Quote from: tuypo1;804448for the most part i dont care about realism but there are a few things i like to be a bit realistic

Gravity this is the big one i hate falling damage rules that somehow does not take into account acceleration and then those that do often forget to put a cap on for terminal velocity.

One of the reasons I like Spelljammer. It takes the falling damage and adds in heat friction. Falling from orbit is near guarantee death as the heat overcomes even magic resistance. Falling from orbit to an earth-like world is 150d4 damage total plus the 20d6 impact damage AND save vs death or die on impact. Assuming there was anything left to reach the ground.

Quote from: Omega;804489One of the reasons I like Spelljammer. It takes the falling damage and adds in heat friction. Falling from orbit is near guarantee death as the heat overcomes even magic resistance. Falling from orbit to an earth-like world is 150d4 damage total plus the 20d6 impact damage AND save vs death or die on impact. Assuming there was anything left to reach the ground.

interesting i will have to have a look

The differentiation between "internal consistency" or "verisimilitude" on the one hand and realism on the other hand is a bit silly. Realism at least to the point where real world conditions are concerned within the setting, is a necessary condition for consistency (and really, "verisimilitude" is nothing but realism combined with only superficial research).
Supernatural elements (as a stand-in for anything that by its very concept stands outside of what realism can represent) become a lot more substantial and meaningful when  combining a fully fantastic premise with realistic consequences.
Now, for a gameable setting, it is necessary to find a good compromise between realism and convenience. The most realisitc approach might make a more consistent and believable setting or more convincing rules, but not necessarily a better game.

Quote from: Wood Elf;804233So am I alone in my obsession, or are there other nutty bastards out there?

No, you're not. Welcome into the fold.

Probably the only reason I'm not a re-enactor is probably because there's no Western European Medieval/Renaissance martial arts scene in my corner of the world. When I got into D&D, my dad gifted me with a couple of coffee table books about Medieval arms and armor, and since then I've always been a sucker for Medieval and Renaissance military technology.

Though a casual student at best, who avoids online discussions about historical military technology like the plague (especially when katanas are involved), I've had the privilege of spending a few hours of my life inside such amazing collections as the Armería Real in Madrid and the KHM Neue Burg in Vienna, and I just frickin' know what a Zweihander or a two-handed warhammer look like.

Though I, too, want my fantasy (and SF, and horror) world to behave like our own outside deliberate fantastical elements, I think in the end it's mostly about aesthetics for me. The exaggerated, caricatural style of giant swords with cleaver-like blades and "warhammers" that look like clown mallets, complete with impractical baroque ornaments, has been done to death, and even if it didn't it lacks the deceptive simplicity and dangerous elegance of historical weaponry.

Outside arms and armor, a general understanding of history makes it easier for me to immerse by providing me with ideas on what an average peasant's day looks like, or the relationships between strata of society, religion, trade, etc. -- for sufficiently Earth-like worlds, anyway. But to be honest, I think I feel less strongly about unconventional societal arrangements, especially if they are minimally consistent and provide interesting gaming opportunities, than about the aesthetics mentioned above.

Quote from: Omega;804489One of the reasons I like Spelljammer. It takes the falling damage and adds in heat friction. Falling from orbit is near guarantee death as the heat overcomes even magic resistance. Falling from orbit to an earth-like world is 150d4 damage total plus the 20d6 impact damage AND save vs death or die on impact. Assuming there was anything left to reach the ground.

On top of that, Spelljammer gravity literally doesn't work like real life gravity. As in, intentionally it works differenty, and it has written laws that are far different than the real world. Gravity in Spelljammer is weird.

I like to be able to use the real world as a guideline. Stuff that's possible in the real world should be possible in the game world. And I like to have a similar range of possibilties in the game world as I'd see in the real world.

But I don' t care about making the numbers jibe, and sometimes actively loathe that approach. No pounds of force calculations, no volumme calculations beyond  a quick eyeballing, no calculating the caloric intake a dragon needs to produce that much flame. Certainly not while playing.

There's no question of realism with the utterly fantastic, though there may be in relations to it of the less fantastic; but then the line between 'realism' and mere "internal consistency" is as fuzzy as the distinction of what's sufficiently close to real in what is truly an imaginary whole. (What part of an Elf or Goblin, for instance, is potentially realistic as opposed to just consistent?)

There is a distinction between realism and precision in detail, even more between realism in game-mechanical abstraction and realism in role-playing experience. I am most interested in the last, since other game forms cater to others, and focus on the mechanical simulation tends to distract from what is more special to rpg.

i think in discussions of realism it is important to remember that most fantasy worlds have something that separates them from there inspirations high literacy rates

Quote from: tuypo1;804583i think in discussions of realism it is important to remember that most fantasy worlds have something that separates them from there inspirations high literacy rates

BX more or less didnt. The average non-adventurer in BX was just a step above barely literate.

In AD&D it is harder to say. The PCs tend to be literate. The NPCs is anyones guess. Not sure on 5e.

I think its more a matter if the settings nations or GMs ideals for how prevalent or not literacy is.

Quote from: Old Geezer;804293Things like ten pound swords and cities structured like 1890 London rather than 1290 London used to bother the shit out of me.

Bothered me decades ago, and even as a teenager who had yet to turn into a low-tech-everything buff, the notion of "This just doesn't make sense" was what turned me off of OD&D early.

Still bothers me, too -- heck, I bet a quarter of my blog posts talk about verisimilitude in one way or another.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

This.

For me - realism in D&D is either all the way - or staged. I think beyond 9th level you're warping the realities of realism by default unless you adhering to some strict rare-but-powerful-magic applications in your campaign.

I use a semblance of realism to contrast the *fact* that in my games, it's possible to run up the side of the wall due to some special "thing" - and yes it would be highly fantastic. But Spiderclimb exists... so there. Monks exist-  yes they punch as hard a hit from a Great Sword if they're good enough, and move like a fucking Cheetah in heat.

The GM has to set the tempo - preferably with the Players understanding.

Quote from: tenbones;804662move like a fucking Cheetah in heat.

Ah Cheetara.

Quote from: CRKrueger;804670Ah Cheetara.

I am TOTALLY derailed now. I'll be in my bunk...

Quote from: CRKrueger;804670Ah Cheetara.

Well, I'll be in my happy place if anyone needs me.

There's a reason Lion-O's sword grew whenever he yelled out "Thundercats Ho!"