What irks you about the difference with D&D and Real World logic?

[Mr Beer]

Pretty much all the mechanisms in D&D glaringly fail to map to the real world. This is not as a result of a conscious decision on the part of the designers but rather got baked in from the earliest editions of D&D when no-one knew how to make an RPG.

If you play D&D you have to accept the silliness. It goes too deep to fix with house rules and if that annoys you, there are a lot of options out there which have either objectively better designs or are better thought out or both.

Complaining about the rules in D&D is like complaining about the writing in The Big Bang Theory. Yes it's cheesy and predictable and cliched and not nearly as funny as <insert better show here>. Well despite all that, it's incredibly popular and durable so it seems to be what the people want. If you hate it, best bet is probably watch something else.

[Xuc Xac]

Every single edition of D&D has gone out of their way to make it clear that Hit Points are not Meat Points, and every single generation of players has ignored that text.

That's actually one thing that irks me about D&D in general. Yes, there's that one nice paragraph telling you that hp loss doesn't only represent physical damage. That axe that just hit you and left you at 48/53 hp didn't really cause a wound. Now, it so happens that it was posioned, roll a Fort save.

To put it in other words: They go out of their way to say that hp loss doesn't always represent a wound, but mechanically it always works like a wound.

Hit points aren't meat points unless you get hit by a poisoned weapon, bitten by a lycanthrope, or any other attack that causes extra effects on a "hit" that only make sense if a "hit" actually breaks skin. "If HP represent my ability to dodge a deadly blow, why am I taking continuous 'bleeding damage' after dodging that attack?"

Also, healing only makes sense as meat points. Cure Light Wounds restores enough hit points to completely heal a first level wizard or commoner who is well into negative hit points. A high level fighter might consider losing 5% of his total hit points to a battle ax to be a "light wound" but a first level wizard with 4hp probably considers losing 8 points to a battle ax to be a little more serious.

The viscosity depends on the chemisty and the temperature.

Spoiler: picture

Show

You're saying that's a million times more viscous than water? Wrong.
[/URL]

That's a 10 meter spray of lava. The smallest "drops" are still fairly big and chunky. If it was as runny as water, it would be breaking up into a fine mist at the edges. Do an image search for a spraying fire hose and see how the water breaks up into very fine droplets that are much, much finer than the lava in that picture.

Water has a viscosity of 0.00089 Pa*s (Pascal seconds). Lava has viscosities ranging from 100 to 1000 Pa*s. It can be objectively measured. The lava in your picture is at the low end of the range which would put it around 10,000 to 100,000 times as viscous as water.

One of the things that drives me nuts in D&D is anything that treats PCs differently from NPCs for no reason.

PC fighter: I'd like to buy a sword, please.
NPC Merchant: Here you are. That will be 10 gold pieces.
PC: Here you go. *Pays 10 gp*
NPC fighter: I'd like to buy a sword, please. Here are 10 gold pieces.
Merchant: Oh, terribly sorry, sir. I've just sold the last one to this fellow.
PC: Well, I don't really need it. I just wanted to have an extra weapon as a back up. I'll sell it to you if you like.
NPC fighter: I'll give you 5 gp for it and not a copper more.
PC: But it's the same sword that you were going to pay 10 for!
NPC fighter: You're a fighter, not a merchant! You don't know how to do business.
PC: Fine. I'll return it to the merchant and you can pay him for it.
NPC merchant: I'll give you 5gp for it.
PC: What? Why can't you just give me back my 10gp and take his 10gp?
NPC merchant: I'm not paying you full price for used goods.
PC: It's brand new. I just bought it from you!
NPC merchant: You're a fighter, not a merchant! You don't know how to do business.

[Galithar]

One of the things that drives me nuts in D&D is anything that treats PCs differently from NPCs for no reason.

