The Impasse

[thecasualoblivion]

Lots of things are.

But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.

Change it to people who strongly like 4E tend not to care about verisimiliitude coming from the game mechanics or system, and prefer to get it from the story and the interaction between the DM and the players, and you might be on to something. Particularly when versimilitude being built into the game system bears consequences in terms of gameplay.

 

[darjr]

Lots of things are.

But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.

I care about my ability to suspend disbelief. I care about immersion. I do care about verisimilitude, but not as much as some seem to. I think, though, that verisimilitude isn't quite used the right way in RPG's. In this hobby people seem to mean immersion. Maybe I'm wrong, but verisimilitude is kind of the opposite of that. It's finding reality or what is real and true in the game. verisimilitude - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I don't think there are very many rpgs that do that well.

To me immersion and suspension of disbelief are king. It's subjective, I know, but 4e allows that for me in spades.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And here we disagree you could do exactly that ( just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character.) in 3.5 and just like in 4e whatever effect it had would be up to the DM... now what's the difference again?

In 4E, I spend some ink, an out-of-game resource.
In 3E, I spend skill points, an in-game resource (plus the ink, probably). The cost of the Craft Skill is the same as the cost for a Intimidate, Climb, Jump, Handle Animal, Ride or Swim skill. I am gambling which of these skills will be made more important in this campaign. And if it turns out Craft is not relevant, but Climb is, I wasted a game resource on it, making my character less effective.
In 4E, all I did was waste the ink, my character is just as efficient as he would have been if I had decided against writing down a craft in his background.

 

[LostSoul]

But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.

So what you are saying is not that 4E lacks verisimilitude, but some people who strongly like 4E tend not to care about verisimilitude?

I can agree with the second statement, though I'd word it differently. (People who strongly like 4E tend not to derive as much satisfaction from prioritizing verisimilitude.)

The first I can't agree with, because verisimilitude is subjective. I don't know how you'd prove it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.

To me verisimilitude is the same as simulationist. The idea is that you are trying to design a world that seems like a "realistic" living, breathing, world where everyone it it acts like you expect them to.

To me, it's not about being "realistic" or "immersive". It's about being interesting and fun. Sometimes interesting isn't the same things as immersive. I mean, I expect the average person on the street to ignore me and go about their business. I don't expect them to come up to me and offer a quest filled with danger and treasure. But I WANT them to in a D&D game, even if it strains my sense of verisimilitude because people just don't do that.

I don't expect it to be possible to walk into a dragon's lair and kill him. He's huge, has magical powers, is smarter than me, and lives so long to have ages to plan for this situation. On the other hand, I want it to be possible, because it's more fun to kill the dragon and get his treasure than to die as soon as I enter a cave to a trap.

Things ARE contrived in a D&D game. They are supposed to be.

 

[Fenes]

For me, it's not about people acting as expected, but about the world reacting in a consistent way that defines verisimilitude. Internal consistency, so to speak.

If herb A cured disease B when the PC got it then that same herb should cure the same disease B when a village catches it. If the GM wants the PCs to defeat some evil necromancer to save the village, and not gather the herbs, then he should not just handwave the herb's curing abilites away.

 

[Rel]

Verisimilitude is very important to me and I really like 4e (for the record verisimilitude was important to me when I ran 3e as well and it worked fine then too). I just happen to think that very little verisimilitude flows from the rules of a game.

To me it's much more about the plot details, the motivations and actions of the NPC's and the consistancy of things like the herb example Fenes gives above. I'll give an example of my own:

My PC's just got done venturing through a mine that used to be a prison. They discovered that it was partly infested with kruthiks but mostly inhabited with these shadowy creatures. Along they way they found some bones they identified as the hand of a dragonborn. Neaby on a wall was something written in draconic. The shadow guys they fought were armed with picks, with handles made of chitin. Finally they battled their way through to their primary lair and found a sculpture made of bone in the semblance of a dragon. The PC's determined that these bones were dragonborn bones also.

To me verisimilitude was achieved there because things made sense. The dead dragonborn miner carved the screed on the wall in his native tongue. The shadow guys were armed with old picks found in the mines but the handles were replaced with locally available raw materials (Kruthik chitin). They revered a dragon creature and they made their shrine out of the best approximation to dragon-like bones: Those of the dragonborn miner.

Almost none of that relates to the rules of 4e. I could have (and did) do similar things with 3e, WFRP or Rolemaster and it would still meet my requirements for verisimilitude.

 

[rjdafoe]

Yeah well this does not solve much really. Depending on the specialization or knowledge needed for a task the DC should change according to the abilities of the PC. But this is just a tip of the iceberg. In fact if you really want to track down your possibilities (and not from a simulationist POV but rather from an effects or results POV) you need a different kind of system. Systems like spirit of the century could do a better job (although I am not an expert of the system this is the impression I have).
Perhaps background options could be a better idea than skills. Blacksmith's apprentice, library custodian etch could seem more functional IMO.

I understand what you are saying, but I am not discussin wether you think the rule is good, bad or indifferent. Just that they exists. What I was responding to was that it was no where in the rules for 4E.

 

[rjdafoe]

For me, it's not about people acting as expected, but about the world reacting in a consistent way that defines verisimilitude. Internal consistency, so to speak.

If herb A cured disease B when the PC got it then that same herb should cure the same disease B when a village catches it. If the GM wants the PCs to defeat some evil necromancer to save the village, and not gather the herbs, then he should not just handwave the herb's curing abilites away.

This is where there is a difference in 3E and 4E. 3E tried to codify the consistency by trying to define everything. 4E tells the DM to define everything and it is up to the DM wether he is consistent or not. 2 different ways of approaching things, but the outcome is the same if the DM cares that the world is consistent.

So, with saying that, It is not the system, it is the way the system is used. in 3E the same thing you say above could happen if the DM doesn't have it written down what herb A does and doesn't remember what it did or any of the details of it. One system tries to tell you what it does, the other tries to have you come up with it on your own. Whichever one you preferr is up to you.

 

[Imaro]

Are you saying that making a sword is not considered an action not covered by the rules?

Or weaving a basket, or any thing else that you might need to know wether you have a success or not?

It says, if there is no skill for it, use an ability check. It says it on page 42 of the DMG.
paraphrased:

If the action is related to a skill use that check. If it is not obvious, use an ability check. Consult the table , and set the DC what you think it should be.​

I really don't know how you cannot see that the page says if you think that a character should be able to do what they are asking, make it up. Here are the guidelines to keep everything (sort of) balanced.

It says, if there is no skill for it, make it up!​

Nowhere in the book does it say make a skill up, write it on your sheet and the DM will make up a way to resolve it's usage randomly if it comes up. You wanted to be pedantic and discuss exactly what was said... well that is what was said.