Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Stalker0]

Almost no fantasy RPG let's a PC begin the game with an unlimited amount of money (eg as the first in line to a wealthy throne). There is no ingame rationale for this - no ingame rationale why an incredibly wealthy prince is never the protagonist. It's a metagame thing - to keep the power of PC's under control. And every fantasy RPG designed for ongoing campaign play tends to give advice of some form or other about the GM rationioning loot, even though such rationing is no part at all of the genre (eg Bilbo in The Hobbit).

You are correct in that the wealth factor is a game driven balancing mechanic. But what I disagree with is because of that, no flavor justification is required.

If a player of mine wanted to play a 1st level wealthy prince, one of my requirements would be: "Explain to me why you don't have access to huge amount of money right now".

The rules have placed some requirements on me to keep the game balanced, one of those is control on wealth. But that doesn't mean all my players are poor "just because". Maybe they were wealthy but everything has been stolen from them. Maybe they are secretly the heir to a throne but don't know it. Or....maybe they are just poor commoners. But spoken or not....there is a flavor justification for that mechanical rule.

And I think this is the place where people's opinions are divided on the subject. The question becomes, when does a rule require system assisted flavor vs just requiring the players to generate their own?

There are some cases where a player forced to justify their flavor actually creates immersion, and other cases where the justification actually detaches from it. I think it is the ongoing process to examine the areas in our DND culture, divide them into the two camps, and then provide flavor when flavor is needed.

 

[Imaro]

The PH2 Bard isn't an exact match fluff-wise for earlier editions of the class. Because WotC merged the music-fluff with the spellcasting-fluff into a single set of powers, the PH2 bard is more like a music-themed sorcerer (with melee options and leader abilities) than anything else. A power like Vicious Mockery is obviously a magical attack (see the Arcana keyword) triggered off a clever quip.

Putting 3x spellcasting aside, the Skald captures more of the music-powers that made the 3.5 Bard different from a half-functional sorcerer.

-KS

The discussion was about the use of Vicious Mockery on a skeleton as it pertains to realism vs. game mechanics. The description for Vicious Mockery states...

"You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic, to send the creature into a blind rage"

Now, according to the passage that LS posted, the skeleton is little more than bones held together by an animating force... not something sentient enough to understand the taunts and jibes a Bard throws at him while using Vicious Mockery. Granted, I understand that it's magic... but it's damage type is psychic which means these are magic infused insults that are affecting a non-sentient creature... mentally.

See that's where some of this disconnect comes in, from a realism perspective... why would even magically enhanced insults spoken to a non-sentient force consumed with hunger in any way harm it mentally or make it do anything? It's like magically insulting an animated chair to death by causing it mental anguish.

 

[Balesir]

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.

I'm honestly not sure how to answer this, as we seem to be saying much the same thing.

Dasuul was saying that the game world fiction must come first - that the rules are there only to reflect what is happening in the fiction. In other words, taking the example of level, characters in the fiction get more powerful with "experience" - this is a fact in the fiction, and is thus reflected in the rules. In Dasuul's own words: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." I take this to mean that the rules only exist to reflect, define and communicate to the players what happens in the fiction. This doesn't sound much like your "rules that support the game (instead of describing the game world)", to me.

Rules that support the game is what I prefer for D&D - and I'm reading in your post that you do, too?

 

[Balesir]

Now, according to the passage that LS posted, the skeleton is little more than bones held together by an animating force... not something sentient enough to understand the taunts and jibes a Bard throws at him while using Vicious Mockery. Granted, I understand that it's magic... but it's damage type is psychic which means these are magic infused insults that are affecting a non-sentient creature... mentally.

From what LS posted I don't read that a skeleton is totally non-sentient - it has a minimal level of mentation as required to follow instructions and support instincts of "hunger". As to how Vicious Mockery attacks this - the same way it does any mind it affects, by striking the mind's weak points. In the case of the skeleton, I would guess that is the "hunger" - fire that up to overwhelming levels and make its skull explode! Very similar to working on the prejudices and anger of, say, an orc warrior.

 

[KidSnide]

The discussion was about the use of Vicious Mockery on a skeleton as it pertains to realism vs. game mechanics. The description for Vicious Mockery states...

"You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic, to send the creature into a blind rage"

Now, according to the passage that LS posted, the skeleton is little more than bones held together by an animating force... not something sentient enough to understand the taunts and jibes a Bard throws at him while using Vicious Mockery. Granted, I understand that it's magic... but it's damage type is psychic which means these are magic infused insults that are affecting a non-sentient creature... mentally.

See that's where some of thst disconnect comes in, from a realism perspective... why would even magically enhanced insults spoken to a non-sentient force consumed with hunger in any way harm it mentally or make it do anything? It's like magically insulting an animated chair to death.

Speaking just for myself, I tend to see the huge number of magical effects buzzing around 6 seconds of a D&D combat to be something those little white curses that zoom around combats in Harry Potter films. It seems plausible to me that they hit and do damage, even if the exact effects aren't always clear.

Putting that aside, Vicious Mockery is an arcane charm that does psychic damage. You can think an insult is a silly trigger for an arcane charm that does psychic damage, but focusing on the insult instead of the psychically damaging arcane charm is a bit like focusing on the little flying insult over the fireball that goes off when it detonates. I think there is a legitimate criticism that "Vicious Mockery" is a stupid, immersion-breaking name because it conjures exactly the sort of the image you describe. But there is still a reasonable in-game fiction associated with it.

