Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 06-05-07, 11:34 PM	Do you think D&D rules are supposed to represent the real world except where supernatural stuff is concerned (magic, psionics, (su) abilities), and where they deviate from the real world, that's a flaw in the rules? Or are they supposed to represent a world that follows completely different laws, even without magic, and even the non-supernatural aspects are completely different from the real world? Or, to put it another way, if you cast a massive anti-magic field on a D&D world and got rid of all of the beings other than humans and animals, would that world be basically like the real world, barring differences in various religious beliefs, cultures, continent arrangements, etc, and to the extent that the rules say it would be very different (such as by saying that being a good painter (i.e., many ranks in craft (painting)) is linked to being very tough and resisting damage (i.e., having many hit dice)), the rules are effectively in error? Or, alternatively, is a world governed by D&D rules simply supposed to be non-representational of the real world except in certain superficial resemblances, and the best painter in the world really is harder to kill the the young apprentice painter, and this is just a fact of life in D&D worlds, neither some supernatural phenomenon that goes away in an antimagic field nor an unintended rules consequence that exists solely in the metagame, and people in D&D worlds would know that the venerable best painter in the world, in spite of not being very strong or healthy, can survive being stabbed by a longsword better than his young, healthy apprentice?
Thomar_of_Uointer 06-06-07, 12:26 AM	Eww... Mind the dead catgirls... There's a careful balance here. If you keep everything the same as our world, it starts tripping up the rules. Nobody wants to run out of air in enclosed spaces (i.e., any dungeon) because their fireballs eat up all the oxygen. On the other hand, you don't want to throw weird laws at your PCs everywhere they go. It's no fun if your world is unrecognizable. There exist many game mechanics that can be justified with few problems (i.e., for hit points, more experienced individuals just tend to shrug off blows better due to that experience, and they do it fairly uniformly outside of differences in health and combat-oriented vocational training). What's best is a balance between the two. Let your PCs make assumptions they would make in the real world (gravity for starters), but remember that you've got to suspend disbelief when a wizard exerts several hundred thousand joules of energy to fry a small army. Your world should retain most real-world laws, but if you want to make a few critical changes (i.e., daemons in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials series) feel free to do so as long as you keep it consistent and out of the way.
JulesCARV 06-06-07, 12:33 AM	I get most of your response, but I feel the need to ask what this means. Eww... Mind the dead catgirls... What you say!!
Thomar_of_Uointer 06-06-07, 12:34 AM	I get most of your response, but I feel the need to ask what this means. What you say!! Everytime someone tries to bring real-world logic into D&D, a catgirl dies.
Kojiro James 06-06-07, 12:41 AM	I get most of your response, but I feel the need to ask what this means. What you say!! You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha ha ....
JulesCARV 06-06-07, 12:42 AM	Everytime someone tries to bring real-world logic into D&D, a catgirl dies. You realize that for many people, this is an incentive to bring real-world logic into D&D as frequently as possible, right?
Thomar_of_Uointer 06-06-07, 12:43 AM	You realize that for many people, this is an incentive to bring real-world logic into D&D as frequently as possible, right? So? It makes for interesting discussion.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-06-07, 12:57 AM	DnD supports real life in much the same way a toothpick can support a herd of elephants stcked atop it.
JulesCARV 06-06-07, 01:00 AM	I'm thinking of creating a homebrew campaign setting where the D&D rules are right even when they aren't supernatural and don't correspond well to the real world: i.e., the greatest painter in the world really can take a blow from a greatsword that would kill the young apprentice without dying, in spite of not being particularly strong or well-trained in combat: this is a well known fact, and most people accept it without thinking that it could possibly be any other way, and the few who question why there should be such a relationship are puzzled, but only because they don't understand the causal relationship, not because they think it's strange or "should" be any other way.
