Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Someone]

Well, sure, okay, but in animist belief systems, since everything is magical, nothing is...

Yeah, not very well explained on my part. I'll try again.

Everyone knows at this point that 10 feet long spiders are impossible, square-cube law and all that. In your setting, are 10 feet long spiders magical, or are the laws of nature such that allow for 10 feet long spiders to live?

 

[Umbran]

Well, sure, okay, but in animist belief systems, since everything is magical, nothing is...

No. That's a function of being jaded and cynical, not the belief system.

 

[LurkAway]

Everyone knows at this point that 10 feet long spiders are impossible, square-cube law and all that. In your setting, are 10 feet long spiders magical, or are the laws of nature such that allow for 10 feet long spiders to live?

I can't speak for anyone else, but the way I see the conventional fantasy genre, 10 foot long spiders are extraordinary yet natural to some areas (like overgrown animals in pulp fiction novels) or magically mutated -- but either way, I don't think the exact origin matters. What's more relevant to me is whether spiders act magically. If huge spiders have actual magical powers (other than the rare exception), then ya, nothing seems magical any more.

That is, my baseline for "realism" isn't the real-life world, although it is often used as reference point to various degrees. The baseline is the genre convention. What's normal for the genre is, of course, subjective. But superhero fantasy is not the genre norm I grew up with or enjoy. I'm not into roleplaying an anime fantasy, for example. People who enjoy anime fantasy are probably perfectly ok with fantasy heroes teleporting around and everyone doing colorful magic all the time. My baseline is a mishmash of LoTR, Fighting Fantasy, Legend, Conan, etc.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It never happened on any 4E games I've seen because nobody cared about describing the scene.

Maybe this is part of the problem with your 4e experiences? If this had happened in any game system, let alone an edition of D&D, you would probably feel the same way. And don't tell me "that would never happen/not possible, etc" because I've been in games run like that, and yes, they ARE terrible.

I would bet this is what happens in 90% of 4E games around the world.

And I would bet that you're just flat out wrong about this. I think this goes a ways to explaining the way you feel. Like many (including myself, at first), you made some gross assumptions and jumped to some conclusions... that just happen to be incorrect.

Don't get me wrong, been there, had a lot of fun with 4E, still think it's a damn solid ruleset... it's just a metagame paradise with dissociated mechanics as 3.5 was munchkkin paradise

An insult wrapped in a compliment is still insulting. This is a gross generalization. It may be true in your experience, like your above statements, but I assure you it is not universal. Can 4e be a metagame paradise? Sure it can. But so can any edition, if that's how you play.

Likewise, I would be tempted to agree that 3.x was munchkin's paradise (and hell on earth to DM higher levels), because that was my experience, but lots of folks say that it isn't a problem for them, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it.

 

[avin]

Maybe this is part of the problem with your 4e experiences? If this had happened in any game system, let alone an edition of D&D, you would probably feel the same way. And don't tell me "that would never happen/not possible, etc" because I've been in games run like that, and yes, they ARE terrible.

In my experience is how that happened.

But I think you are assuming I had a bad experience with 4E... at this moment, believe me, I have more 4E books on shelves than GURPS, 3.5, 2E and Papthfinder... and I didn't sold any of them.

And I would bet that you're just flat out wrong about this. I think this goes a ways to explaining the way you feel. Like many (including myself, at first), you made some gross assumptions and jumped to some conclusions... that just happen to be incorrect.

No problem at all if you disagree with me, but I still have to see to believe.

This is going into the wrong direction...

An insult wrapped in a compliment is still insulting. This is a gross generalization. It may be true in your experience, like your above statements, but I assure you it is not universal. Can 4e be a metagame paradise? Sure it can. But so can any edition, if that's how you play.

Nemesis, just let me make this straight, ok? I'm not insulting ALL 4E. In my opinion it IS a metagame paradise, just it. There's no hidden bash against this edition. I was a 4E subscriber, I like 4E, but it feels to me like that.

Not my intention bring this close to an edition war, cause I can spend a lot of time talking about how great 4E is for my DMing, even with what I consider flaws. Every system has flaws. Even GURPS

Likewise, I would be tempted to agree that 3.x was munchkin's paradise (and hell on earth to DM higher levels), because that was my experience, but lots of folks say that it isn't a problem for them, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it.

I never said that it could not be different for other people.

Just pointing what I think 4E AND 3.5 flaws are, in my limited experience.

Just it. Nothing more. Still running a 4E and a PF game, with no problem at all.

 

[Scribble]

I prefer games that give me a rule and are flexible enough in the flavor of said rule to let me explain it however I want. I'm not a huge fan of the idea that a rule needs to be set in place based on some random designer's random view of the universe and how it works, and if whatever else you want to do is outside of that idea then you need a new rule.

