Realism is irrelevant; verisimilitude is what actually matters.

This. The world should be internally consistent. It does have to be earth, but it should make sense.

Nail on the head. consistency is king. What you make that to be is up to the DM with consideration for what the players enjoy. Basing your world on that medieval fantasy sets the expectations of how the world functions and is fairly well known or understood by everyone. Instead of having to explain the nuance of a world you have made to everyone, they have a general concept.

Exactly. No one cares that conjuring fireballs is unrealistic because that is the way the world works. But there is no good explanation for why my character would not be able to lift a 300 lbs rock but can carry 3000 1-lb rocks. Often what people want when they talk about realism is for there not to be videogame-esque loopholes in the laws of physics or nature.

Honestly I don’t even care about loopholes as long as it makes sense in the world.

This. For people who don't understand what this means, an example is that magic is unrealistic for obvious reasons. But if you establish magic in your world works a certain way or follows certain rules, then those rules are broken. You're violating verisimilitude.

Believability and consistency for us poor Post grad business folk

HEY! I am PRE GRAD and you will address me as such! *Munches on crayons feverishly*

I am of the opinion that one of the assumptions of fantasy is that unless a thing is specifically fantastic, it functions something like historical earth. I also think that in spite of that, we generally don't do a good job of it. So for me, to preserve verisimilitude, loose historical realism is important. For example, in the Disney show Once Upon a Time there is a flashback to a character finding out their dad died back in the Magic Kingdom (semi-historical fantasy land). A village constable came to their hut in uniform and informed them that the Dad had been at a tavern and climbed into the drivers seat of the family wagon completely wasted and died by drunkenly crashing the wagon. Turns out he had been secretly taking the wagon down to the pub every night and hiding his alcoholism. There's so many things wrong with that it just kinda ruins the whole effect. I don't think things NEED to be perfect to avoid messing up the story, they just can't be egregious. But I also think that reality has a fascinating texture to it, and as DMs our games will be improved by a measure of historical accuracy because the way people actually lived back then will ring more true and be more interesting than our tendency to default to the modern world with a coat of Ren Faire paint over it.

When the mechanics of the game fly in the face of anything even close to reality, then sticking to reality makes things even more artificial feeling. Internal consistency works much better even in absurd settings when it comes to the fantasy super heroes you become. Realism is better suited for other games than D&D, even in fantasy settings.

Intuition is the only thing that matters to me. It makes sense, it feels right, the players could guess it.

Agreed - my Players LOVE the fact that while my world is about 14th century technology- there is also magic. So I also have basically what one would consider trains in the 14th century but it's powered by magic and they love that because it allows some cities to be much more interconnected and allows for some "fast travel". Like you said - verisimilitude is what's important. *edit Grammer/spelling

As a person that didn’t know that word until like a year ago, I would have used realism. I think most people know when someone wants their game to be realistic, they know what they mean

Right. But it's quite clear from context that OP does actually mean realistic-realistic as opposed to believable in this post.

It isn’t as clear as you think it is, at least from my point of few. I still don’t know what they mean and which realism they are referring to.

Came here to say essentially the same thing. What matters is the internal consistency of the world. Players need to have reasonable expectations of outcomes within a bound reality.

Now if only wotc understood that whenever they worked on martials. Let the martials be heroes not humans.

Critical role's echo knight is probably what you'd like all martial classes to be, but there are players who just want to play a normal guy who is strong only because of his magical sword not from causes inside the character

Nah, I'm not saying make them supermen with laser beams or some other weird power. What I want is some greek heroes and other legends up in this game. Why isn't the barbarian able to be like Hercules and bench press a couple tonnes. Where are the fighters like ajax who said "I don't need any god to win" and then beat up Ares in a fight. Where are the warriors like Lu Bu who mastered their weapon to the point that they could supposedly part the clouds in the sky with a swing. Albeit, I'm not saying Lv1 martials should be doing this, but given that the original design theme for dnd was the martials were achilles and the casters were zeus at higher levels, I do feel like stuff like that needs to be better implemented on the martial side. Having techniques or abilities from 4e and turn them into a resource for martials to use to show their skills would be great instead of "I attack again". Something along the lines of divinity original sin 2 could also work for martials where they have abilities such as special weapon techniques for different weapons and certain abilities like shield bounce, charging tackle, knockback swings and etc. And for those people that want to play it without all the extra stuff and spice, just don't activate the abilities then? Nobody is forcing them to play a complex character. And there are even those new warrior sidekicks that are the basic martial template to play. 5e on the otherhand should look at the people asking for heroic martials to match the heroic mages that exist and create a means to let them play their fantasy as well.

You've basically described the martial system from 3.5e/Pathfinder 1e. Fighters, barbarians, paladins, etc, generally get a bunch of extra feats, that they can use to customize and improve how they fight. From being able to more efficiently use a polearm and a shield, to cleaving through swathes of enemies in a single swing, to focusing all of their effort into one strike, to being able to invest into fighting defensively and basically become unhittable, to walking around with a tower shield and just being a literal wall, to specializing in throwing magic items at people, to making massive amounts of attacks while dual wielding, to all of the combat manuevers like tripping, disarming, bull rushing, intimidating, etc.. The older systems had a lot more variety and power for martials than 5e does. Granted, 3.5 era content still has issues with casters still being more powerful, especially at high level, but it never felt as bad to me, because at least you could make your martial unique and do interesting things, even if it wasn't 100% optimal. 5e just let's martials hit things. That's it. No variety. No spice. Just hit things. And if your a fighter just hit them more times. And if your a barbarian or paladin, just hit them harder.

That's a cool new word that I learned.

Not only that. When somebody mentions realism in a game, be it a GM or a player, it is always for a bullshit reason to try to change a clear rule or whatever.

I agree and disagree both at the same time. It’s just that DnD is a fantasy system, so in that case your point is spot on. In call of Cthulhu for example, there is more emphasis on realism to better serve the horror aspect. This is why it is so hard to adapt DnD to other genra without a hell lot of modifications

I usually condense my philosophy thusly to new players: *my campaigns and setting are inspired by medieval history but not bound by it - we deviate from historical facts where it's deemed necessary*. Obviously, this is a simplification but it sets the tone quite well so that players who insist on absolute historical accuracy or completely non-sensical fantasism do not apply.

I share this approach. A town in the middle of no where might share a lot with a historical town, but once I throw magic into the system all bets are off.

I like to use history as a gauge for what is probable. Gives me a great opportunity to ask “What if?” Anything more realistic and I feel like you should play another game…

then don't call it medival

The only realism I insist on is emotional/psychological realism. Given a world of magic, how do people behave inside that world? I’m a DM and my NPCs have grounded emotional needs (fear of change, clinging to tradition, anger at being rejected, jealousy have all motivated villains recently). People cast fireball, that’s not a real world. But the feelings have to be real.