Thomar_of_Uointer 06-06-07, 01:09 AM	I'm thinking of creating a homebrew campaign setting where the D&D rules are right even when they aren't supernatural and don't correspond well to the real world: i.e., the greatest painter in the world really can take a blow from a greatsword that would kill the young apprentice without dying, in spite of not being particularly strong or well-trained in combat: this is a well known fact, and most people accept it without thinking that it could possibly be any other way, and the few who question why there should be such a relationship are puzzled, but only because they don't understand the causal relationship, not because they think it's strange or "should" be any other way. No, that's hit points. Hit points are abstract and fluffy. The only difference between 8 points of damage to a commoner and 8 points of damage to an epic level monk is that the monk reflexively solidifies his ki and uses his bare hand to flick the blow away, whereas the commoner doesn't even see it coming and gets mortally wounded by it. This is applicable on every level, but the hows and whys are dependent on good roleplaying (there are many different levels of a "hit" in combat, depending on the situation). It's not like the monk is supernaturally able to bleed more than the commoner, he just reacts to the same attacks differently, and in a manner that keeps him alive longer. Now, some monsters can bleed more than humans, but that is mechanically represented by Hit Dice and high Constitution rather than class levels. The combination of physical toughness and skill is abstractly balled up into a single indicator: hit points.
JulesCARV 06-06-07, 01:13 AM	See, the rather contorted and strained rationalizations for hit points are exactly what I'd be getting rid of with this setting. Hit points aren't adroitly dodging or turning blows -- they're exactly what they seem to be: the ability to sustain injuries without dying or becoming unconscious. (Note: of course, you might think such a setting would suck, which is fine. I'm just saying that I'm familiar with the idea that hit points are an abstract measure of the ability to avoid and minimize damage through dodging, parrying, etc, but this setting would not use that rationale (or other rationales attempting to reconcile the non-supernatural aspects of D&D and real life.))
Thomar_of_Uointer 06-06-07, 01:17 AM	Odd. I thought you were asking which of two interpretations is better. Looks like you had your mind made up before you even asked the question. See, the rather contorted and strained rationalizations for hit points are exactly what I'd be getting rid of with this setting. Then find a different system (I'd recommend D20 Modern, I think you might like the massive damage rules it uses). D&D is built around strong heroes that delve into dungeons to slay nasty beasts. To represent these brave acts in game terms, D&D uses hit points as an adventure-long resource that a player can use to determine how much longer his character has before he succumbs to wounds. You've got to remember that it's a game, and has been created as such. There's no point in making the game mechanics into physical laws. Your players will see no difference mechanically, and they will see a weird conservatism in the role-playing that they do. I'm afraid you're going to alienate players by slavishly translating game rules into aspects of your setting.
Waterhammer 06-06-07, 01:21 AM	In her quest to become the worlds best painter, the artist traveled far, and wide. In the course of her travels she learned more than a little about survival. (Dodges the attack, and spritzes the assailant in the eyes with turpentine.) There. Saved a catgirl.
darth_borehd 06-06-07, 01:30 AM	I am really opposed to trying to make D&D "realistic". . . .Look. . . :rolleyes: People who complain about D&D not being realistic don't get D&D. D&D is not and has never been realistic. It's a game. It's a game based on books that feature talking animals and people who change the fabric of reality six times before breakfast. It's a game based on stories of barbarians who walk on the bottom of the ocean or hold the sky on their shoulders. It's fantasy. It's myth. Your characters are meant to be based on Merlin, Hercules, Beowulf, Taliesin, Ali Baba, or Gilgamesh. Not you, or your neighbor, or even an Olympic gold medal athlete. Do not calculate the physics of how fast you can shoot arrows or how far a katana can cut into ballistics gel. The only calculation you need to make is if it all adds up to a fun story you and your friends enjoy.
