Do YOU nod to "realism"?

[LurkAway]

Inspired by this thread, I thought it would be interesting to find out -- have you ever refrained from using a 4E power (even though it was perfectly valid action according to the rules) because you thought the effect wouldn't be "realistic" in the fiction?

For example, you decided not to use Come and Get It because it didn't make sense to you, or you decided not to use Vicious Mockery on a skeleton because it didn't make sense to you.

It doesn't matter what is your definition of "realistic" (plausible, believable, verisimilitudinous, etc.) and it doesn't matter if it seemed "realistic" or not according to real-life, medieval history, myths, fantasy movies, fantasy books, etc. and it doesn't matter if anyone else agrees with your interpretation or not.

The question is only: Do you avoid using 4E powers if the effect doesn't make sense to you in that moment in the fiction?

Edit: I just realized a flaw in the poll -- it doesn't account for players who always feel the effect is "realistic". Too late to change it?

 

[Rechan]

Why would someone be on the 4e forum if they don't play 4e?

 

[LurkAway]

Why would someone be on the 4e forum if they don't play 4e?

To make the results more useful, I wanted to sort out those who play 4E from those who don't, instead of making assumptions one way or another.

 

[OnlineDM]

I make the powers fit the situation. I have no problem believing that the vicious words of a skilled bard can even inflict psychic damage on the undead. A fighter is intimidating enough to taunt all sorts of enemies into rushing toward him. If it seems counter-intuitive, I find a way to make it make sense.

 

[LurkAway]

I make the powers fit the situation. I have no problem believing that the vicious words of a skilled bard can even inflict psychic damage on the undead. A fighter is intimidating enough to taunt all sorts of enemies into rushing toward him. If it seems counter-intuitive, I find a way to make it make sense.

I know, I wish I could edit the poll. I would have added:
I play 4E and, n/a, powers are always "realistic" to me
I do NOT play 4E, and n/a, powers are always "realistic" to me

 

[Rechan]

I make the powers fit the situation. I have no problem believing that the vicious words of a skilled bard can even inflict psychic damage on the undead. A fighter is intimidating enough to taunt all sorts of enemies into rushing toward him. If it seems counter-intuitive, I find a way to make it make sense.

Pretty much this.

Besides, I don't hold very rigidly to the power's title/etc. I just look at the actual mechanical effect and derive meaning from that. Vicious Mockery is simply psychic damage that puts a -2 to attacks - there can be multiple rationals for that, not limited to insults. The famous example is knocking an ooze prone. Prone does not have to mean 'laying on the ground'. It simply means that the target must use a move action to recover from being at a disadvantage (-2 to atk, grant combat advantage). Hence the ooze has lost its consistency, requiring it to spend a move action pulling itself back together.

I mean if we can ration away Hit points not representing physical meat being hacked but abstract it to something else then we can ration away powers.

 

[was]

I don't worry over whether or not the power seems realistic given the current situation. I'm usually too busy trying not to die.

 

[Droogie128]

You need to add "Keep your realism out of my fantasy".

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not sure how to answer the poll.


Yes, I do nod to realism. However, as I am aware that D&D 4th has a much different idea about 'realism' than I do, I do not gimp myself when playing D&D by refusing to "use powers unrealistically." I accept the way that powers and abilities work as being part of what's par for the course for 4th Edition. As such, when playing 4th, I take a step back and change my mindset to better suit the system.


When I'm not playing D&D? I prefer a much closer relationship between fluff and crunch, and I prefer more of a nod toward realism.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think I've only run into this situation maybe twice in 100's of games. Between just refluffing or reinterpreting things and realizing that turn-based resolution and abstract mechanics give you a lot of leeway to explain or retcon something in small ways it just isn't much of a problem.