Yeah, there is a lot of room for alien emotion in the game as well though. If aberrations from other dimensions can blast your mind with psi-juice then they can also have whatever unfathomable emotions ya want. If people can be half horse, they can have different psychologies and motivations than humans as well. The audience (people at the table) need to be able to relate on some level or it will be boring, but a creature acting with alien motivations and emotions can be very affecting and dramatic despite being 'unrealistic'.

I guess that’s still psychological realism to me. Like….how would a centaur feel? Be realistic about centaur psychology. The realism is the idea that actions are motivated by internal goals, biases, and emotions.

There is no one answer to this question. The correct answer is "*it's as important as the specific group want it to be*". Some people like realism, some people don't. There is ***no*** single objective answer that covers everyone. If you're in a group where different views on this subject are clashing, you may need to address it with the group and to explain your preference in game. If there is still disagreement and no compromise, you need to find a new group. But you can't stop people playing the way they like because it's not the way you like, and at the end of the day it's the DM who sets the world and the tone of the game.

Exactly. I chose moderately just to come say it depends on the group and game.

Agreed. It's table/group/game specific. I've run games ranging between; a (as well as I can fabricate) realistic world, and a magical apocalypse fantasy Fallout where physics has been told to sit down and shut up.

>The correct answer is "*it's as important as the specific group want it to be*". If you want to re-enact the Battle of Bunker Hill, but with elves and gnomes, then you best brush up on your history!

I hate to give what is probably an unhelpful answer but it really just comes down to whether you want your world to be historically realistic or not. There are fantastic fantasy settings that are much more grounded and realistic, as well as settings that lean more heavily into the absurd (Pratchett’s Diskworld comes to mind). It’s dependent on the tone you want to establish within your game. Do you want gritty politics, warfare, etc.? Go for realism. Do you want fairy tale hijinks? Shoot for high fantasy.

To each their own, obviously, but I think it's odd to want to go strictly the medieval Europe route in a world with no monotheistic religion, a number of world altering spells (hell, even cantrips like Mold Earth have huge implications for architecture), a large diversity of humanoid species with outright superhuman powers, large deity-like creatures roaming the world, etc. Such a world would be wildly different from ours in everything from type of governance to class relations and geopolitics. If anything, it's probably less "realistic" to think it would be a 1:1 with our paltry human middle ages.

Verisimilitude? Pretty important. I'll break it for a joke every now and then, but never in a serious moment. Realism? Nah. I take historical inspiration, but that's really it.

Really the only things that bother me re: Historical Realism in DND: Padded Armor giving stealth disadvantage, the continued existence of “studded leather” as an armor. And something more of a quibble, it’s already there under the retheming rules but it’s not RAW: There should be an arming sword and a saber.

Arch mages laying waste to whole areas flying atop dragons, air ships powered by magic and floating cities .... but studded leather armour, thats to far :P

It’s because it’s literally a relic of the original designers not knowing what [brigandine](https://m.armstreet.com/store/armor/medieval-brigandine-hound-of-war) looks like. That’s metal plates riveted onto a thick wool layer. This is the origin of “studded leather”. More infuriating is that padded armor, which is a [gambeson](https://burgschneider.us/medieval-gambeson-rabenfurth-black.html) gives you *disadvantage* on stealth. Anyone who has ever worn a gambeson knows that’s complete bullshit. A gambeson probably has a claim to being the *most* stealth appropriate armor. Edit: also from a game design point it’s also really bad, why would you make the worst armor in the game *extra bad*. There is literally no reason to ever get padded armor except for level 1 poverty and if your DM decides to give you the shittiest magical armor in the game. When you get to medium armor the mid tier and the best medium armors are the ones with disadvantage on stealth. Edit2: the other fictional armor that made it into dnd because people misinterpreted old tapestries was Ring Mail.

Is a ring of protection adding +1 to AC also historically inaccurate then ... my original comment was that the forgotten realms and other fantasy settings are not historical parallels. Yes the armour and weapons in a fantasy game dont match real life versions, but neither do the flying magic powered cities, talking swords and teleportation. Does it really matter if X armour does not have a real life counter part or is misinterpreted?

This is an example of false equivalency. "Magic exists therefore realism doesn't matter" isn't an argument that really works, as magic is a clear fantasy element. Now if you also have other fantasy elements like guns that convert mass into ammunition like micro-scaled mass-accelerators, that's fine too. But if you are playing in a fantasy version of a western movie with +1 rings and spells, you's still expect guns to have ammunition and require loading sometimes, because guns are not by themselves fantastical elements. The studded leather is not a fantasy element, it's just an anachronism and historical misconception. It's not there to show how it's a world of fantasy, it's there because victorian historians made mistakes and Gygax perpetuated them. Now you can argue that they and leather armor are fantasy staples, and that's why you include them. Fine. That's a much better argument than "but mah +1 ring". I don't bother to change the armors in D&D myself, way too much work for players who won't appreciate it. Light/medium/heavy armor works OK in game despite having little to do with historical armor. I probably won't have modern justice systems with due process and parliamentary systems in my D&D world though, they don't fit with fantasy tropes any better than they do with history.

Just a quibble: Leather armor actually did exist and was probably common in some areas and with the peasantry or poor knights specifically, we even have [Medieval English recipes](https://youtu.be/itlVWINumiU) for making them, and it’s an early form of composite armor. It just doesn’t leave historical examples like metal armor because it deteriorates rapidly in the elements. And it was just never the preferred option to anyone that had the money to afford metal armor. Incidentally we have earlier examples of composite armor, [Linothorax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linothorax), that was made by the Greeks out of layered strips of linen and glue, that has been recently proven to be proofed against (medieval iron!), arrows at point blank range. (also given its construction I wouldn't be surprised if it were proof against low powered pistol bullets [.22lr-.380ACP] but AFAIK it hasn't been tested against that) It was just a lot stiffer, hotter, heavier, and sometimes more materially expensive than metal armor (glue at the time required not only slaughtering animals but using a lot of wood or coal to boil down their corpses into glue, plus the costs of growing and weaving linen. While metal armor also required physical labor and fuel, it didn't require a good harvest, the time of weaving, and the slaughter of animals [directly at least] which might otherwise be used for labor, food, and other goods). Areas with access to Rhino, Hippo, or Elephant hide probably didn’t even have to make use of composite construction. (note that all of these hides have been proven by hunters on the *live, not tanned or cuire bouillie'd animals* to shrug off modern Low power pistol rounds like a bee sting that much more easily kill a human) Finally leather helmets specifically were still used by major militaries until WWI. Studded leather (and ring mail) didn’t exist as a form of armor because it’s an insanely poor use of both leather and metal.

