Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[KidSnide]

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.

This is one way to formulate game rules, sure. If you want to prioritise anything but "immersion" and Simulationist, explorative play, however, it is a strictly inferior one for several reasons.

Where I think this approach really comes unravelled with D&D, however, is that D&D has, as core "tropes", levels, hit points and xp. If these elements of the rules really do describe real phenomenae in the game world, it is, in my experience, extraoriinarily difficult to get the game world to make any sense in an "internal consistency" way. It just doesn't "fit"; people can't be people any more when they can wipe out armies and yet are not rulers. Rulers cannot rule in any "normal" way when unchecked peons may develop into superheroes. In short, I think "simulationist", "explorative" or "world-based" play is a chimaera in a classic D&D world setting.

At the risk of going off-topic, I completely disagree. The view that the rules support the gameworld is consistent with a wide variety of play in D&D.

I think this is because you are starting with the false assumption that constructs like levels and xp "describe real phenomenae in the game world." The whole point of gaming with rules that support the game (instead of describing the game world) is that rules don't have to represent real game world phenomenae.

Levels and xp are a structure for PCs. There is no reason to assume that NPCs live their lives under the same set of advancement rules. If the whole world worked under PC rules, then the GM has a choice between accepting bizarre internal inconsistencies or limiting himself to a peculiar style of gameworld in which everyone important is an ex-adventurer.

Personally, I've long since grown tired of playing in "adventurer-dominated" game worlds, but I still want a rules set that focuses on PCs. If you want those two things (and internal consistency), you need to say: "the rules do not describe the game world -- they only describe the game." That's true (or, at least, mostly true) irrespective of the style of game.

-KS

 

[Dausuul]

Which, like others here, makes me kind of wonder why Martial healing in 4e causes such consternation when it was virtually absent in criticisms of 3e.

Pretty simple: The objection comes up when non-magical classes get access to magical abilities. The monk is and always has been a magical class. Monks aren't spellcasters, but they are explicitly granted mystical abilities. They can heal themselves and speak with any living thing and touch you in a bad, bad way so you die a week later. That right there is magic.

The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily mundane, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.

(Also, I challenge the assumption that everyone who objects to these issues in 4E is just totally fine with everything in 3E. I've heard plenty of griping about silly and unrealistic 3E mechanics; "Order of the Stick" has been making comedic hay out of them for years. 4E just took them to a new level.)

 

[avin]

Pretty simple: The objection comes up when non-magical classes get access to magical abilities. The monk is and always has been a magical class. Monks aren't spellcasters, but they are explicitly granted mystical abilities. They can heal themselves and speak with any living thing and touch you in a bad, bad way so you die a week later. That right there is magic.

The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily mundane, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.

Can't give you XP, so I'm quoting.

The point was never about "martial"... it's characters with martial training and no access to a mystic source of healing, like Monks.

 

[Mallus]

The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily mundane, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.

The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.

I'm not sure where the idea D&D should stick to science-fictionalized, pseudo-rational fantasy (how's that for an oxymoron, eh?) comes from. Over the years, various core books have suggested the readers bone up on classic mythology/folklore.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.

Aside from superhuman strength and using magical items what mystical powers are Perseus and Hercules using?

IMHO they are very high level and badass but thats about it.

 

[LurkAway]

The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.

I understand the referencing to great figures in mythology as a source of inspiration, but those heroes are unique and usually epic in scale. To translate those myths into low to mid level powers is, I think, to diminish what makes the original source so compelling. I'd rather see a fighter start off mundane and achieve the status of mythic fighter at late paragon to epic tier. So I think it's comparing apples to oranges to cite Hercules, Perseus, Beowulf and Siegfried as an interpretation of all PCs of all D&D martial classes. The day that a D&D fighter can singlehandedly take down a dragon is the day I think they deserve the mantle of mythic fighter equal to the real life legends.

 

[Mallus]

Aside from superhuman strength and using magical items what mystical powers are Perseus and Hercules using?

IMHO they are very high level and badass but thats about it.

Hercules? Son of Zeus? Mr. Twelve Labors? The guy who rerouted two rivers in a single day to clean out the Augean stables?

He can be fighter and that's okay? But Inspiring Word employed by a Martial power source character... whole different story.

I'm trying to understand how you're constructing your position -- and I admit, I'm having difficulties.

 

[Mallus]

I understand the referencing to great figures in mythology as a source of inspiration, but those heroes are unique and usually epic in scale. To translate those myths into low to mid level powers is, I think, to diminish what makes the original source so compelling.

You're sidestepping the point I made.

In the 2e PHB, in the section on character creation, which implies 1st level characters, mind you, Hercules is specifically used as an example of a fighter. The intent is clear. Wouldn't this is an extremely poor choice --one of several-- if the intent was to describe a class that's completely mundane?

You're also making an erroneous comparison. First, no one suggested giving the ability to perform things like the Labors of Hercules to low-level PCs. Second, are you really saying abilities like Inspiring Word are similar in both nature and scope to the stunts pulled in the Labors are to warrant the comparison?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Hercules? Son of Zeus? Mr. Twelve Labors? The guy who rerouted two rivers in a single day to clean out the Augean stables?

He can be fighter and that's okay? But Inspiring Word employed by a Martial power source character... whole different story.

I'm trying to understand how you're constructing your position -- and I admit, I'm having difficulties.

The "martial power source" is just drek. Merely a lame justification that all character types now use magical powers without having the sack to just come out and say so. Thats my position. I have no problem treating it as magic if what it accomplishes is essentially magic.

Thus, everyone is a worker of magic in thier own way. There simply are no non-magical mundane PC types.

Earthdawn uses the concept quite well. Adventurers are all adepts that command magical powers. Nethermancers, thieves, warriors, swordmasters all use adept magic to power thier abilities. The manifestation of that magic depends on the class and talents available. Thats the way the world is flavored.

D&D moved to this model while trying to leave the flavor of the old D&D implied world intact. It just doesn't work.

 

[Mallus]

The "martial power source" is just drek. Merely a lame justification that all character types now use magical powers without having the sack to just come out and say so. Thats my position. I have no problem treating it as magic if what it accomplishes is essentially magic.

Thus, everyone is a worker of magic in thier own way. There simply are no non-magical mundane PC types.

Earthdawn uses the concept quite well. Adventurers are all adepts that command magical powers. Nethermancers, thieves, warriors, swordmasters all use adept magic to power thier abilities. The manifestation of that magic depends on the class and talents available. Thats the way the world is flavored.

D&D moved to this model while trying to leave the flavor of the old D&D implied world intact. It just doesn't work.

So was the 2e PHB wrong when it called Hercules a fighter?