Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Imaro]

Mark CMG, no, you're right. In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not. It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.

Pre-4e, all DM's were forced by the mechanics into a single interpretation of how fireball works.

It all comes down to whether you feel the DM should be empowered to make determinations or not. In pre-4e, those determinations were solely the realm of the rules. The DM had no real say in the matter. In 4e, it's up to the DM.

I can't believe that I'm arguing in favor of DM empowerment.

Wait, did 4e invent rule zero or something? Because I remember DM's being empowered in any edition to change what they wanted to. Maybe you should actually READ the books of those editions...

As far as 4e goes it's not about DM empowerment, it's about setting a baseline of expectations for a player and the resource he has payed for and controls. As a player I'm suppose to understand the powers I have through the rules text (especially since flavor is malleable). If the rules text states that it only targets creatures... when I pick this power why should I expect or know that it targets anything outside of that? And again the passage you refer to in the DMG is about a PC specifically targeting an object not about whether a fireball can accidentally ignite things or burn things.

From a player perspective this changes the dynamics, usage, etc. of the power from the rules I have been given for it and actually creates a situation where the effect of my resource is dependant upon the whims of the DM.

From a character standpoint... how do I not know whether this spell burns things other than creatures? I guess I never targeted something in a room full of combustibles before? Or is it that it only has this property or doesn't at the whim of the DM... even though it's a spell my character has studied and cast before?

 

[Imaro]

This is a double-edged sword though. Sometimes players take it upon themselves to "correct" even a good DM. Especially when it works in their favour, even to the detriment of other things going on in-game. This gives rise to the false belief that you must play by RAW, usually to the detriment of the game as a whole.

And this can happen just as easily in 4e... A player that doesn't want to ignite a room on fire can just as easily cite that the rules state creatures. Now the DM can, just like in every edition, rule whatever he wants... but I don't see how 4e in any way stops the problem you've stated above.

That rule was also in the original books, in 2008 (DMG p 65 & 66). The rules compendium version is more clearly worded, however. So, no, it wasn't left out. It wasn't written in every power for brevity's sake, but it is hard-coded into the rules that you can attack objects instead of creatures, with a few caveats (namely that objects are not subject to attacks against will, and certain damage types).

Any attack that can target a creature can target objects.

Unless against will defence, or if it uses one of several damage types which also do not affect objects.

This isn't what we're discussing though. Mark CMG hit it on the head, if I throw a fireball at a creature (and I'm not targeting an object specifically) into a small study full of books and parchments in 4e does it or does it not ignite things in the room? According to the rules of the powers it doesn't and according to the passage in the DMG it can target an object if the player wants to but whether it does or doesn't ignite combustibles not specifically targeted by the PC is not addressed.

 

[Imaro]

If you want to apply additional strictures that aren't there in order not to be able to have a system work, knock yourself out. The rules say the flavour can be altered to suit those at the table, and that is a methodology that works. If you want to keep doing something else while complaining that it doesn't work, there's not much I can do to help.

I don't think that's what I am doing at all, see below...

Actually this would seem to be more like your interpretation for spells, as Bards do not require books and formula or to write spells in books.

Sorcerers, also cast "spells" and none of their spells fit that description either.

Hmmm, that's an interesting point... so could either of you answer me this, why acccording to the Rules Compendium (pg. 136) do I have to make an Arcana check vs. a moderate difficulty to change the visible or audible qualities of my magical powers when using them? This would defintiely seem to imply that my interpretation of spells (since this rule only applies to arcane power) is correct and you all are wrong.

 

[FireLance]

You know, I'm starting to think that another underlying problem behind many of these "realism" issues is the unstated assumption that the PCs are just regular (though well-trained) folks, and that the "normal" rules of the universe apply to them. Every exercise in justifying why a PC can do something then causes the laws of reality to change, and the universe to get stranger and more alien.

However, if you start with the assumption that the PCs are exceptional in ways beyond their official game statistics (not a palatable option for some people, I know), then the question becomes "How can this PC do something which most people cannot?"

How can Hercules re-route rivers? Not because he's a fighter, but because he's a demigod.

How can this warlord heal wounds when he uses inspiring word? Because one of his distant ancestors was a celestial, and he is actually able to channel small amounts of divine healing power.

How can this bard deal psychic damage to the undead? Because he laces his words with choice selections from the Malleus Mortis, the most vituperative anti-undead tract of the Church of Pelor. Since he is not a cleric, he lacks true divine authority, but he has sufficient arcane power to force an understanding of the deific menace upon even the most dimly-aware undead minds.

How does this fighter pull his enemies close? Because he has a wild magical or psionic talent that momentarily makes him attractive to them.

This way, the laws of the universe don't need to change - the PCs are just the exceptions to the normal laws.

 

[Imaro]

You know, I'm starting to think that another underlying problem behind many of these "realism" issues is the unstated assumption that the PCs are just regular (though well-trained) folks, and that the "normal" rules of the universe apply to them. Every exercise in justifying why a PC can do something then causes the laws of reality to change, and the universe to get stranger and more alien.

However, if you start with the assumption that the PCs are exceptional in ways beyond their official game statistics (not a palatable option for some people, I know), then the question becomes "How can this PC do something which most people cannot?"

How can Hercules re-route rivers? Not because he's a fighter, but because he's a demigod.

How can this warlord heal wounds when he uses inspiring word? Because one of his distant ancestors was a celestial, and he is actually able to channel small amounts of divine healing power.