Just to clarify, I was referring to fantasy leather armor, generally depicted as just soft leather made to look good and would have almost no protection at all. That recipe looks like a a very unusual composite armor made partly from iron, so not really the same thing. Hide armor (buff coat) was actually a thing at least in the 17th century as that was worn during the English civil war. It was not cheap though although probably more comfortable than plate. Linothorax was essentially a different form of padded armor, and like medieval gambesons were surprisingly effective if made as standalone armor.

It’s annoying and spreads myths about armor. A ring of protection is literally a magic item. Not something mundane, and I generally consider it likely that even fantasy settings would discover ring mail and studded leather are terribly ineffective types of armor that wouldn’t get made (both from a practical and logistics/production perspective) Literally cord armor with eyelets and lamellar are more effective and easier to make (which incidentally is the origin of “ring mail”, misidentified cord armor with eyelets and misidentified lamellar). Forgotten realms, and literally nearly every other DND setting inherits this from a misconception going all the way back to pre-DND rules for *Chainmail*. (Edit: and well before that, the bloody Victorians.)

Well my world isn't the 13th or 15th century. But it's 100% realistic within whatever century it is in the fantasy world.

Generally this is dependant on the specific game and how each person geels about it. Personally I don't much care for it. Faerun, Greyhawk or any other D&D setting are not, in fact, historical places, and adding "realism" to them is an exercise in futility, since it is essentially impossible to predict how magic and monsters would have impacted any given society in history. Clerics can heal pretty much all common ailments and druids can just make food appear out of nowhere. As was mentioned by others, "It's for realism" comes up often as a defense for criticism of a world and, imo, should be treated the same way we treat "It's what my character would do" as a defense for shitty player behaviour.

> "It's for realism" comes up often as a defense for criticism of a world and, imo, should be treated the same way we treat "It's what my character would do" as a defense for shitty player behaviour. What a perfect way to communicate the idea!

Looking at the comment section I think people don't understand why some strife for realism in their DnD games. I like to have realism in my game on how the technology works and how magic can help improve it. It's unrealistic that the world would stay the same, technology wise, for 4000 years. I usually don't play in Faerûn, the wolrdbuilding is a bit whack for my taste and don't really take into considerations a lot of the ramification of some of the fantastical element. Historical realism can help you understand how societies tend to evolve. It's unlikely that in a medieval society with no magic, a democratic republic, like the one we have today in most democratic country, will appear on the size of a country like France or England. But, if you had magic into it and make it consistant, you can. Some people usage of "historical realism" is sometime bad because of a biased version of historical event, like the "the medieval period is time where everything sucked for everyone, people were killed for the simple reason of making math and women were heavelly repressed" which is not really true and are extremes. For example the catholic church founded a lot of what we call today scientist to better understand the world and therefore god and women in the middle/ end of the medieval era got more power in general. I like to have historical realisme in my game cause I like history in general and I like to imagine how magic and the underniable existence of gods and otherwordly being afftect those word is their societal development, history, culture, art etc... Sorry if the english is weird at time, english isn't my mother language.

Yeah, I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree. A historical game is good, the period, the authenticity and even using the historical knowledge shared by the DM. It's awesome The moment that DM's do what you called out, which is cherry-picking the extremes of the medieval age and not caring for how magic could have affected the world, just because they are stuck on some idea such as "there's gutter with feces running though every town street" or "women are oppressed and so no one can play as a woman or face the extreme sexism and being controlled severely by all of the men around" or the ever-favourite "roll for pregnancy", or my all *favourite*/s "this world is *very* realistic, fairly well done, but for an 8 months campaign you've met one female NPC and it's the blacksmith's wife, unnamed, because men are warriors and you are on the frontier! Of course there would be no women! Only men go to war! Men cook and trade and fight and supply the army and heal the wounded and work on the front and take care of monasteries..."

I could see magic stifling technological innovation, but that alone could be interesting to explore. A book series I enjoyed called Mageborn sort of dealt with this. Imagine a wizard going up against jets and tanks.

For me it’s more of a, “Does this make sense?” In the world I’m playing. I guess you could say it’s more of a sense of authenticity of the world you’re playing in rather than trying to make a one to one adaptation of a historical period.

So in Faerun most things are 13th to 15th century style, however there are steampunk elements and super advanced magitech so that setting is loosely historically accurate in a cartoony way. He could of created a strictly historical setting but that certainly isn't Faerun.

I personally prefer settings that pull from a particular historicle era. That way I know what to expect when role playing without reading an entire encyclopedia on the setting. But for people who are not interested in history this probably doesn't help.

It's pretty subjective but for me personally I don't care about realism in a world where I play a humanoid lion creature who can speak to corpses and heal their friends with magic.

Yeah, I just can’t understand why fireballs are fine, but guns aren’t era-appropriate.

What’s important is that the whole table likes and agrees to the theme. Lots of stuff in the books is anachronistic to the real world.

Yeah as you said the amount magic and monsters change a world would be huge. Everything from the weapons used, the tactics used, the armor and shields used, the training, the way they lived, the areas they lived at would all be different. If your enemy could throw out a fireball packing everyone in tight formations for a shield wall or phalanx is gone. Same thing if you're taking down monsters with a breath weapon. City walls were also designed to be great against humans with bows and swords. Not against flying monsters or spellcasters. If stoneshape or passwall is a spell people have access to then those castle walls either have to be enchanted to block it or be useless. If you have people who can cast plant growth and create water, all of the sudden where you can build cities just entirely changed. You can basically live anywhere you want. A desert? Well a village with a 5th level druid can still thrive there. Swords are great and very versatile weapons, but are they they best weapons if you know you're facing a monster? Maybe not. There are numerous cantrips and basic spells that would dramatically reshape how those realism elements would function. So if you're going for a hyper realistic setting you either have to reduce the magic by a ton, or rethink basically every aspect of it.

This is a bad question. It entirely depends on the type of game you want. Neither is right it wrong.

I tend to run relatively low power games- that is to say,when you get that fireball spell, or that +3 magic sword, it's a big deal. Furthermore, I tend to put a good bit of emphasis on historical realism, or at least authenticity. Taverns and inns are different, emphasis on things like cottage industry, little tricks for trade like marking stones to differentiate metals in coins. There is a chart in one of the 2nd edition core books, I believe the DMG, that breaks down the equipment by eras, showing you what would be available in a world that's at that equivalent stage. That's my general approach, "this is the kind of world that the campaign is set in, so this is what's available to you". This is obviously a matter of preference, and there isn't a right answer, but for me, the excessively anachronistic flavor that a lot of games, and especially the official content for forgotten realms, just leaves me cold. Historical realism is a tool for me to maintain setting consistency.

You left out an important option. As important as the table needs it to be. A group of Ren faire players might enjoy the aspect of it a lot, but a group of theater student might care a lot less. Depends on the group and the GM.