PC fighter: I'd like to buy a sword, please.
NPC Merchant: Here you are. That will be 10 gold pieces.
PC: Here you go. *Pays 10 gp*
NPC fighter: I'd like to buy a sword, please. Here are 10 gold pieces.
Merchant: Oh, terribly sorry, sir. I've just sold the last one to this fellow.
PC: Well, I don't really need it. I just wanted to have an extra weapon as a back up. I'll sell it to you if you like.
NPC fighter: I'll give you 5 gp for it and not a copper more.
PC: But it's the same sword that you were going to pay 10 for!
NPC fighter: You're a fighter, not a merchant! You don't know how to do business.
PC: Fine. I'll return it to the merchant and you can pay him for it.
NPC merchant: I'll give you 5gp for it.
PC: What? Why can't you just give me back my 10gp and take his 10gp?
NPC merchant: I'm not paying you full price for used goods.
PC: It's brand new. I just bought it from you!
NPC merchant: You're a fighter, not a merchant! You don't know how to do business.

I kinda want to see someone actually perform this 'skit' because I heard it all in my head like the Black Knight from Monty Python.

[Arbane]

Also, healing only makes sense as meat points. Cure Light Wounds restores enough hit points to completely heal a first level wizard or commoner who is well into negative hit points. A high level fighter might consider losing 5% of his total hit points to a battle ax to be a "light wound" but a first level wizard with 4hp probably considers losing 8 points to a battle ax to be a little more serious.

Rationalization:
You remember in Lord of the Rings where Ent-Draught is a nice pick-me-up for for the 20-foot-tall tree people, but had a permanent effect on the hobbits? It's like that.

If Gygax had named the spell Restore Plot Armor, the readers would've been confused, as I don't think that term existed yet.

And yes, D&D has NEVER been consistent in-game about what HP are supposed to be, aside from a Damage Meter.

[Kyutaru]

8 dmg to a Fighter isn't the same wound as 8 dmg to a wizard. The wizard got impaled, the fighter got scratched.

Plot armor was a thing in the Star Wars rpg too. You can't suffer repeated blaster bolts and be fine. Heck a single disruptor rifle shot is supposed to kill you. Yet the only things that hit your actual Wound points were crits. Everything else just shaved off your screen time, which they called Vitality, and blatantly spelled out that it was just a representation of near hits and grazes meant for cinematic flair. Cause if you actually watch the Star Wars movies -- the heroes almost never get hit at all.

[Arbane]

If you want a game with 'realistic' damage systems, try Phoenix Command. Just don't get upset when your character is face-down with a sucking chest wound before you got to act.

[olskool]

I kinda want to see someone actually perform this 'skit' because I heard it all in my head like the Black Knight from Monty Python.

Me too!
This forum needs a LIKE Button!

[Telok]

The Three Stooges effect of the skill systems in the last few editions. I know people will claim it's ability checks or that you shouldn't be rolling the dice (wtf, put a system in the game and people are telling me the best thing is to not use it). But really, it's like "hp is not wounds" argument, the game treats hp like wounds and ability checks like skills. Admit the parrot is dead and stop whining about fjords.

If you're using a d20 for checks you have two choices: numbers stay on the die or get off it. If you get off the die some characters stop getting to participate in certain activities. Which is not good. So the last couple editions tried staying on the die.

Which leads to the PCs trying to do things and ending up looking like a Three Stooges skit when nobody can roll over a 12. Or the never-left-the-city street urchin thief beating the druid at surviving in the jungle. Or a gorilla beating the wizard at working the magic portal controls. Or a small child beating your raging goliath barbarian at arm wrestling.

Then people started noticing that if you play this race, have that class ability, snag a common magic item, and take a feat... their numbers are back off the die.

"Congratulations, the druid spots the thing because his passive perception is higher than the rest of you rolling 20s."

[olskool]

never been a fan that a character a 1hp out of 100 is still able to function at full capacity. You'd think they'd be suffering some kind of penalty, a lopped off arm, woozyness from blood loss, or reduced movement speed from a broken leg or something.

like i understand why it's like that, but i wouldn't mind playing with a mechanic that really enforces the struggle to survive the lower your health gets. Not to the point of completely useless at 25% hp or lower of course, but enough to push for desperation moves and possible permanent consequences like aforementioned disfigurement.

