Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[D'karr]

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 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.

In BD&D (Moldvay), I don't have my earlier copies with me, all weapons worked in a similar fashion doing the same amount of damage 1d6, but there was an optional system for having variable damage for weapons.

I think this would simplify some things significantly (die rolling), and possible speed things up. However, I prefer the variable weapon damage. I find it more interesting.

 

[Imaro]

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.

The section on objects says this...

"Sometimes a Strength check isn't sufficient to damage or destroy an object, often because of the object's size, durability or both. Alternatively, a character might need to destroy an object from across the room. In such cases, attacking an object with a power can provide the answer. At the DM's discretion any power that targets one or more creatures can target one or more objects. (See "Choosing targets" page 105)"

Ok, cool... now let's examine choosing targets on page 105...

"Powers often involve the selection of targets. When choosing targets the powers user must make sure that every target meets several criteria..."

Nowhere is the accidental targeting of anything discussed, and in fact from a reading of the rules it seems that only the power useer decides what is or isn't a target... so the DM is houseruling if he decides that a power targets the old, dry parchments in a library. In fact I would say the player has a very strong argument (rules wise) to shut a DM down who tries to cause the igniting of combustibles accidentaly to occur. This is exactly what you claimed 4e stopped.

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.

See I would say in 4e he's giving the player a consistent houserule for frame of reference for the power. The player knows that this power can accidentally set things aflame (regardless of the rules not supporting the DM's ruling and realism). I don't see creativity in leaving this nebulous... I see confusion and it creating a point of contention when one or the other (player or DM) wants it to behave in a certain way and the other doesn't. I also see 4e clearly in favor of the player's, as opposed to the DM's, determination of whether it will or will not set thigs ablaze.

 

[D'karr]

See I would say in 4e he's giving the player a consistent houserule for frame of reference for the power. The player knows that this power can accidentally set things aflame (regardless of the rules not supporting the DM's ruling and realism). I don't see creativity in leaving this nebulous... I see confusion and it creating a point of contention when one or the other (player or DM) wants it to behave in a certain way and the other doesn't. I also see 4e clearly in favor of the player's, as opposed to the DM's, determination of whether it will or will not set thigs ablaze.

Then we disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The option to set things ablaze is open to both the DM, and player. Since the DM is the one that sets the environment he could decide to have a "gas trap" set up to detonate when a fire keyword power is used in the room. Are you honestly arguing that the DM cannot make the judgement call to say that papers in a room might get ignited by a fireball, or that a trap might detonate when a particular damage type is used? It's not nebulous at all the rules support DM calls all the time.

If the table is full of asshat rules lawyers then they can argue the minutia of the rules page by page. Honestly, I've only run into one group that played like that and I made the best choice for me, not play with them again. It was fun for them, not for me.

This is a game that is meant to be fun. It is supposed to be a game of imagination, not a recreation of a court room. It should be fun based on the criteria of the people around the actual table, not on the criteria of some distant game designer that knows nothing about the preferences of the group.

The rules even "support" the idea that ad-hoc rulings can be easily done. They provide a good framework for the DM that uses it.

 

[TheFindus]

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.

I am sure you understand that 4E moved to a mechanic that does not necessarily simulate reality the way former editions did.
Instead, the designers took a more narrative approach.
So the question in the example situation you mention is: Is it important that the documents catch fire on a narrative level? Are they important? If so, what are the consequences storywise if they burn? What if they do not?
I am sure that this is not something you like. But I really really do.

In very old editions of DnD there were a lot of situation in which the players and the GM at the table had to come up with rules, because rules did not exist. There were, for example, no rules for uses of skills like stealth, diplomacy, etc. So everybody had to make it work somehow. And we did, we came up with something that fit the story. Something that we thought was plausible.
I guess you do not know what playing like this was like, because if you did play older edition that lacked a lot of rules, you would be cherry picking here (having to come up with your own rules for the use of skills back then was ok, but being able to refluff a fireball narratively is somehow not), and I assume you are not cherry picking, because it is lame.