Mechanically speaking, it seems like the complaint is with the skeleton, in that it's a mindless creature that has no resistance / immunity to charms or psychic damage. Personally, it doesn't bother me that mindless creatures can be affected by mind-influencing magic. After all, it's not like they have any resistance, and a cracked or exploding skull seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.

-KS

 

[KidSnide]

I'm honestly not sure how to answer this, as we seem to be saying much the same thing.

Dasuul was saying that the game world fiction must come first - that the rules are there only to reflect what is happening in the fiction. In other words, taking the example of level, characters in the fiction get more powerful with "experience" - this is a fact in the fiction, and is thus reflected in the rules. In Dasuul's own words: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." I take this to mean that the rules only exist to reflect, define and communicate to the players what happens in the fiction. This doesn't sound much like your "rules that support the game (instead of describing the game world)", to me.

Rules that support the game is what I prefer for D&D - and I'm reading in your post that you do, too?

Ok. I agree with you about what's best, but I don't think you're reading Dasuul correctly. I read: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." to mean that the rules exist to assist the game, but not to reflect, define or communicate to the players how the world works. In other words, I read Dasuul as saying that the rules describe the game, not the game world.

So, maybe we're all in vigorous agreement?

Perhaps Dasuul will clarify...

-KS

 

[D'karr]

Flavor Text, is used exactly for what it says - flavor. It is not rules text.

D&D is at its core a game of imagination. The flavor for the powers is there to help in stimulating that imaginative play. It is not meant to restrict it. Except of course in the most cynical and extreme of views.

This is a game, not a legal dissertation. Flavor is meant to be malleable to whatever the player, and DM want to accomplish.

If the purpose of flavor text was to restrict the player to ONLY the action described by the text then the game would be rather bland. Playing that way would be as boring, to me, as playing with constant "gamespeak."

How the player and DM want to describe the effects of powers is entirely open to each game table. Some might decide to use "gamespeak" exclusively (roll - That is a 26 vs. AC - a hit), some may decide to go in the other direction (roll - I swing my sword under his defenses, slashing at the ghoul's hip), and some might have use a hybrid of some form.

Saying that the flavor text says X, and that it must mean X and X only, is a sure way to make an issue out of nothing. It is also quite restrictive for a game of imagination.

 

[Imaro]

From what LS posted I don't read that a skeleton is totally non-sentient - it has a minimal level of mentation as required to follow instructions and support instincts of "hunger". As to how Vicious Mockery attacks this - the same way it does any mind it affects, by striking the mind's weak points. In the case of the skeleton, I would guess that is the "hunger" - fire that up to overwhelming levels and make its skull explode! Very similar to working on the prejudices and anger of, say, an orc warrior.

Where in the description of the animus is sentience even mentioned?

the body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death.

I see muscle movement and emotions but no type of mental sentience or ability to reason and understand on a higher level where it would even begin to understand a bard's insult or jibe much less it's purpose. It seems to me that in your explanation above you're ignoring the "insults" part of the fact that these are magical insults.

 

[tuxgeo]

The PH2 Bard isn't an exact match fluff-wise for earlier editions of the class. Because WotC merged the music-fluff with the spellcasting-fluff into a single set of powers, the PH2 bard is more like a music-themed sorcerer (with melee options and leader abilities) than anything else. A power like Vicious Mockery is obviously a magical attack (see the Arcana keyword) triggered off a clever quip.

(emphasis added)

I personally see the PHB2 Bard as being similar to a music-themed Wizard more than being similar to a music-themed Sorcerer.

Take "Vicious Mockery" itself:
= Charm, Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod. damage, and the target takes -2 tohit UEOYNT.

Now compare that to the Wizard's "Illusory Ambush":
= Illusion, Ranged 10, single target, INT v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + INT mod. damage, and the target takes -2 tohit UEOYNT.

Differences:
(a) One's Charm, the other's Illusion; and
(b) One uses CHA throughout, the other uses INT in the same places.
Basically, they're identical; and that sort of thing is why I see the 4E Bard as being closer to a 4E Wizard than to a 4E Sorcerer.
(Besides, Bards don't get the added Striker damage that Sorcerers get from their blood style -- Chaos, Cosmic, Dragon, or Storm.)

 

[Argyle King]

Not trying to derail the thread here; I've just noticed that the issue I have with 4th's plausibility seems to be a lot different from what other people have cited.

I do not (usually) complain about terminology, so I do not feel it's a big deal for the Warlord to be martial. Actually, in that regard; as someone who has been in combat, I'll defend the Warlord's inspiring word as being somewhat plausible. Morale matters; I've seen soldiers push beyond their injuries and complete a mission after being encouraged by a leader.

What usually gets me is that the fiction within the game world is not consistent with itself and the own reality it has created in the game world. As I said previous... I find it strange that a lot of demon princes and other such creatures are feared throughout the land when they get spanked so easily by PCs. Likewise, when a PC can blast through a door no problem, yet a BBEG monster struggles to even scratch it, it seems strange. It's difficult for me to put myself in the mindset of someone living in that world without questioning the world around me. I understand why monsters and pcs are built differently; I even support that as a design decision, but I feel that -even while built differently- monsters and PCs should have a more consistent way of interacting with the world around them.