Just go "Old School" from the days of 2e and the universal house rules spread at various conventions...

Base Hit Points were your CON SCORE plus a roll of the Hit Die added to that CON score. At each new level, you would roll a new Hit Die and add that to your CON score AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE PREVIOUSLY ROLLED HIT DIE.. but only IF the roll was bigger than the previous hit die rolled. Otherwise, you would just IGNORE IT and keep the larger previously rolled value.

The second optional rule was to just add 1 HP per Level to the Character's CON score for "non-martial classes" and 2 HP for "martial classes." This gave a predictable progression of HP that helped the DM balance monster and spell damages.

These will give you a better chance of survival at lower levels but increase the threat of death at higher levels. You will have to adjust both Spell Damages and the Damages that some monsters do to restore balance. The "rule of thumb" has always been to just cut damages in half to rebalance, but then 1e and 2e weren't very balanced to begin with.

[olskool]

The Three Stooges effect of the skill systems in the last few editions. I know people will claim it's ability checks or that you shouldn't be rolling the dice (wtf, put a system in the game and people are telling me the best thing is to not use it). But really, it's like "hp is not wounds" argument, the game treats hp like wounds and ability checks like skills. Admit the parrot is dead and stop whining about fjords.

If you're using a d20 for checks you have two choices: numbers stay on the die or get off it. If you get off the die some characters stop getting to participate in certain activities. Which is not good. So the last couple editions tried staying on the die.

Which leads to the PCs trying to do things and ending up looking like a Three Stooges skit when nobody can roll over a 12. Or the never-left-the-city street urchin thief beating the druid at surviving in the jungle. Or a gorilla beating the wizard at working the magic portal controls. Or a small child beating your raging goliath barbarian at arm wrestling.

Then people started noticing that if you play this race, have that class ability, snag a common magic item, and take a feat... their numbers are back off the die.

"Congratulations, the druid spots the thing because his passive perception is higher than the rest of you rolling 20s."

You are spot on with this critique.

This is an issue that could be resolved by tweaking the "Proficiency System" and adding "skill rolls" to certain character abilities but WotC dropped the ball when designing 5e. I personally would have made the Proficiency System a "Central Mechanic" and included both Spell Casting AND Class Abilities in it. You could have those abilities increase with each new Level while secondary or non-class skills only progress every "X Levels" (like they do now) because they were learned later or as an "afterthought." Starting a newly acquired ability at 1st Level (no matter what level you were when you got it) and increasing the penalties to "skill rolls" for "nonproficient characters" would all help too. Proficiencies have ALWAYS been an "afterthought" in D&D (and AD&D) though. Nothing new to see here as a result.

[Florian]

that you shouldn't be rolling the dice (wtf, put a system in the game and people are telling me the best thing is to not use it)

I'm of the opinion that you only should roll the dice when the outcome matters or is contested. That's also the whole reason behind the take10 and take20 mechanics.

You're in no rush to climb that tree, search that room or have a chat with the barkeeper? Why roll, when the possibility of failure doesn't really matter for those activities?

Running away from the manor guard and trying to climb the wall asap? Well, different beast entirely, as the possibility of failure will have a concrete effect.

That's also why I'm of the opinion having skills is not the same as being able to participate.

[Pauly]

Any attempt to relate D&D to real life is doomed to fail. But some of my pet bugbears:
- wearing armor as a skill you have to learn. Anything short of a plate harness is basically the same as putting on protective clothes, and putting on a plate harness can be learned in an hour or two.
- the whole leather armor thing, when in the historical analogue to D&D leather armor was very uncommon. Cloth gambesons were the correct item.
- you can level up and suddenly become proficient in a weapon you’ve never done touched before in your life.
- the multiplicity of weapons that require different skills.
- short swords are not always thrusting swords and long swords are not always cutting swords.

[Xuc Xac]

8 dmg to a Fighter isn't the same wound as 8 dmg to a wizard. The wizard got impaled, the fighter got scratched.