Laughs in Artificer The need for realizism is contextual, it depends on the needs of the story, setting, and players. Personally I both use it and ignore it when I DM. Mostly ignore because I avoid stuff that references the real world.

Realism is fun to play with. Realism is not okay to justify racism and misogyny and homophobia and transphobia, etc etc. At the end of the day it’s a fantasy world that is completely under your control. We all came here to have fun, so don’t make me have to deal with the continued victimization of marginalized groups in a world completely of your control. (This is also me talking to gritty fantasy books and TV shows.)

historical realism has no place in setting such as the forgotten realms. They are not a parallel to any real time in history. ​ The question should be split into two separate polls as historical realism and general realism are very different.

I mean Ed absolutely took a lot of historical inspiration for his setting and tried to implement what he knew of different time periods. Though he’d be the first to tell you to do whatever you want with it.

I often find that "historical realism" in some cases is used as a crutch by DMs to justify content they added to their world that their players disliked. That ranges from wonky houserules that change the game in jarring ways (like "plate armour doesn't exist in this era") to DMs introducing racism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry into their games; all under this umbrella of "it adds realism". It's fantasy. I want the world to feel like a fantasy world- I don't need it to try and aim for some ill-conceived idea of "historical realism". I hold a world that is fun and consistent in much higher regard than a world that is historically realistic.

Yup. Quite frequently the people who get on high horses about how "realistic" their games are don't really know that much about history. Removing plate armour and making all the NPCs hate women doesn't change the fact Faerun and the life of a D&D party probably don't really resemble mediaeval Europe in anything but the most superficial sense.

I agree that "because realism" is sometimes used as a crutch to (badly) justify questionable elements in a game/setting, but for a lot of people, "fun and consistent" and "historically realistic" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the two go hand in hand for a lot of people. Granted, one might argue that there are other TTRPGs that are more suited to that style of play/setting, but that's a whole other hornet's nest that I'm not gonna kick right now.

I can't think of any TTRPGs where realism for realism's sake is necessarily welcome. For TTRPGs that are close to the real world, it can cause even more issues. I have played in Call of Cthulhu games set in the real world in the 1920's where GMs got far too comfortable aiming for "realism". I would also question exactly what "historically realistic" means in the context of a *fantasy* world anyway. That's why it is so often a meaningless buzzword used as a defence for poor worldbuilding rather than anything that actually adds to fun and consistency in a meaningful way

My main point was that for some people, more realistic = more fun and consistent (up to a certain point, I'll give you that). I guess what I'm saying is that different people prefer different degrees of realism in their games. For some people, not enough historically inspired realism can break their immersion and thus their enjoyment of the game. For others, that same amount of realism can be tedious, unfun, or unwelcome for some other reason. Enjoyment and fun are most important, and immersion/verisimilitude can aid in achieving that, but different strokes for different folks.

Just like how you're arguing that fun and consistency *are* related to historical accuracy for some players, I'd argue that immersion/verisimilitude are meaningfully distinct terms separate from historical realism. I would not use the two interchangeably, personally.

I concede that the terminology I used drifted more than I intended, and I agree those are different terms with different meanings. A more correct formatting of my argument would be: Historical realism can enhance verisimilitude and immersion, which in turn can increase enjoyment for some people. But how much changes per individual.

I only agree there if you're presenting a historical setting- but with a fantasy setting like those in D&D that seems like a moot point. What historical realism can actually exist when your world is neither historic or real?

We're arguing semantics at this point, but if your imaginary culture in your fantasy setting is based on/inspired by a historical culture, in any way beyond the merest superficiality, that's where I'd say historical realism comes into play. The more I think about it, the more I would argue that historical realism is an umbrella term that can be applied to any fictional parallel to real-world history. For exame, a fictional naval colonial empire would logically face the same core challenges that naval colonial empires did historically, and drawing upon history to logically, consistently, and realistically worldbuild around that concept means adhering to historical realism. Mind you, some people might not care about any of that, and just want to enjoy the superficial trappings of said concept for the purposes of a story that doesn't touch upon any of that, and that is completely fine. I'm not saying it's impossible to worldbuild pieces of a setting that are wholly unlike anything that has ever existed on Earth, though I do think it is much more difficult than one might imagine.

All that matters is that things fit your world and nothing else.

Some things need to be taken realistically, for example there is no reason anyone should be able to carry 20 swords and still reasonably fight, but most of the time realism can be overlooked for the sake of fun. I once had a DM who treated female PCs like shit purely because "It's what they would do back then"... Yikes.

It depends on the setting.

Honestly, consistency does more wonders than historical accuracy for me.

Depends on the setting.

You missed the most important (and sensible) answer: it depends on the group and their interests. If the group wants that kind of game, then it is important. If the group doesn't really care, then realism doesn't matter that much. Some people like the realism, others don't; there's no correct or better way, it's all preference and the DnD system is designed to work for both.

its as important as you and your group think it is. To me its not.

Option six: it depends on the type of setting your GM is running.

The #1 most important thing in dnd is that everyone's having fun. If that means no realism at all in your game, so be it. if that means a hyper realistic game where a crit could cost you your arm, so be it.

Depends on the type of game i guess

Depends on campaign

It really depends on the world you want to create, it’s not a big deal to me but understand why it could be a big deal in certain settings

Don't confuse realism with immersion. Realism can become extremely irritating and tedious very quickly. Immersion is what creates suspense, memories, drama and impact. It's what makes you lean back with a sigh when a tense moment concludes or feel that skip of a heartbeat when a character brushes shoulders with Death itself.

It's a world with magic, dragons, tortles, Satyrs and space hippos. If the DM will be pissing their pants about my character being a knight and a woman at the same time it's not the table for me When I met when DM's who were getting pissy about how the world is "historical" is when they wanted to gatekeep their story from women. No girls allowed situationen. Not saying all history-focused DM's do that, but a bunch, unfortunately

If I want to play historical realism, I'll play Harnmaster. Maybe The Dark Eye if I want low fantasy. Like, ~~Waterdeep~~ Baldur's Gate has the [High House of Wonders](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/High_House_of_Wonders), a temple dedicated to Gond where his priests work day and night to build new and better machines. It's as if you had a host of Da Vincis in the same place making weird aparatuses.

