Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Imaro]

You see, I think this thread makes obvious the fact that "realism" differs from player to player. The discussion ignites on the fact that in 3e the fireball burns objects explicitly and in the 4E version the GM has to decide. The people that want the fireball to burn stuff can still reach the same conclusion with the rules 4E presents without ever changing a rule. The people who do not want the 3e version of the fireball to burn stuff have to change the rule.
I think the latter is harder to overcome, at least that is my personal gaming experience, as I have seen a lot of GMs struggle with this when I as a player wanted to narrate my fireballs in 3e in a different way.

This is why I think 4E is better in this regard. The rules say "Say yes!" and "page 42" and "here is a flavor text". And that makes changing things to accomodate individual play tastes easier. Because you do not have to change a rule.

I think the problem with your argument is that it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple... strangely enough, the same as the example you present for 3e.

In 4e if the DM wants your fireball to burn stuff, it will regardless of your description of it. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I guess depends on your DM and whether your wants as a player line up with his as a DM... but it's not as simple as... "If you do want it to burn things just make it so." because everyone at the table may not want the same thing.

IMO, I like 3e better because it takes a stand with a concrete default and then says, but hey...if you don't want it to do that then make it so. It doesn't put me in the position of being a douche because I want some reality in my fireballs, but my players want the advantage of it being a totally safe fire that they don't have to worry where they sling it. It tells the player's upfront what the default is so we're all on the same page when they pick that spell... 4e doesn't, it tells them that I'll be arbitrarely deciding what the default is each time they cast it.

 

[TheFindus]

I think the problem with your argument is that it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple... strangely enough, the same as the example you present for 3e.

In 4e if the DM wants your fireball to burn stuff, it will regardless of your description of it. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I guess depends on your DM and whether your wants as a player line up with his as a DM... but it's not as simple as... "If you do want it to burn things just make it so." because everyone at the table may not want the same thing.

IMO, I like 3e better because it takes a stand with a concrete default and then says, but hey...if you don't want it to do that then make it so. It doesn't put me in the position of being a douche because I want some reality in my fireballs, but my players want the advantage of it being a totally safe fire that they don't have to worry where they sling it. It tells the player's upfront what the default is so we're all on the same page when they pick that spell... 4e doesn't, it tells them that I'll be arbitrarely deciding what the default is each time they cast it.

I understand your point very well.
I think you like the 3e description of the fireball and that it burns stuff, because you find that realistic. That is all fine and good. I think it is realistic, too. At least most of the time.
What I also am saying (and playing) though is that storywise not all fireballs should burn stuff in all situations. The GM (and through the "say yes!"-rule the player) can narrate the fireball in different ways to match the situation. And that seems to be the default of 4E. So it is relatively easy to change this aspect of the fireball in 4E, but in 3e you are always changing the explicit fireball-rule and have to explain yourself because you are. That does not happen in 4E, at least not in my experience, because it is all a matter of the fiction. Just imagine having to come up with a houserule for every spell you do not find realistic in your game and then having to keep track of it and argueing with the players over the rules.

You think this default in 4E is arbitrary, which can be the bad side of it, especially if the GM sucks. I, on the other hand, think it makes things easier to fit the effect of the power to the story. Which, for me, is a positive thing. And ever since I play 4E, I have not encountered any problems because I am playing with people that know and enjoy how to play that way. Even the one player that is new to 4E and is not that experienced in roleplaying in general really likes that kind of game and does not like the 3e style that he experienced in a different group. So, based on that experience, I am of the opinion that this style of play can be taught and really should be taught in a game like 4E. Now, WotC does not do that in a way that I think they should (they could put advice like this in a regular column in one of the online magazines for example).
But I know that this is one of the deciding factors why a lot of people turned away from 4E and play 3e instead. It is a major difference in the game design.

 

[Derren]

What I also am saying (and playing) though is that storywise not all fireballs should burn stuff in all situations.

And here is the problem.
For many people, especially those who want more realism, D&D is not like a book or movie. A D&D adventure does not have one predetermined path the PCs have to follow. They don't have to find this one cryptic notice to continue the adventure which is the whole reason to "narrate" that the fireball does not ignite paper.

Rather such people want that the players find their own solutions to a problem instead of following the DM's script. And that get much more easily when the players know exactly what their powers do and can use the flavor text to use the abilities creatively.
When they acidentally burn the cryptic note then they have to find another way to continue.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

And here is the problem.
For many people, especially those who want more realism, D&D is not like a book or movie. A D&D adventure does not have one predetermined path the PCs have to follow. They don't have to find this one cryptic notice to continue the adventure which is the whole reason to "narrate" that the fireball does not ignite paper.

Rather such people want that the players find their own solutions to a problem instead of following the DM's script. And that get much more easily when the players know exactly what their powers do and can use the flavor text to use the abilities creatively.
When they acidentally burn the cryptic note then they have to find another way to continue.

This is entirely a DMing issue, rather than a problem with the game system. It's called railroading, and has been an issue in every edition, depending entirely on the DM.

 

[pemerton]

Imagine being around a person so very negative and so very offensive that his distressing insults actually hurt and kill almost anything that moves (unlike the source myth where this talent is probably limited and used with discretion).

I don't see this as any different from other departures from myth and history - D&D protagonists fight ludicrous numbers of fights, against a bizarrely gonzo variety of foes. Just as no mythical bard ever viciously mocked a gelatinous cube, no heroic warrior of myth ever duelled with one either.

A sword duel to the death is cinematic and compelling, whether you're metagaming with miniatures or immersed in your character. An insulting duel to the death... not so much.

In D&D both are resolved pretty abstractly. The drama is to a signficant extent mechanically mediated.