Yes, because the wizard is a scrawny little nerd and the fighter is a mountain of pantherish sinews. Until its time for healing, then the wizard regenerates like Wolverine. "Impaled through the spleen and gasping out your last breath? No problem! Here's a bandaid. Now you're completely fine!" But the fighter has a cut that's deep enough to require stitches? "These grievous wounds are beyond the power of the simple village priest to heal. It will take many days or weeks to recover unless you travel to the great temple in the capital city."

[Luccan]

Characters should die/be seriously crippled more often. Seriously, the constant wear and tear of adventuring on the body, the severe harm that comes to them that should take months if not years to heal from magic or just regular battle wounds, the psychological trauma from facing some truly horrific things, these things should have serious implications. How is every single adventurer not dead or broken in body and spirit at a young age? I want all my barbarians to die before the age of 25, all my wizards to go insane by third level, and to never, ever, play a hero in a fantasy action tabletop RPG. Is that so much to ask?

And don't even get me started on the lack of physics calculations in spellcasting!

Everyone's complaints are legitimate and part of that is of course that it's all opinion based. But I've never found the lack of realism in various aspects of D&D to be one of its primary issues. Anymore than it is in most other RPGs I've ever heard of, at least.

[gkathellar]

The Three Stooges effect of the skill systems in the last few editions. I know people will claim it's ability checks or that you shouldn't be rolling the dice (wtf, put a system in the game and people are telling me the best thing is to not use it). But really, it's like "hp is not wounds" argument, the game treats hp like wounds and ability checks like skills. Admit the parrot is dead and stop whining about fjords.

If you're using a d20 for checks you have two choices: numbers stay on the die or get off it. If you get off the die some characters stop getting to participate in certain activities. Which is not good. So the last couple editions tried staying on the die.

Which leads to the PCs trying to do things and ending up looking like a Three Stooges skit when nobody can roll over a 12. Or the never-left-the-city street urchin thief beating the druid at surviving in the jungle. Or a gorilla beating the wizard at working the magic portal controls. Or a small child beating your raging goliath barbarian at arm wrestling.

Then people started noticing that if you play this race, have that class ability, snag a common magic item, and take a feat... their numbers are back off the die.

"Congratulations, the druid spots the thing because his passive perception is higher than the rest of you rolling 20s."

The solution for this, which D&D will probably never incorporate, is to take a "fail forward" approach to skill checks - assume a qualified character can perform the action, and roll to determine whether or not doing so has unintended consequences, rather than to determine whether or not they succeed in the first place. There's probably even a way to set benchmarks for when you'd do this - say, if you'd succeed on a 10+, your roll is only determining consequences, not success, but if you'd succeed on a 9+, you're hoping to get lucky and succeed.

You're saying that's a million times more viscous than water? Wrong.

I said it was between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times more viscous than water, which, as Xuc Xac mentions, is measurable and has been measured. Molten rock is still rock, not boiling kool-aid.

Yeah, it's dense and you'd float. You'd burn too, but we're ignoring that. It's denser than water, but less dense than mercury. If you were fireproof and dragged under by an asbestos or otherwise fireproof rope while wearing a fireproof aqualung, the pressure wouldn't kill you immediately.

I already agreed with you on that. "This means I should qualify my statement: lava pressure would escalate far more rapidly than water pressure and crush you far more quickly [than water] at a far lesser depth." You're right that it wouldn't be immediate, but the pressure both starts higher and scales differently, and due to the viscosity, it'd be impossible to move voluntarily while submerged. Full submersion in lava would immobilize and crush a person (if they were somehow immune to heat, but we're granting that).

[Jay R]

Alignment. First, the notion that a crucial Law/Chaos axis exists, in defiance of every ethical system in the history of the world.

Second, the idea that good and evil can be defined by game rules, when the greatest philosophers and thinkers in the world have never agreed on it.

I once had my character argue with another by saying, “Yes, well, that’s because you’re a Paladin, sworn to do what’s Lawful and what’s Good. I’m just a Thief, free to do what’s right.”