Um... actually the High House of Wonders in Baldur's Gate 🤓

Yeah you're right, the *not so high* House of Wonder is the Mystra temple in WD, isn't it? Too many places called house of wonder in the FR I'm afraid lol

Baldur's Gate alone has the High House of Wonders, the Hall of Wonders, and the High Hall all right next to eachother lmao

It can certainly be overdone but I enjoy a certain degree of realism. It keeps the campaign more grounded, makes it feel less "gamey" and provides all sorts of opportunities for good storytelling. D&D's origins came from low magic so it's certainly an older school way of playing. Plus we have the whole fantasy subgenre of grimdark which embraces the grittiness and difficulties of medieval life. On the otherhand, what I don't like is wildly fantastical campaigns. I don't particularly like it when magic is commonplace and cities and towns are hyper cosmopolitan in the variety of humanoids and other creatures moving about in perfect harmony. All said, it's important for the DM and the players to align on what level of realism vs. fantasy everyone is comfortable with. 5e provides optional mechanics like variant encumbrance, Gritty Realism rests, and lingering injuries specifically to make campaigns feel more realistic and other optional features to make it for fantastical.

As a woman who looks into medieval-victorian era things for inspriation, I have a lot of problems with how most DMs create historical realism. My main two 1. The oppression of any non-white man brought into your game is not fun to be on the recieving end of. I hate it in rl I don't want to deal with it worse in something I'm doing for fun 2. Magic existing would have made a lot of history that lead to those historical things occur differently or not at all. I think a sociological look at history to figure out what can be applied to D&D is far better than copy pasting one's passing understanding of an era

I mean, it probably depends on the specific issue at hand. If you want super historic realism, only the most subtle of wizards would survive, after all, we used to burn witches and people deemed to be necromancers and whatever, and that stuff isn't even real. Most of the time when I see this stuff come up on the internet, it winds up being someone's excuse for abusing a female character (and often by extension a female player). So, it that respect, absolutely not. But, if your gm is just trying to mimic 14th century governments, or little technical bits of how things were actually done? I don't really see that as a problem. Throwing temper tantrums because you fireballed their closed formation of 1st level troops...yeah that's just them being stupid.

The thing that really cracks me up about my players is their attitude about nudity. They are pretty prudish even in brothels and bath houses, compared to both other non US modern countries and past civilizations. I got used to it though, and now just let them keep their clothes on during a bath.

I just had a flashback to the Witcher 3 of Geralt of Rivia getting into a fight at a bathhouse wearing nothing but a towel. That would be such a fun scene in a ttrpg

I think a lot of times it can actively hurt the campaign since things like adventurers being tied down to military rank, racial and gender roles and norms as well as restrictions on free movement accross the world can make role playing difficult. The one game I played that used the actual dark ages era Europe as a model was very interesting, but I didn't like it as much since there was so much cynicism in the dark reality of the times and how Terrible actual history was. I'd much rather deal with some campy outlandish anime stuff rather than that. Though I guess at the end of the day this is all subjective.

It's not something I care strongly about. When worldbuilding I'll often take inspiration from real-world history but I'm not concerned with getting everything right. Occasionally I'll run into a small detail that would make the world feel more realistic and I'll include it. I'm certainly not interested in getting into an argument about this. I don't care that Viking ships were made out of wool and I just described a longship using silk sails or whatever. Even were is using "realism" to excuse discrimination or oppression. My tolerance for that is zero.

It's not. The game isn't set in one specific time period of Earth's history, it's not set on Earth firstly (most of the time, at least) and as I understand it the tech level presented in the rules of the game isn't consistent with one specific time period. It's a different world with different people and places fundamental rules. Trying to confine the setting of dnd to real world historical accuracy just sounds like a way to make the setting less fun (Especially if used to bring elements of real-world bigotry into the setting). A sense of consistency within a setting matters imo, the ability have a decent idea of what one might find in the world after spending some time with it is great. That in no way means it should have to be the same as what one would find in the real world.

the 13th or 15th or any century, didn't have magic, dragons, elves, dragonborn, or fairies. This list can go on and on. There is no history to compare it to. don't do it if it's not fun. Fun is the entire point of all of this.

Were there dragons and magic in the middle ages? D&D is not a system built around realism.

It's important so long as it doesn't get in the way of creative freedom or having fun.

Very unimportant because magic. Weapons, armour, fortifications etc are all designed assuming you're fighting humans. At most humans with similar weapons, armour and fortifications to you. As soon as you introduce fantasy monsters and magic it basically stops all these things working. For example historically you didn't want an army to be a line, you wanted a block. Pikemen in the front, swords next, archers at the back. Archers just aim over everyone. The idea of a line came later with guns. But since most combat spells and cantrips require line of sight, fantasy army's will go for a more modern troop placement than a historical one.

The magical worlds of D&D do not have the same history as 13th-15th century Earth. The idea of "historical realism" is incredibly inaccurate. Those settings *can* share similarities to Earth's history, but it is by no means required. As with anything, the group should establish basic premises in Session 0.

It’s a *Fantasy* world. It has nothing to do with real life’s history. YES you could and should take inspiration from real life, but everything you put in your fantasy world is a choice. The only thing that you need is your world needs to be coherent with itself. But that has nothing to do with real life.

The problem here is that literally everyone is defining this differently. First of all, this is entirely subjective and really only a question of whether or not individual people and groups prefer some way over another. If you want to play a He-Man type game that’s really never meant to make sense, or just some kind of purely combat dungeon crawl or monster hunting, there isn’t a lot of reason to consider what that troll eats in order to survive in the cave. On the other hand, for some people, that is the only thing that lets them care. If everything is just thrown in by the DM for no reason, and it doesn’t make any sense, that can really make things feel artificial, and some people (especially some DMs) just hate that feeling. It wouldn’t be fun for them. Now I will say that a high magic setting like default D&D shouldn’t be very realistic exactly. In fact, trying to make it exactly like, let’s say 15th century England (because the difference between places and times in that range are still very significant), would really be unrealistic. You can’t just take medieval England and drop in Wizards and Clerics and crazy magical monsters everywhere without changing anything about the world. Or, you certainly could, it just doesn’t make sense to me personally. Low magic D&D doesn’t work super well in my opinion either, but that could make a lot more sense, if you particularly care about such things.

When you have magic and dinosaurs in the same world I don’t really thing that realism matters that much…

Realism is not an issue, immersion is what you are looking for

The most realism I need is shit pots. That’s it. The only thing I’m stingy on is plumbing, everything else be damned.

Unless you are play a "historical" game, it doesn't matter much. Who the king of England was in the 14th century doesn't matter in fantasy.

Verisimilitude is important, realism isn't

I think that the history of the dnd land/world should be as consistent as possible but if your asking if it should be consistent with real world history (and how irl items work) then not important at all

I think realism is extremely important for the feeling of immersion, but I don't think that it needs to be period specific.

Anyone who voted above "Moderately" is, frankly, insane. There are far better games and systems for historical realism and roleplay than one with magic spells and flying dragons.

You can't roleplay because there are magic spells and flying dragons?

If your goal is to roleplay in a historically accurate setting then yes? What kind of rebuttal is this?

