekie was referring to baseball there, where pitches frequently hit the 100mph mark and need to hit the catcher's glove.  There's a sport called Jai Alai that gets even faster (204mph is the current actual game speed record) where you're required to catch the ball on the rebound.

Well, then we're in luck that D&D is an adventure game and not a basic military game right? Because yes, in most fantasy tripping and grappling are pretty common tactics.

I think you misunderstood.  Veekie was saying that those are common tactics that are commonly misrepresented as being uncommon. 

On topic, I think consistency is important to any setting that is trying to be taken seriously.  I just don't think Monte Cook cares about doing anything other than justifying his opinions and making not-3.0.  I'm hoping he at least remembers that his Ivory Tower game design was a bad idea.  Not a fan of including trap choices and then claiming that it's all balanced.