[halfeye]

That's a 10 meter spray of lava. The smallest "drops" are still fairly big and chunky. If it was as runny as water, it would be breaking up into a fine mist at the edges. Do an image search for a spraying fire hose and see how the water breaks up into very fine droplets that are much, much finer than the lava in that picture.

The "drops" of lava in the picture are typically flat and squarish, with water, droplets are more or less sphereoidal. Obviously, lava is not water. The lava is cooling and rising in viscosity as it leaves the source of the plume.

Water has a viscosity of 0.00089 Pa*s (Pascal seconds). Lava has viscosities ranging from 100 to 1000 Pa*s. It can be objectively measured. The lava in your picture is at the low end of the range which would put it around 10,000 to 100,000 times as viscous as water.

I suspect it's lower than that. However, as you imply it's a guess on my part. Glass has a higher viscosity than water, and lava, until it melts.

I said it was between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times more viscous than water, which, as Xuc Xac mentions, is measurable and has been measured. Molten rock is still rock, not boiling kool-aid.

Rock being rock means it is dense, the viscosity depends on the temperature and pressure. Higher temperature (for a given chemical composition) means lower viscosity.

I already agreed with you on that. "This means I should qualify my statement: lava pressure would escalate far more rapidly than water pressure and crush you far more quickly [than water] at a far lesser depth." You're right that it wouldn't be immediate, but the pressure both starts higher and scales differently, and due to the viscosity, it'd be impossible to move voluntarily while submerged. Full submersion in lava would immobilize and crush a person (if they were somehow immune to heat, but we're granting that).

Syrup and molasses have significantly higher viscosities than water, but you can move in them. To crush a person would require a pressure gradient, which at the surface of a lava flow you won't have. Water kills a lot of people, but mostly not by crushing them. If the density of lava is only three times the density of water, and people can survive to 400ft in water, it follows that it would take 100ft plus depth of lava for the pressure to kill you. You'd burn, obviously, so this is definitely a "don't attempt this at home", but given a theoretic fireproof person, they'd have about 100ft to sort things out.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hit points aren't meat points unless you get hit by a poisoned weapon, bitten by a lycanthrope, or any other attack that causes extra effects on a "hit" that only make sense if a "hit" actually breaks skin. "If HP represent my ability to dodge a deadly blow, why am I taking continuous 'bleeding damage' after dodging that attack?"

Also, healing only makes sense as meat points. Cure Light Wounds restores enough hit points to completely heal a first level wizard or commoner who is well into negative hit points. A high level fighter might consider losing 5% of his total hit points to a battle ax to be a "light wound" but a first level wizard with 4hp probably considers losing 8 points to a battle ax to be a little more serious.

Add to that the fact that dodging/evasion/avoidance is in AC. Or is it in DEX / Reflex Saves?

Most of the excuses given to "justify" the rapidly scaling HP in D&D end up overlapping with some other part of the system.

It's a muddled mess.

[Imbalance]

There's an exponent missing from your logic. Carry a gallon jug full of water on top of your head for several paces, then cover the same distance with a basalt rock of the same volume. Now imagine that difference in heft pushing on every square inch of your body.

[Max_Killjoy]

Alignment. First, the notion that a crucial Law/Chaos axis exists, in defiance of every ethical system in the history of the world.

Second, the idea that good and evil can be defined by game rules, when the greatest philosophers and thinkers in the world have never agreed on it.

I once had my character argue with another by saying, “Yes, well, that’s because you’re a Paladin, sworn to do what’s Lawful and what’s Good. I’m just a Thief, free to do what’s right.”

That's pretty much how I look at it.

In the standard D&D cosmology, there are these forces labelled Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos -- but they might as well be called Up, Left, Blue, and Terrance.

They bear some passing resemblance to moral terms, but at the end of the day, a small-g good person who is concerned with doing the right thing, will just have to ignore all that GELC noise and do the right thing.