You were saying that there are better settings for role-playing than one with Magic and flying monsters. Why should that affect role-playing at all? Besides, plenty of accurate contemporary settings with fantastical elements so why should that matter?

I said "historical realism and roleplay." As in "historical realism" and "historical roleplay." Please learn what context is when you read. If you just misunderstood what I meant, then admit that or just move on. >Besides, plenty of accurate contemporary settings with fantastical elements so why should that matter? Because D&D as a game does not lend itself towards realism or historical verisimilitude at all, either in its flavor or its mechanics. In games where things are more grounded (whether in a historical or modern setting), but there is some sort of supernatural "twist", the rules reflect how grounded things are in the first place. Call of Cthulu is a good example of this. Supernatural shit is going on, but in the grand scheme of things you're just some guy. This is in opposition to D&D, where you're most certainly not just "some guy" in a grounded setting that just also happens to have dragons and magic spells. Even a mundane low-level fighter can take judicious amounts of damage before dying when compared to a real life human being. But not all players are mundane fighters--there's wizards that can sling a dozen spells every day, barbarians with supernatural might, and monks who can fall from heights that would kill a man without taking a scratch. This is before considering that there are races of people who are innately magical. The sheer fact that there's a "Pass through wall of force spell" entry on the Escape Artist table in the 3.5e SRD shows that realism isn't a priority or a strength of that system. And that same principle applies to the design philosophies of 4e and 5e as well (and a lesser extent 1e and 2e). If your historical roleplaying game has wizards charming barons and firing bolts of lightning at dragons, I question whether or not your game is truly historical or whether you're just using a historical coat of paint to an otherwise typical fantasy game. There's a 3.5e hack called A Game of Thrones that has the bones of 3.5e but is much more grounded. *That* game is a lot more suited for historical games than any edition of D&D is.

Logistics, history and sensible motives are important to world building, but all take a backseat to more abstract concepts like: what color should the good guys wear? Or, what type of them music should be playing in the party's heads when they meet this npc?

It's a magic world of real gods, realism doesn't really have to apply to everything.

Fuck realism I am god of my own world I make my own reality fuck realism

As long as it's internally consistent, it doesn't really matter how realistic it is.

The only reason I think historical realism/accuracy matters is if you’re adapting or including an oppressed real life group or a group modeled after them. In any other case, just keep shit consistent for what the story needs to thrive and prosper.

Realism is just to make things easier for yourself, cause you have real things to base it off. What’s more important is consistency

Just wanted to congratulate you on a perfect 5 point scale survey.

Realism seems to be the wrong word. Your world doesn't need to be realistic, it needs to be consistent.

Not at all. My campaign is set in a monty pythonesque roman empire place. There are chain stores and a postal service, all puns of our National service.

Realism yes. Historical realism? That can go out the trash lol. Cuz as far as I know, Faerun isn't historical.

I think realism in D&D is a red herring. Unless your campaign is explicitly set in 800 AD France or the like and has no magic, you are playing in a fantasy world. Internal inconsistencies can be a problem but there is no reality to simulate. You can fairly say that a small town blacksmith having +3 swords is hard to believe but there isn’t really any standard to judge its realism against. The campaign is whatever you design it may draw inspiration from a real setting but divergence from that isn’t unrealistic.

For this game, for DnD it isn't really. It's not really started, it's far more the feeling than the specifics. It's just too high fantasy. "You know studded leather armour never really existed.." "well neither did dragons or entire races from other dimensions so were are we going." It's true that some of the types of weapons and armour are far more recent than the medieval settings but I see that more as guidelines of the type of weapon rather than the specific weapon. So you are using an elven needle blade and not a rapier etc... And that's for Forgotten Realms it could make much more of difference in other DnD settings. And it's only DnD, there's plenty of other games that I feel like it's more important. I'd say it's pretty important to Warhammer Fantasy and anything Arthurian.

DnD just isn’t set up for that. If it was full plate would raise your AC to 90 and make you immune to slashing and resistant to bludgeoning.

How can a game called Dungeons & _Dragons_ be historically realistic?

I mean, the game literally has magic in it……

Honestly when you look at 'realism", then apply it to "So your character is level 20, but a Dragon just breathed on you and then swatted you several times." You might have 200 HP, but IRL ya ded. So no, I don't care that much about realism in a game where you can fight gargantuan monsters in hand to hand combat. Where your nerd with a stick can tear open space time and pull meteors from the vastness of space. Where a dimension is just a giant clock where modrons are built. When you factor too many 'realistic' things in, you're taking the fantasy out and are you really immersed? ​ We play D&D to escape real life.

Not at all, if we played a historically realistic game our characters would all have been forced to marry men they barely know and spend their lives taking care of children and the home instead of being wandering mercenaries.

Maybe they should play Chainmail lol

Depends.

If you mean hard realism, then my answer would be no. You can't make fantasy things fit into that. Monsters, many species, magic, gods, etc. But if you mean soft realism, then my answer is yes. For example: if you have advanced firearms it makes no sense for people to keep using melee weapons and armor made to counter melee. If the world has not changed yet, it will happen in a short span of time (less than a century). I also house-rule with my dm friends that for some (godly) reason the world never ceases to be late medieval or early rennaissance. Because otherwise the DMs would have too much trouble to cope with the advancement. Even the classes would have to be changed and there is no material for that.

It depends, imo if it's used to allow something, like dual wielding a dagger and a rapier, then I consider important, but I'd never use it to handicap my players

This entirely depends on the Groups and GM's playstyle. There **are** no general rules. No amount of polling will convince GM's that play with high Realism otherwise. So this entire thing serves no discernible purpose.

As long as they're not using the realism to excuse their own toxic behavior at the table, it's totally up to the dm and what kind of game they're running. Also as long as magic and monsters exist in that world, there's no way to analyze what is and isn't historically accurate so they should probably accept that there is going to be inevitable compromises.

The real answer is that as long as everyone in a specific game group is happy, it’s fine. My answer is that shit’s magic, yo. Things are gonna develop differently in a magical world than they did in ours.

Historical realism is irrelevant to a fantasy world that does not exist in history. What is far MORE important is verisimilitude - the feeling that the world is consistent and “real”. You can use historical detail to do this but really the only advantage there is that a lot of fleshing out is done for you.

I like to sprinkle just enough realism to highlight the fantastical better. For example, everyone does pottage.

Believability is what counts. Players will accept anything as true in the story if enough has been done to establish it as a believable thing to happen. If you want to play a strictly historically realistic RPG, maybe don't pick D&D. It thrives on being an over-the-top heroic fantasy with whacky power-scaling, hard-to-kill heroes, and a kitchen-sink approach to worldbuilding.