To me, that idea seems way too overly complex for no reason aside from some people needing things to be set in stone like an instruction manual for the D&D universe.

Just give me a basic idea and my brain will run with it from there. That's part of the fun for me.

I pretty much HATE the idea of rules being looked at as a "concrete" expression of something in the game world. It's way too structured and science textbook for me, and ends up removing some of the magic of the game itself.

This is one of the reasons I like 4e. I like that the monsters behave differently then the players. I like that just because there is a class called "fighter"it doesn't mean that all things that fight need to use that as an expression of that idea.

I can build a monster, give it some fighter type powers, but also a magic spell or something to boot. When a monster approaches you don't know what to expect, and to me this only serves to heighten the "magic" feeling of the game itself.

Games that choose the other method tend to inevitably lead to someone crying foul when something seems "out of place" from their expectations about the game world. Instead of adding to the magic, out of place items just lead to long rules arguments. Instead of In Search of The Unknown, it becomes In Search of The Properly Formulated Rules Elements.

I like that the martial power source isn't strictly defined as mundane. It's a mix of mundane and magicish, just not arcane, and flexible enough to allow you to mold whatever type of fighter you want.

Do you want to explain your fighters abilities as a sort of mystic power? Go for it... Do you want to say he's just a master manipulator able to make stuff happen that the untrained eye might think is magic? Go for it.

When I see people say something like CAGI can only be explained as magic, or that healing from a warlord can only be explained by magic... I feel like the problem is in their own heads. It's honestly hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that there can/should be only one interpretation of how a rule "displays" itself in the game universe, and if it doesn't match their own expectations it's somehow wrong...

The idea that a named element should have only one interpretation bugs the heck out of me.

Personally I think those people are missing what I consider the best thing about tabletop RPGs... The ability of the human mind to flex around concepts so that it matches whatever you need it to.

Shrug. Thems just muh thoughts.

 

[Mallus]

Yeah, not very well explained on my part. I'll try again.

No need... you made your point about animism quite well, and I agree!

I was just being sarcastic. I find the whole "if everything is magical/special, then nothing is" argument essentially ridiculous. Pithy, but ridiculous. Such an argument renders a chunk of real-world spirituality/mysticism somehow "un-special", because they posit spirits are present everywhere.

Everyone knows at this point that 10 feet long spiders are impossible, square-cube law and all that. In your setting, are 10 feet long spiders magical, or are the laws of nature such that allow for 10 feet long spiders to live?

For the record re: giant spiders...

In one of my settings, 10ft long spiders might be magical. Some could be natural, others space aliens, a few products of magical/technological mutation, and at least one would talk, because I prefer chatty NPCs to dumb fodder. And I'd probably use the same/similar mechanics to describe them and alter the fluff as needed to fit the fiction I'm spinning.

I'm a big fan of describing a single mechanical object/effect in many different ways, as many as needed. The fluff/verbiage is what's real in my campaigns; the mechanics are just to help with task resolution.

 

[Dausuul]

When I see people say something like CAGI can only be explained as magic, or that healing from a warlord can only be explained by magic... I feel like the problem is in their own heads. It's honestly hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that there can/should be only one interpretation of how a rule "displays" itself in the game universe, and if it doesn't match their own expectations it's somehow wrong...

To me, the idea that a rule "displays itself" in the game universe has it backward. The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first. The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.

In my ideal world, players should not say, "I have a fighter with Come and Get It. How do I describe this in the game world?" They should say, "I have a big guy with a sword, who likes to bait opponents into traps. What class and powers do I use to describe him in the rules?"

In practice, of course, it has never been that clear-cut. Even before 4E, players would often start with a class and then build a character concept around it. I do this as much as anyone else, especially in cases where the campaign world is fuzzy and ill-defined, offering little in the way of character inspiration. And "crunch-heavy" games like 3E push a mechanics-first approach in practice, simply because concept-first is likely to lead you into a trap where your mechanical character struggles to fulfill your vision. If your concept leads you to pick the monk class, for example, or to pick up the Toughness feat, the results are apt to be underwhelming.

But I see that aspect of 3E as a bug rather than a feature, and I'm certainly not willing to take mechanics-first as the default stance and extend it through the entire game. All else being equal, the better the game supports concept-first play, the happier I'll be.

 

[Argyle King]

@ Scribble


That's a perfectly viable way to play. Personally, I too like flexibility. However, I also like things to make some sort of sense. When what's happening in the game seems to have no connection at all to what's happening with the rules, I enjoy the game less. An example would be what I gave elsewhere when talking about the uber-Devils of 4E being annihilated by the party. It doesn't make any sense that anyone in the game world would have the fear of those creatures that they are supposed to invoke if they are so easily squashed. Likewise, while I too see the merit to having monsters and PCs designed differently, it's a little jarring when PCs can blow through a door using sparse at-wills while a powerful dragon struggles to scratch the same door. Even if we're talking in-game 'realism' and what the characters living in the game world would know as realism, a lot of those things don't make any sense to me.