Realism can be presented by the rules in the books, by the rules the GM or the players come up with or by a situational narrative decided upon by the GM and/or the players. More than other editions, 4E caters to the latter. And a lot of people seem to have a problem with that. I am not one of them. I am very much for narrative empowerment. To quote MLK: Free at last, free at last! And I will not like any edition that takes away that power from me. If Mr. Cook, whose column I find boring most of the time, is indeed working on 5E and does not see this, he will lose me as a customer.

 

[TheFindus]

See I would say in 4e he's giving the player a consistent houserule for frame of reference for the power. The player knows that this power can accidentally set things aflame (regardless of the rules not supporting the DM's ruling and realism). I don't see creativity in leaving this nebulous... I see confusion and it creating a point of contention when one or the other (player or DM) wants it to behave in a certain way and the other doesn't. I also see 4e clearly in favor of the player's, as opposed to the DM's, determination of whether it will or will not set thigs ablaze.

There is no confusion. The fireball has to be narrated in some way. If the player narrates it in a way that is cool, plausible and fits the story, it is ok if the important documents that the PCs are interested in reading do not burn completely. Same as the rogue in 3e would evade a fireball in a 10x10' room without cover. Or new swimming or haggling rules that a ruleset does not present and the group has to invent on the fly. You'd have to narrate that, too.
I understand you have a problem with this, because you would not find a fireball like this plausible. And your group would probably reach a different conclusion than mine. That is ok, really. It is a good thing.
But the question remains: should the written rules absolutely lock down a certain type of narrative interpretation of powers in a quasi simulationist kind of way? Or should they leave some room for a group-specific narrative? I would go with the latter and 4E does just that. Because in this way, I do not have to play with your narrative on my back. And you not with mine.

 

[Imaro]

I am sure you understand that 4E moved to a mechanic that does not necessarily simulate reality the way former editions did.
Instead, the designers took a more narrative approach.
So the question in the example situation you mention is: Is it important that the documents catch fire on a narrative level? Are they important? If so, what are the consequences storywise if they burn? What if they do not?
I am sure that this is not something you like. But I really really do.

I disagree with this. The designers, IMO, took a more gamist approach. Fireball doesn't ignite things unless the player wants it to because then it would have a disadvantage (or advantage depending on the situation) that couldn't be accounted for from a balance perspective. I would also argue, per D'karr's gas trap example, that the question in 4e would be will this create a more interesting aspect in the tactical gameplay through terrain, obstacles, etc. and how much XP should the PC's get for it. See how easy it is to posit opinions as fact...

In very old editions of DnD there were a lot of situation in which the players and the GM at the table had to come up with rules, because rules did not exist. There were, for example, no rules for uses of skills like stealth, diplomacy, etc. So everybody had to make it work somehow. And we did, we came up with something that fit the story. Something that we thought was plausible.
I guess you do not know what playing like this was like, because if you did play older edition that lacked a lot of rules, you would be cherry picking here (having to come up with your own rules for the use of skills back then was ok, but being able to refluff a fireball narratively is somehow not), and I assume you are not cherry picking, because it is lame.

You shouldn't assume anything... you know what that does. To the point of your above post... what does this have to do with anything? We're talking rules here, not flavor or fluff. you're using an example of creating houserules (skills in a skill-less game...and also assuming this was something everyone did) and then talking about refluffing. They are two different things, so I'm not even sure what your point is here.

Realism can be presented by the rules in the books, by the rules the GM or the players come up with or by a situational narrative decided upon by the GM and/or the players. More than other editions, 4E caters to the latter. And a lot of people seem to have a problem with that. I am not one of them. I am very much for narrative empowerment. To quote MLK: Free at last, free at last! And I will not like any edition that takes away that power from me. If Mr. Cook, whose column I find boring most of the time, is indeed working on 5E and does not see this, he will lose me as a customer.

Uhmm, you chose the latter because that's the style you want to play in... just as many people in this very thread have argued 4e instead caters to the GM or players coming up with it and another camp will argue for the gamist balance approach. So are all of those poeple wrong? which one is it and why do so many people have differing views on the premise of a game that is suppose to be so focused?