JulesCARV 06-06-07, 01:33 AM	It's true that I had the idea for the setting before I started this thread. I mostly posted that reference to my homebrew setting idea because I was afraid that I had gotten this track off topic with the catgirl discussion, AYBABTU reference, etc, and were in danger of getting locked for spamming. I'm not really trying to claim that one approach is clearly superior. I'm just posting some ideas I had on the subject to get the thread back on track, and clarifying what I mean. (e.g., making sure it's clear that I'm scrapping the "hit points represent dodging, blocking, and parrying" idea rather than incorporating it into the setting, etc) Just trying to bring things back to the topic before I got too far off on the catgirl tangent.
IanTheMoxious 06-06-07, 04:33 AM	Hit points have always been funny. That said, I think they are great at what they do. I disagree with it being about dodging, "rolling" with force, etc. The current edition of the game has separate systems for all of those things. I honestly believe that hit points are there so that a character that somebody has grown very attached to over months/years of play has a much greater change of survival. Assuming that a character has a normal constitution, he has the opportunity to DOUBLE his damage soaking abilities at level 2. Only part of this is about actual improvement, the rest is about "Hey I made it to level 2!" I think it is funny that people don't like to accept this truth. I have played D&D for years and have loved every game. If you want a game that has hard answers for what hit points are, play GURPS. I really like GURPS.. if only it didn't take 20 years to get through character creation.
Sarella Starshine 06-06-07, 07:43 AM	D&D to me represents the real world in only the most superficial ways. There is just way too many things in it that are completely implausable when you try to compare it to the real world. And that's not even including the fun you get when you toss in the supernatural. Things get real fun then. You have the entire 'well it works like this, as long as you don't add magic'. I mean, if you have the ability to basicly cancel and/or reverse any known laws of physics because you decided you wanted to...
Ocom 06-06-07, 08:46 AM	Do you have any idea what you are asking? D&D is a Fantasy PnP RPG. If you want real-life rules then play the game Real Life. If you can't see the line, you may end up killing someone. I got no problem with that, but I have a problem with the families and media who always shift the blame.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 06-06-07, 10:11 AM	The physcial laws of teh D&D universe are different from those of our reality. Most things are similar enough to take them as read - heat, light, gravity, etc. work pretty much as we know them pretty much most of the time - but they are not the same. This is evinced clearly by the fact that darkness, for example, exists as something other than simply the absence of light and can be created, manipulated and destoryed.
StormKnight 06-06-07, 12:13 PM	My view tends to be that the D&D world obeys the same physical rules as our world (except for magic). However, the D&D game follows a "Hollywood" style within those physical rules, in which you look the other way about what would "really" happen in favor of what "looks cool" and plays well. Not to mention that the most characters quickly escape the realm of real people anyway; even without magic, we don't have any 10th level anythings, so whose to say what they can or can't do? I have also wondered if it might be interesting to play where HP really ARE toughness and magical defense, and a character with 50 HP really can just watch a sword bounce off her arm with nothing more than a bruise. I'd be likely to treat this, from a flavor point of view, that people who become in-tune with the magical flow of the world are filled with it and protected by it; its the innate, natural magic (which also sustains life) so is not countered by anti-magic. This is evinced clearly by the fact that darkness, for example, exists as something other than simply the absence of light and can be created, manipulated and destoryed. Alternatively, saying a spell "shunts all the visible light from an area, creating an area that appears to be dark" is pointlessly physicsy.
Pandaemoni 06-06-07, 01:08 PM	I tend to think not. Even if you encased the universe in an antimagic field, the D&D world has metaphysical differences that (to me) suggest that the world is intended to be substantially different than the real world. If nothing else, AM field or not, the world still has tangible inner and outer planes (even if they can't be accessed). The history of those planes suggests a very different "birth" for the Material Plane, than the real universe, and a different four-element and two-energy basis for the physical chemistry (or, even more extreme, the literal truth of alchemy—with all its element, form and spirit based physical rules—rather than anything we would view as "chemistry"...alchemy itself not being a magical field of study). The world is sufficiently vaguely drawn that an individual DM can make it as "realistic" or as fanciful as he or she desires. That's a good thing.