I'd like to believe there's some middle ground between where I stand and where you do. If there's not, that's fine; I completely understand why 4th Edition wanted to be more focused and choose more of a defined direction. A I've said elsewhere, I look back at 3rd edition and often feel that -while I did enjoy the game- it's failure was trying to be two different (conflicting) styles of game at the same time. In that regard, I feel 4th's more defined direction is good for the game and the game's identity. However, I feel there are a few areas in which -at least for me- 4th Edition took a few too many steps and moved outside of the ballpark in which my interests reside.

For me, and some of the things I want a rpg to be able to do, there are often times when I feel 4th is less flexible than the other games I play. I believe there is a certain realm of playstyles which 4th encourages, and I am aware of the ideals the game was stated to be built upon. It's been my experience that trying to move away from those styles and ideals while still using 4th can lead to frustration and less enjoyment (unless I take the time to modify things to work significantly differently.) In particular -while I'm perfectly fine with monsters and PCs following different rules- I'd like more consistency between how the numbers PCs can generate and their abilities interact with the game world versus what the monsters are capable of doing and how their abilities interact with the game world (my door example above...) I want that because I feel it spins off into other problems such as what we had with the early monster books and monsters becoming bloated bags of HP because they had a ton of HP and no damage output.

Not everyone plays the game the same way. If 5th Edition takes 4th's concepts and goes even further with them, that's perfectly fine. I'm sure there are plenty of people (yourself included) who will love that. It's perfectly viable for a company to want a more defined identity. However, I'm inclined to believe that there will also be plenty of people (myself included) who will not want that product and will (like I did a few years ago) seek out a different company to satisfy my wants and needs. I'm only one man, so I'm sure WoTC doesn't care; I have no hard feelings toward them for that. I'm one guy expressing how I feel; how I feel right now is that I enjoy 4th, but I have no motivation to spend money on it.

 

[Mallus]

Except that they shouldn't be mundane.

OK. That's fair. But they are mundane(ish) according to the d20 rule set, and the question I'm interested in is why X-Men caliber metahuman abilities in one system constitute a little problem, while powers like CaGI and Inspiring Word are big problems?

I'm trying to understand the difference some people see (it may just be taste).

We can give supernatural abilities to normal PCs and consider them typical and status quo." doesn't mean that this is what should happen.

Again, I'm not so interested in "should". I'm curious as to why things that seem categorically similar between 3e and 4e provoke such different reactions.

D&D shouldn't be GURPS where there is a smorgasborg of abilities.

If you're in the mood to place blame, blame 3e.

Not arbitrary at all. Teleporting means that one can move without traveling through intervening spaces where effects and creatures can interfer.

Yup, been a SF/F since early childhood... I know the definition .

What I mean be "arbitrary" is the way the ability is quantized: you can't teleport/you can teleport a few hundred yards/you can teleport anywhere in the same physical universe.

Contrast this with the way another d20 system --M&M-- handles it. Teleportation is available at any "level". At low levels, you can teleport short distances, measured in feet. At high levels, you can teleport (literally) astronomical distances. Works like a charm. There's no reason teleportation needs to be relegated to higher levels (and there's certainly no compelling reason for its lack of granularity).

That's what I meant by "arbitrary".

Movement powers should be scaled.

Wait... we agree!

Teleporting, even 25 feet is a huge advantage for a player.

Well, on this, not so much. It wasn't problematic in the 2.5 years my 4e campaign ran.

Magic doesn't exist anymore because everything is magic.

On this, I definitely agree. Everything is at least a little magical in 4e.

Then again, I'm not sure how "mundane" an AD&D fighter with enough hit points to walk away from a fall off of a cliff in plate mail is, or a 3e rogue who can have a fireball erupt around her in an empty, cover-free room and somehow evade all damage -- without actually jumping clear of the blast radius...

"Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super, [laughs maniacally] no-one will be."

Every PC should be super. It's the bulk of the supporting cast that should be mundane.

You mean like the invisible barrier that you mentioned for your Pathfinder PC where invisible barriers are more of a science fiction / comic book force field concept than it is anything out of mythology and folklore.

Yes, like that.

You appear to want your cake and eat it too.

Do I?

If you mean, do I appreciate both the 4e and Pathfinder approaches, then yes.

Heaven forbid that the game have a power source that is just the muscles and sinews of the PC and not wierd esoteric supernatural abilities.

It's not a big deal for me. All D&D characters end up wielding their fair share of wahoo. Whether it's in the form a spell, an item, or nigh-superhuman moxie.

Everyone wants to be a fricking mutant.

Being a frikkin' mutant helps when you're up against dragons, giants, dinosaurs, and floating eyeballs armed with lazers...