 

[Imaro]

There is no confusion. The fireball has to be narrated in some way. If the player narrates it in a way that is cool, plausible and fits the story, it is ok if the important documents that the PCs are interested in reading do not burn completely. Same as the rogue in 3e would evade a fireball in a 10x10' room without cover. Or new swimming or haggling rules that a ruleset does not present and the group has to invent on the fly. You'd have to narrate that, too.
I understand you have a problem with this, because you would not find a fireball like this plausible. And your group would probably reach a different conclusion than mine. That is ok, really. It is a good thing.
But the question remains: should the written rules absolutely lock down a certain type of narrative interpretation of powers in a quasi simulationist kind of way? Or should they leave some room for a group-specific narrative? I would go with the latter and 4E does just that. Because in this way, I do not have to play with your narrative on my back. And you not with mine.

You're missing the point totally. Whether it ignites things and melts metal without a player directly targeting is outside the realm of fluff and very much in the realm of rules... and that's why I'm finding it hard to follow you... you seem to make no distinction between rules and fluff while everyone else is. Refluffing a fireball is making it blue instead of red... houseruling the fireball power is making it burn things other than it's target when cast near them. It's not about narrative... it's about the effect of the fireball power... and the effect in 4e is pre-determined.

 

[D'karr]

So are all of those poeple wrong? which one is it and why do so many people have differing views on the premise of a game that is suppose to be so focused?

So is that really the crux of the argument, who is wrong? Well no one is. Your group can play the game is whatever manner suits your group, and the next guys group can play the game in whatever manner suits them.

Is somebody really supposed to be wrong?

 

[Imaro]

Then we disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's cool.

The option to set things ablaze is open to both the DM, and player. Since the DM is the one that sets the environment he could decide to have a "gas trap" set up to detonate when a fire keyword power is used in the room. Are you honestly arguing that the DM cannot make the judgement call to say that papers in a room might get ignited by a fireball, or that a trap might detonate when a particular damage type is used? It's not nebulous at all the rules support DM calls all the time.

This is a different situation alltogether. It's the "gas trap" that is igniting things, not the fireball... and I guarantee you that if you put a "gas trap" in every room with combustibles, I as a player am going to be pissed because that wasn't my understanding of the power when I selected it. I'm arguing that the DM shouldn't arbitrarily mess with the effects of a players powers like that because the player can only reference the rules when he picks them... and fireballs igniting things without the player targeting them is not part of the rules.

If the table is full of asshat rules lawyers then they can argue the minutia of the rules page by page. Honestly, I've only run into one group that played like that and I made the best choice for me, not play with them again. It was fun for them, not for me.

Wait so aplayer, who doesn't want to set the study ablaze and calls out the rules to support it... is an asshat? Especially when it's not in the effect of his power? Huh?

This is a game that is meant to be fun. It is supposed to be a game of imagination, not a recreation of a court room. It should be fun based on the criteria of the people around the actual table, not on the criteria of some distant game designer that knows nothing about the preferences of the group.

Sometimes it's good to have an impartial arbitrater in the form of the rules... especially since we don't all think the same.

The rules even "support" the idea that ad-hoc rulings can be easily done. They provide a good framework for the DM that uses it.

Every edition has supported ad-hoc ruliings.

 

[D'karr]

Refluffing a fireball is making it blue instead of red... houseruling the fireball power is making it burn things other than it's target when cast near them. It's not about narrative... it's about the effect of the fireball power... and the effect in 4e is pre-determined.

Except that it would only be house-ruling if there were no frameworks in the game for handling attacking objects. Since there are this is just a "rules adjudication".

Yes, the power does fire damage, that is the predetermined effect. Objects in an area can be attacked also, if the DM and players choose to. So why is it a house rule to say that a fire effect can damage flammables in the area?

This is parsing words just for the narrow definition. The game does not restrict anyone to that narrow definition.