I don't think the naive fantasy setting D&D aims to offer mixes well with realism, and that is not meant as a critique. Certainly there needs to be some ties to reality but I think that world's internal consistency is more important aspect of creating verisimilitude.
This here, to me, and tell me if I am misinterpreting YOU. But, Reading this, I feel you are using the term realism to describe modern society. You can have verisimilitude while not aiming for modern society. You say "naive fantasy setting" when really, most of the settings, aren't that different from mythology of older civilizations. Norse, Greek, Japanese, Irish, etc etc
Over the evolution of D&D they have aimed for more realism, but without being TOO realistic. I do not see what you said as a critique at all, but I do think you're taking a very, close-minded focus approach to what constitutes realism. To turn my argument into hyperbole: Would you say the Holocaust is a fantasy setting since its not modern? Would you say the Crusades? The Salem Witch Trials? The Huns? Mesopotamia? (you get the idea)
How would the clergy justify misogynie when there are benevolent and/or female deities who could take their clerics' powers away for doing so? Why would sexism exist in the first place? When physical prowess is less important due to magic's existence and pregnancy and giving birth being less of an issue, thanks to better health care than we have, even now?
Does it though?
I'm often plagued by this paradox when planning a homebrew game world. What happens in a world where in theory you can have injuries and diseases simply cured by a local priest/ cleric? Or if there's a death in the family, why not just resurrect them? But then again resources are finite. The material components of a resurrection spell are not insignificant. Would the miller's family have the money to pay for those resources? And if not, why not demand the church provide them? Why is it that someone with a keep/ holdings should get access but not the baker?
I think that if we do a deep dive on what is possible/ likely for a governmental system we would still find haves and have-nots even in our fantasy based on the "Rules as Written". The "Adventurer Social Class" becomes it's own beast separate from the the Laborer, Trades-person, Noble classes. I'm not sure that a fuedalistic society wouldn't rise up even with better communication and transportation technologies. You still have the issue of "access". Can a wizard who can only cast 2-3 spells per long rest afford to be sending lists of products around for commoners? And are people who are able to study and train enough to cast 2-4th level magic going to be happy sitting in a town and making coin on mundane magics? Think about it, a long rest means "I'm done for the day" level fatigue.
Not sure there's "an answer" here" but there seems to be some room to wiggle in a collection of directions.
Short answer: Lack of altruism. (IE: Human Nature). Now, can't speak of the "human nature" of all the fictitious races, but not many of them are altruistic. A lot of them, are actually written in their lore, cannon material, selfish, racist, apathetic, etc.
Personally, elements of setting aren't important to me at all. Well, mostly.
What's important to me is consistency : that the world works consistently every time a princple is applied.
I also, strongly, dislike magic in my D&D. Especially in the hands of players. I should qualify that: low level spells and spells that are just more powerful versions of low level spells are fine. However, when players start getting spells that just negate challenges, that's boring. And no, the anti-magic field is not a good solution. Anti-magic fields are lazy and sloppy writing to solve problem that realistically shouldn't exist to begin with. Magic solves way too many problems in D&D, not to mention that having a character who can just explode rooms of enemies is a bit lame. You either have to design all of your encounters AROUND high level wizards or have zero of your characters be challenged.
I also dislike "common" magic items (frequently finding magical items-- not common rarity magic items like the cloak of billowing), and thank god 5E fixed that.
Lastly, I hate that it's so easy to return people to life in D&D. Revivify is one thing, but I want dramatic death scenes to mean something, rather than death be a temporary inconvenience for adventurers.
So, what I'm saying is what realism I expect from my games is realism in regards to how people work. When people die, they are dead (mostly.) A swordsman's power comes more from their skill than how special their blade is. Problems should be outsmarted and outthought, not brute forced by magic.
This here, to me, and tell me if I am misinterpreting YOU. But, Reading this, I feel you are using the term realism to describe modern society. You can have verisimilitude while not aiming for modern society. You say "naive fantasy setting" when really, most of the settings, aren't that different from mythology of older civilizations. Norse, Greek, Japanese, Irish, etc etc
Over the evolution of D&D they have aimed for more realism, but without being TOO realistic. I do not see what you said as a critique at all, but I do think you're taking a very, close-minded focus approach to what constitutes realism. To turn my argument into hyperbole: Would you say the Holocaust is a fantasy setting since its not modern? Would you say the Crusades? The Salem Witch Trials? The Huns? Mesopotamia? (you get the idea)
Blank
Short answer: Lack of altruism. (IE: Human Nature). Now, can't speak of the "human nature" of all the fictitious races, but not many of them are altruistic. A lot of them, are actually written in their lore, cannon material, selfish, racist, apathetic, etc.
Blank
Personally, elements of setting aren't important to me at all. Well, mostly.
What's important to me is consistency : that the world works consistently every time a princple is applied.
I also, strongly, dislike magic in my D&D. Especially in the hands of players. I should qualify that: low level spells and spells that are just more powerful versions of low level spells are fine. However, when players start getting spells that just negate challenges, that's boring. And no, the anti-magic field is not a good solution. Anti-magic fields are lazy and sloppy writing to solve problem that realistically shouldn't exist to begin with. Magic solves way too many problems in D&D, not to mention that having a character who can just explode rooms of enemies is a bit lame. You either have to design all of your encounters AROUND high level wizards or have zero of your characters be challenged.
I also dislike "common" magic items (frequently finding magical items-- not common rarity magic items like the cloak of billowing), and thank god 5E fixed that.
Lastly, I hate that it's so easy to return people to life in D&D. Revivify is one thing, but I want dramatic death scenes to mean something, rather than death be a temporary inconvenience for adventurers.
So, what I'm saying is what realism I expect from my games is realism in regards to how people work. When people die, they are dead (mostly.) A swordsman's power comes more from their skill than how special their blade is. Problems should be outsmarted and outthought, not brute forced by magic.
make it more like a medieval setting in real life with a healthy dose of magic and mystic power