How can this bard deal psychic damage to the undead? Because he laces his words with choice selections from the Malleus Mortis, the most vituperative anti-undead tract of the Church of Pelor. Since he is not a cleric, he lacks true divine authority, but he has sufficient arcane power to force an understanding of the deific menace upon even the most dimly-aware undead minds.

How does this fighter pull his enemies close? Because he has a wild magical or psionic talent that momentarily makes him attractive to them.

This way, the laws of the universe don't need to change - the PCs are just the exceptions to the normal laws.

I agree with you and this is exactly what people were making reference to when speaking of Earthdawn... the PC's in that game are specifically called out as adepts and thus there is a built in rationale for why they can do exceptional things... another game that does this well is Exalted. No one questions the supernatural things heroes in these games do because the fiction and rules account for it.

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip>

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.

No. It moved to non-simulationist mechanics.

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 so the player of an alchemist PC can explain why more potions aren't being made: "I ran out of time", "I ran out of stuff", "I was having a sleep", etc.

This sort of ad hoc fiction has been part of D&D at least since Gygax wrote about the rationale for XP keying of adventuring rather than training in the DMG.

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.

I responded to this upthread, with the comment that those PCs are epic demigods and so hardly common inhabitants of "the land" - and suggested that the overall fiction of the campaign should be developing to reflect this.

If "the land" is rife with heroic demigods, then I agree that demon princes would not be feared. But I assume that this is not the case. The PCs are the only ones, aren't they?

I think that many fans of 4e tend to create theories, ideas, and views for what many consider 4e's flaws. The thing is that these thoughts are rarely supported by the text or the comments and posts of the developers and designers.

And yet, they all seem to converge on a set of ideas around notions such as "metagame mechanics", "non-simulationionst action resolution", page 42 as a key focus for GM judgement calls in action resolution, etc - it's uncanny!, and almost as if Rob Henisoo wasn't lying when he said that the game design was influenced by modern indie RPGs!

(Even down to some subtleties around fictional positioning of the sort [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] is good at pointing out, which also come up in some indie RPGs.)

Will I ever see the day when a player stands up and says "Enough!" and admits the madness has gone too far and voluntarily refrains from using Vicious Mockery on skeletons and oozes and chairs because, maybe, just maybe, it's better to NOT use a power in that way?

Why would they, when their PCs can mock Juiblex and cause the cosmos to shake and oozes to collapse?

Or, to respond a different way, players did stand up against nonsense in RPGs, and dropped D&D for Runequest and Rolemaster.

Or, to respond yet a different way, when did 3E- or whatever other game is your benchmark from which 4e departs - become the poster child for "just the right amount of simulationist realism"?

 

[Gentlegamer]

No. Who says you have to describe your stats when you tell your fellow gamers what actions your character is doing? Why should they even know your stats unless you want to tell them?

Some groups need to know so they can see if you are 'accurately portraying your character' . . .

 

[LurkAway]

Why would they, when their PCs can mock Juiblex and cause the cosmos to shake and oozes to collapse?

Um, because traditional fantasy doesn't have low level heroes insulting oozes to shake the comsos because Juiblex the minor demon prince is simultaneously listening for insults thru oozes from Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged?

Or, to respond a different way, players did stand up against nonsense in RPGs, and dropped D&D for Runequest and Rolemaster.

Or to put it another way, why does a rule that is oblivious to fictional positioning dictate the fiction in my game world?

Or, to respond yet a different way, when did 3E- or whatever other game is your benchmark from which 4e departs - become the poster child for "just the right amount of simulationist realism"?

Um, when did I say that 3E or any game was my poster child for the just the right of simulationist realism?

 

[D'karr]

According to the rules of the powers it doesn't and according to the passage in the DMG it can target an object if the player wants to but whether it does or doesn't ignite combustibles not specifically targeted by the PC is not addressed.

This would be using a parsing of the "rules" that is obtuse/narrow. If it doesn't say it, it can't happen. The other way of reading that would be more open/broad. Nothing in the power says it doesn't. Since according to the DMG it can, then it can, at the discretion of the DM and players.

By using the "narrow" reading of the power what the DM is doing is narrowing the creative opportunity in the moment. It's a way to play, but IMO rather unsatisfying. But if that's the way the group likes to play the game, the rules surely don't prevent them from doing that. They advice against it, but they don't prevent it. Once again leaving the decision of what might be appropriate in a situation to the best judges of the situation, the DM and players, instead of a game designer that is not at that table.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I think Monte's weapon damage example was misplaced. He should have cited AD&D and how weapons did different damage to 'larger than man-sized' opponents. I think that's certainly 'realistic.'

But is it a weapon statistic worth tracking? Does that level of differentiation add to the play experience? The designers of 3e on didn't think so, and I don't think many argue with it. I personally liked it, but it's not that big a deal to me.

On weapons, I've come around to a view adopted by Gygax in LEJENDARY ADVENTURE, that in RL all weapons are roughly equally lethal when used violently (a club can kill as well as a sword, or axe). That is, the basic damage they inflict is roughly the same (LA uses d20 for all weapon damage, with some having a minimum result).

For D&D, I'd like to try something like all weapons deal the same damage (d6, d8, or whatever). Then have each weapon have some other characteristics to differentiate it; the first being a basic characteristic anyone can use, the others being available only to 'trained' users of the weapon, however that is expressed in the game. Then, add combat feats that represent 'special maneuvers.' This way, there is never a need to restrict what weapon a character class can use for balance reasons: fighter-types will naturally have a combat advantage even if everyone is using greatswords (even outside base attack bonus or whatever measures basic 'to-hit' probabilities).

Some or all of the above may be in 4e. I've never played it, so I'm ignorant on its contents, so excuse me if it is.