[jjordan]

Alignment. First, the notion that a crucial Law/Chaos axis exists, in defiance of every ethical system in the history of the world.

Second, the idea that good and evil can be defined by game rules, when the greatest philosophers and thinkers in the world have never agreed on it.

I once had my character argue with another by saying, “Yes, well, that’s because you’re a Paladin, sworn to do what’s Lawful and what’s Good. I’m just a Thief, free to do what’s right.”

I agree that alignment as written and the established head-canon based on previous editions is pretty weak. But I like it as a general system for establishing motivations regarding NPCs. I classify good as being selfless and evil as being selfish. Lawful is your tendency to obey the rules and/or view the universe as having underlying order and Chaos is a tendency to do what you want/believe is correct. I like this interpretation because it steps further away from some of the black and white interpretations of earlier material. The predominantly lawful evil population of the big city might be more trustworthy than the chaotic good villagers. Detect evil? Sure, but unless you're finding a hidden devil or demon you're not going to learn much.

[halfeye]

There's an exponent missing from your logic. Carry a gallon jug full of water on top of your head for several paces, then cover the same distance with a basalt rock of the same volume. Now imagine that difference in heft pushing on every square inch of your body.

Have you tried lifting a gallon jug? That's heavy.

You don't feel that weight when swimming. That's the difference I'm talking about, the water you swim in is just as heavy as the water you carry, but it doesn't press on you the way you'd perhaps think it would, because it pushes up as well as down.

[jjordan]

The solution for this, which D&D will probably never incorporate, is to take a "fail forward" approach to skill checks - assume a qualified character can perform the action, and roll to determine whether or not doing so has unintended consequences, rather than to determine whether or not they succeed in the first place. There's probably even a way to set benchmarks for when you'd do this - say, if you'd succeed on a 10+, your roll is only determining consequences, not success, but if you'd succeed on a 9+, you're hoping to get lucky and succeed.

I find your idea intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. More seriously, I took the time to do a site search on this and didn't find a good discussion of this subject. I'd love to see some sort of system that provides decent weighting on the odds of performing a skill.

[Kyutaru]

Characters should die/be seriously crippled more often. Seriously, the constant wear and tear of adventuring on the body, the severe harm that comes to them that should take months if not years to heal from magic or just regular battle wounds, the psychological trauma from facing some truly horrific things, these things should have serious implications. How is every single adventurer not dead or broken in body and spirit at a young age? I want all my barbarians to die before the age of 25, all my wizards to go insane by third level, and to never, ever, play a hero in a fantasy action tabletop RPG. Is that so much to ask?

All perfectly logical assumptions that Japan made when they started their own take on RPGs.

Can't be a hero unless you're 15 and you're probably going to die before 25. Mental trauma doesn't go away, it makes you crazier. That dude with the one arm and the red coat and the missing eye will still ruin your day. But then, the only reason he can even move his body is because he's already dead and just stubbornly refuses to go to the afterlife.

[Max_Killjoy]

8 dmg to a Fighter isn't the same wound as 8 dmg to a wizard. The wizard got impaled, the fighter got scratched.

Plot armor was a thing in the Star Wars rpg too. You can't suffer repeated blaster bolts and be fine. Heck a single disruptor rifle shot is supposed to kill you. Yet the only things that hit your actual Wound points were crits. Everything else just shaved off your screen time, which they called Vitality, and blatantly spelled out that it was just a representation of near hits and grazes meant for cinematic flair. Cause if you actually watch the Star Wars movies -- the heroes almost never get hit at all.

And that stuff -- "a fighter's HP isn't the same as a wizards HP", and "the same exact hit can mean entirely different things" and "HP as plot armor" -- is exactly what needs to be consigned to the burning barrel of bad ideas that have lingered far too long in RPGs.

[Arbane]

And that stuff -- "a fighter's HP isn't the same as a wizards HP", and "the same exact hit can mean entirely different things" and "HP as plot armor" -- is exactly what needs to be consigned to the burning barrel of bad ideas that have lingered far too long in RPGs.