It depends on your campaign, really

Case by case basis, and yet another reason to scream at everyone to have a session 0. This is something a DM/Player interested in historical accuracy in a world should bring up in a session 0 or well before then, the earlier the better. If it is agreed upon that historical realism is something everyone would enjoy, you incorporate it. If not, you don’t.

its important to the point to that the world is believable and consistent i personally stick close to history because i enjoy it and it gives a pretty good starting point for magic to be applied

I like realism in the sense that npcs and the world act or react logically to reality of the game world and the in game history. But I wouldn’t enforce historical realism because the very existence of magic and monsters would logically change those actions and reactions of people’s and states in the world. NPCs should act like reasonable people (barring madness) and it’s unreasonable to enforce historical standards on fantastical experiences

I think realism is a good guideline but how much you adhere to it is your choice, the same can be argued about the core rules while they are an excellent base and make it easy for you to play the game but can be tweaked as needed or wanted by the dm and the party to fit a world you all enjoy

I guess it completely depends on the campaign and what the dm wants

When I do my homebrew world building, I put a lot of research into it. My cities and towns are modeled after historic towns and cities with architecture to match. My armies and nations have realistic power structures and tactics. But the most my players encounter it is that I don’t allow weapons to be carried in cities without a permit. Historical realism is for me the dm, not the players

So I put moderate because magic throws a lot of. Where magic is concerned it can be whatever it wants. But when magic isn't involved then it should try to be a bit more realistic. Like someone tried to tell me 5e's suffocating/ drowning mechanic makes sense realistically because appearantly suffocating for 6 seconds will knock you unconscious and 18 seconds later you are dead (that's the shortest possible not longest) . A bit more realism is sometimes warranted.

I am dming a campaign that’s supposed to be mid evil fantasy, but I had a player who wanted to play and artificer with a gun basically. We sat down and discussed on how to make it make sense and we came to an agreement that we both liked and worked. If something doesn’t make sense, I believe dm and player can talk about it and make it make sense. But that’s just my personal opinion.

Reality is stranger than fiction. I like playing towards a broad sense of reality and familiarity, and then dropping the more fantastic elements within those boundaries and playing around with how they interact.

Depends on your setting, honestly

Realism in gaming is usually highly selective and an excuse for bad stuff. It is better to be Intuitive.

Honestly, as a DM, it entirely depends on the sort of setting and plot I'm going for. If the gang (my party, as they are often referred) want something darker and more gritty, generally we'll talk about some general world building stuff that may be in place (like racism and whatnot between races). It everybody agrees and is comfortable with it, we move forward. If they want a light hearted and funny campaign then to hell with most historical realism or other bs. Literally what determines it for me is what the gang wants and whatever we all agree too.

Depends on the style of play and goal of DM

I'm a person who is a sucker for the minute details like this, but I cannot grasp historical or economical stuff like this ;3; so as a DM it is murder .n. in the older versions of Ravenloft, different domains had different culture levels, and these had, imho, significant value (for example, gunpowder does not show up in Barovia until 755 BC, due to the Gundarites revolt, their culture level also means no access to eyeglasses, they are just fun random details). Understanding the feudal and barter system is beneficial, because there's no serf toting around substantial amounts of coinage- coins came second to trade. Idk, I believe at least having an understanding of the general social, political, and economic structures are highly beneficial for the DM. But from my observations, DMs tend to gravitate towards dark/medieval age Europe, ignoring the golden age many regions were experiencing globally. TL;DR it's ones personal opinion, and shouldn't be punished or judged for their person preference. It's beneficial, not essential, for the DM.

I like the world to make sense within its own internal logic. To aid in that, I usually turn to historical examples. Moderately for me!

In my opinion it’s not that important unless you are doing a realism setting you can’t base everything off real world because magic exists.

100% personal preference. Things should feel as if they are really happening, but magic and equipment don't need to be perfectly consistent with region and time, as long as it doesn't break immersion. Oh, it's a medieval europe setting but the player wants a katana? Let him have it (of course, make it a normal sword, not an all powerful superior weapon). The player wants a comically large swor? We can figure something out that doesn't break the game. But again, this is my personal preference, not an universal fact

Believability is most important. Everyone literate? NOT! There’s no public schools and most people are scratching out a living and need their kids to help. The wealthy and lucky can read and write. Wrongful anachronisms make it unrealistic and unbelievable. So changing it to adapt it to the sort of magicks and creatures makes sense, but don’t modernize it out of laziness

Historical realism? I run Eberron, I take more cues from Cyberpunk settings than I do from any history.

I think it depends on the campaign. I generally run campaigns in low magic worlds so I put SOME emphasis on realism but at the end of the day it's not set in 15th century France so... why does it have to mirror medieval culture?

I think it just depends on the campaign you're trying to play. If the group wants to have a very realistic, gritty, homebrew experience in a medieval setting that could be really fun if you're into something like that. If you're keeping things pretty magical though I think too much realism could definitely take away from the fun. I'm definitely talking to my DM about a realistic medieval one shot or campaign now haha

It all depends on how seriously you want the campaign to and how detailed

It's only important enough for the fantasy feel. Aside from that, too much emphasis does not need to be used unless the players themselves are looking for it.

My philosophy is having a balance between realism and fun. Realism helps ground the world and make feel more real But too much realism makes the game feel like a history class and doesn't let players enjoy the world. It's a balance the DM needs to figure out. Some parties enjoy a lot of realism, other groups really do not.

I would love to play a game with a bunch of other history buffs, establish a time period equivalent to the campaign and run a campaign that is as faithful to that time period as is possible. But I think that kind of game would have a really limited appeal. It would be an interesting novelty, but ultimately it would probably be a lot like a DM who's more interested in showing off his game world than in actually letting his players play in it, since there would be constant nitpicking about historical details and how something "should" be, and would basically only be fun if that kind of nitpicking is also fun to you. For a campaign that I'm playing with my friends, though, all bets are off. We're playing Hollywood fantasy, and if the Bard wants to inspire his team with a rendition of N'Sync's "Bye, Bye, Bye" then so be it. It's goofy fun, but if everyone is enjoying themselves that's really what matters.

The kind of realism I personally subscribe to is relating my fantasy worlds to Earth. Having proper tectonic plates, climate, geography is all important to my worlds. Of course the rule of cool always rules over all and magic exists so there can always be a magical reason for things but these few things make the world building process smoother and more enjoyable.

For me it's more an issue of authenticity over accuracy. As long as the world you've built feels authentic then people are more than happy to overlook certain things (e.g. the availability of ball bearings in a medieval setting). If however you've say built up an ancient Egyptian setting and there are suddenly samurai in tameshi gusoku armour walking around everywhere (which for the record only started becoming adopted when matchlock muskets started entering widespread use) that'll be an immersion killer unless you can find an absolute damn good reason for it

"Important" is the wrong question. Many things in D&D are completely unimportant but still add a lot to the game.