As I'm sure you're aware, most RPGs that aren't D&D or close derivatives have already done just that.

Alignment. First, the notion that a crucial Law/Chaos axis exists, in defiance of every ethical system in the history of the world.

Second, the idea that good and evil can be defined by game rules, when the greatest philosophers and thinkers in the world have never agreed on it.

Fun fact: Law and Chaos came first, because Gygax was a big fan of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories.

[Luccan]

All perfectly logical assumptions that Japan made when they started their own take on RPGs.

Can't be a hero unless you're 15 and you're probably going to die before 25. Mental trauma doesn't go away, it makes you crazier. That dude with the one arm and the red coat and the missing eye will still ruin your day. But then, the only reason he can even move his body is because he's already dead and just stubbornly refuses to go to the afterlife.

In defense of my sarcastic point: perfectly reasonable if that's the tone you're going for. D&D, particularly for the last 3 editions, is not really that. There are variant rules that can push you in that direction, but the base rules and assunptions don't punish your character for being part of the game.

There are drawbacks to playing it that way, but again I don't find it's the lack of realism in certain avenues that frustrates me about the game. And I don't think D&D needs to change in that regard, though I won't begrudge other RPGs for doing so. I just find that too much focus on realism adds an unnecessary level of crunch that slows the game down.

[Kyutaru]

In defense of my sarcastic point: perfectly reasonable if that's the tone you're going for. D&D, particularly for the last 3 editions, is not really that. There are variant rules that can push you in that direction, but the base rules and assunptions don't punish your character for being part of the game.

There are drawbacks to playing it that way, but again I don't find it's the lack of realism in certain avenues that frustrates me about the game. And I don't think D&D needs to change in that regard, though I won't begrudge other RPGs for doing so. I just find that too much focus on realism adds an unnecessary level of crunch that slows the game down.

Could always go the route of combat is incredibly deadly and everyone carries Phoenix Downs.

Nothing quite like getting hit by an attack that reduces your health to 1 no matter how strong you are. The old Harm spell worked like that and it was glorious.

[Lord Torath]

I suspect it's lower than that. However, as you imply it's a guess on my part. Glass has a higher viscosity than water, and lava, until it melts.

Glass doesn't have a viscosity until you melt it. It is not a liquid. The ripples you sometimes see in sheets of old glass are a result of the casting process, and nothing else.

Syrup and molasses have significantly higher viscosities than water, but you can move in them. To crush a person would require a pressure gradient, which at the surface of a lava flow you won't have. Water kills a lot of people, but mostly not by crushing them. If the density of lava is only three times the density of water, and people can survive to 400ft in water, it follows that it would take 100ft plus depth of lava for the pressure to kill you. You'd burn, obviously, so this is definitely a "don't attempt this at home", but given a theoretic fireproof person, they'd have about 100ft to sort things out.

Oh, never mind. Don't guess. Go look it up.

[Lapak]

I once had my character argue with another by saying, “Yes, well, that’s because you’re a Paladin, sworn to do what’s Lawful and what’s Good. I’m just a Thief, free to do what’s right.”

You're highlighting exactly how the alignment system is supposed to work here! Characters of every alignment believe that what they are doing is right; they just have a different idea of what Right is.

If there is a starving person in the street outside a cruel miser's mansion full of gold, your thief (neutral or chaotic good) may say the right thing to do is steal that money and feed the poor man. The miser has no use for it and the starving man does. The lawful good paladin agrees the poor man needs it more, but if the society you are both in is otherwise just then stealing to feed him is a small step towards breaking down that society, leading to more suffering down the line, so he will feed the man out of his own pocket or help them seek out the charity of others. (He may or may not be correct about future outcomes; this is about what both characters believe is right.)

Meanwhile, the lawful evil miser believes you're both making the society he hoards wealth in both weaker and worse by helping the miserable beggar at all; people who aren't strong or clever enough to support themselves don't contribute to the structure that empowers him and are a useless drain.

Disconnect most of the real-world value judgments from the alignment system and it works moderately well as competing philosophies.