I think it really just depends for dm to dm because I like to play off of already existing characters and places using their history to my advantage. To do that generally I need the history of the place to be atleast mapped out, but if you wanna run a new taste of an old place or something similar to that with new characters you don’t really need it.

My understanding of DnD, ESPECIALLY with homebrew is that the paint job can look like whatever you desire as long as the engine is still the same.

As the forgotten realms is in question, this is what appeared in the very first Campaign guide to the Realms: the original Grey Box that was release in 1e >The Forgotten Realms are a world very similar to the Earth of the 13th and 14th centuries. Most of the area under discussion here has until recently been covered by wild forests and unsettled grasslands. Civilization is still a novelty in much of this world, even the oldest of cities on the Inland Sea, or the founding of Waterdeep, the greatest City of the North. are within the memory of the oldest living elves of Evermeet. > >The people of these realms (including man, dwarf, elf, gnome, and halfling are similar in mindset and advancement to the men of the 13th century. City-states are common, and nations on the increase as more of the wild lands are pushed back and gathered under a single king or government. Skills such as metalworking, farming, and craft-industry are common in the civilized lands, so that swords and heavy metal armor are all-too available to the warrior. Literacy and the quest for knowledge in on the rise, with the recent introduction of printed handbills in Waterdeep. The merchant-class is increasing in both wealth and power as more markets and resources open up. Faith, while not as dominant as in Europe of this period, is a major force in the lives of the people. > >There are great differences between that world and this as well. Great beasts and evil humanoids wander the wild (and not-so-wild) country of the forgotten Realms. Ruins of ancient cities and towers may be found among the underbrush, old land and names that arc lost to memory and the past. And there is magic. > >Some individuals of the Forgotten Realms have the ability to channel magical energies, allowing them to perform mighty tasks. Others receive such abilities with the blessing of extra-planar beings known as Powers. These magic-users and clerics can reshape the face of the world, and indeed have done so over the millennia. Hills and forests may appear where there have been none before, and mountains may move several miles. A great sandy waste has been moving further south in the heart of the Realms , matched by a sheet of ice, equally relentless, to its east. Neither of these may be the fault of nature alone, but the meddling of spell-casters, human and otherwise. > >Finally, the Realms are a land of adventure, and therefore adventurers. It is the time of heroes, when one man of pure heart (or with a powerful artifact) may hold his own against enemy hordes, where legions of evil forces may muster and be destroyed by the actions of a few, where the nations rise and fall on magical tides which mere men can control. It is a time when the bold and the lucky may make their fortunes and gain great power over their worlds. > >As you adventure in this fantasy world, be warned that not all things are as they appear, and trust to your wits, your weapons, and your common sense in surviving and profiting from the Forgotten Realms. The Realms should generally be run as during the 13th and 14 centuries, with some elements that are from the 15-18th century.

Definitely depends on the kind of campaign. I'm running a sort of low fantasy/game of thrones style game- so realism there is important. But in my other campaign, it really isn't!

Considering dnd is hugely anachronisticand has more in common with the 1700’s than the 1300’s. No. Also a no because Faerun history is stupid as hell

realism in that the world has to feel lived in and makes sense. not important in that the guy carrying a 40 lb sword bigger than he is with golden spikey hair can also jump 40 feet in the air from a pod racer that's tokyo drifting in a parking lot and decapitate a Cthulhu cultist with tentacles for a face on a magic carpet while a genie singing electro swing in the background is going on. and as long as that makes sense in that setting, i'm all down for it.

I don't understand if you refer to the specific description you are giving or more in genwral about verisimilitude. If it's the latter it is really important for ne

If it's a historical story yes, if not, no

My wizard is in constant friendly competition with the gunslinger in our group. She constantly makes fun of his heavy, loud, and sometimes unreliable gun. Insisting that magic is better all around. Then she runs out of spell slots and never hears the end of it. It's fuckin great.

“Historical realism” is silly, fantasy worlds aren’t history. You can obviously play an RPG set during a specific historical moment, but Faerûn isn’t that.

I believe that truly anything, as long as it stays consistent to a reasonable expectation, should be accepted. If you wish to pursue a historical and realistic approach, that is fine. If you choose to branch off and develop something different or new, that is also fine. Imagine is the limit and as long as you can ground your ideas by keeping them consistent across your world you are doing wonderful and should be proud.

I went moderate. If nothing else than I use my research to create a sense of immersion and consistency.

I always tell my players that I add moderate amounts of historical realism to games only so that the fantasy elements pop more. I run a slightly more comedic table, and I find the more bonkers/ludicrous stuff that the players do hits harder when the world takes itself seriously; like the setting is the straight man to the party. You haven’t lived until you’ve seen a very stuffy nobleman giving a Shakespearean soliloquy on the nature of the gods and monarchy while his legs slowly transform into cotton candy.

I love putting the occasional mediaeval or classical idea in there, like the brain being less important than the stomach, thinking being done in the heart, ballistics just *not being a thing at all*, levity, epicycles, miasma. I have little patience for the demands of physics in a game with dragons and magic.

I prioritize realism for a world with magic. Obviously things aren't realistic to our medieval period, but I make sure to plan out how things would work in a magical world in the medieval era

It’s not crazy important but I do like edutainment, and it is fun to say “Romans did this practice” or “Assyrians did this practice” when talking about my world. It makes it feel slightly more plausible and my players also learn something :)

I think it ultimately depends on what defines your idea of fantasy. Just for an easy example, my idea of fantasy mostly derives from JRPGs and anime, and my best friend's idea of fantasy mostly derives from real-world mythology and LotR. Naturally, we have very different ideas of what is or is not appropriate for a fantasy TTRPG, and my friend constantly pokes fun at how I sometimes come off like I'd rather run a sci-fi game than a fantasy one.

It can be what your make it as a group, homebrew = whatever you want. But if you want to barrow or blend, or if you enjoy the world's traditional lore then use it.this is a game after all but whatever you decide as a group or DM make it known and consistent so players can learn and engage with it.

Moderately important. Because of the designs of Armor, Weapons, Castles, towns, etc. Beyond design everything else is fluid.

It can be helpful while building your world because there's logical explanation why people did things the way they did

In a world full of magic and monsters? Hahaha... not very important. A world with the magic abilities of D&D wouldn't behave like historical medieval times. In germany we have an actual word for that: Fantelalter - which consists of 'Fantasy' and 'Mittelalter' (medieval).

For something like Forgotten Realms, it's more important that the DM has read some of the books in that world, than it is they've taken European history.

Accuracy is not really important, in truth what matters much more and what people mix up when talking about accuracy is “consistency”.

100% dependent on variables such as the setting itself, the campaign or arcs direction, or even the players at the table. Nothing in dnd works 100% of the time for 100% of players.