Bard A: You suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard B: No, you suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard A: Idiot! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard B: Moron! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard A: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!!! (kills opponent)
Bard B: Oh, bon mot! I wish I had agreed to a duel of swords, but alas, you have slain me with words. Good bye, cruel world, good bye!

Whereas the sword duel, at the table, contains such epic swordplay as "I swing", "I riposte", etc. It's not as if I actually get to see two fencers go at it.

Do lethal insults always kill you in 6 seconds, or might it take a day or longer?

I don't have much to add to [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s long reply to your post, but the question you ask here applies equally to a sword duel. How, in D&D, can I replay a (fantasy) variant of Reservoir Dogs, with a protagonist dying slowly from a stomach wound?

Is this talent the epitome of bardish lore and only master bards are so gifted, or can any bard kill with a word instead of the sword? All of these and more are natural, organic questions about the process.

The answer to this question presumably depends on how the particular campaign tackles first level PCs - are they epitomes? or generic?

When the game dumps all these questions of process and cause-and-effect onto the shoulders of DM and players, it's often ignored or handwaved away as an unwelcome or undesired burden

If people want to play that way, isn't that their prerogative? But what they will find out, I think, is that the game mechanics break down at certain points. For example, they won't be able to bring page 42 into play, because page 42 depends on fictional positioning.

Thus IMO the game translates the myths very poorly into a videogame-y fighting action, converting rich myths into combat fast food, losing almost all the nutrients and flavor in the process.

I'm not seeing anything unique to 4e in your criticisms here. As far as I can tell, they apply equally to Power Word and True Name spells in earlier editions.

But as for the quality of your experience, I'm sorry it's been poor in the way you describe.

If I reflavor magic missile as a tossed small yellow poisonous frog it doesn't matter that the target may be poison immune, or that the target is a demon poisonous frog that can control poisonous frogs in a certain radius. The fluff doesn't matter.

Given that magic missile lacks the poison keyword, I don't think that is a permissible reflavouring.

I'll just finish that reflavoring is house rulling anyway and a good DM can work with that and make it matter.

Is this really true when the core rulebook actively encourages it?

no one's arguing against DM implemented houserules, so I'm not sure what your point here is??

Using page 42 is not houseruling. Is a key part of 4e's action resolution mechanics.

But what does the fiction matter in this instance? How does the fiction of whether you use weaponplay or lulling an enemy influence the gameplay, your chances of success or the effect? It in fact doesn't... Come and Get It will always work the same without a DM houseruling it.

The consequence - that various NPCs/monsters move their position - will always be the same. The method by which this is procured won't necessarily be the same, because the power says nothing about how this is achieved. And those differences can matter in the fiction. For example, a fighter who taunts foes into attacking him/her is presenting a different fighting style, and can expect different reactions and responses from those who s/he confronts, from a fighter who relies primarily on weapon play.

I don't have the 2e PHB, but based on what was said I assumed it said Hercules was a fighter, not that all fighters are Hercules.

I don't have it either, but I trust [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]'s quote: it mentions Hercules as an exmaple of a fighter. This seems to me to be intended to indicate that players of fighters, in AD&D, can expect their fighter to resemble Hercules in salient ways.

Page B30 of Moldvay Basic says "Great heroes such as Hercules were fighters" and also that "Merlin the Magician was a famous magic-user." Again, I take this as an indication that a player of a fighter can expect his/her PC to resemble Hercules, just as the player or a magic-user might expect his/her PC to resemble Merlin. There's no implication that a high-level wizard will be weaker than Merlin because Merlin is not a mortal, and there's no indication that a high-level fighter will be weaker than Hercles because Hercules is not a mortal.

The broader point: given that Hercules is the only example given of a fighter, there is no implication that a figther, as a PC, is purely mundane in ability in the way that a real-world soldier or martial artist must be.

One, the dead can be mocked "haha, you're dead!!" Check.

Board rules put limits on this, but in the real world, where many people doubt the existence of magic or the endurance of the spirits of the dead, there is a diplomatic incident currently taking place between Turkey and France over what may or may not be permissibly said about the Armenian dead during WW1.

Most criminal codes make it an offence to desecrate the dead or their graves.

In a magical world in which the spirits of the dead and their magic do endure, the idea that a magician (like a bard) could weaken a skeleton by mocking the power of its dead creator is, to me, entirely verisimilitudinous.

Two, it doesn't make sense the bard can mock a dead creator and in so doing weaken the magic they set in place. Put another way, how would it work if the bard mocked a sigil they left behind, or an alarm spell.

In those latter cases, there is no creature to suffer psychic damage as a result, so it is less straightforward. But if the player of a bard in my game wanted to used Vicious Mockery (via page 42) as part of an attempt to weaken the lingering magic of a dead creator, I would be happy with that.

 

[pemerton]

And here is the problem.
For many people, especially those who want more realism, D&D is not like a book or movie. A D&D adventure does not have one predetermined path the PCs have to follow. They don't have to find this one cryptic notice to continue the adventure which is the whole reason to "narrate" that the fireball does not ignite paper.

Rather such people want that the players find their own solutions to a problem instead of following the DM's script. And that get much more easily when the players know exactly what their powers do and can use the flavor text to use the abilities creatively.
When they acidentally burn the cryptic note then they have to find another way to continue.

Over the past 15 years or so, RPGs have been designed which put story front and centre without a GM script, or a pre-determined path. Various rules systems can facilitate that style of RPG play better or worse.

My objection to Monte's column is that it appears to show no awareness of this particular trend in RPG design, and therefore to miss much of what is attractive about 4e to many of those who play it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Over the past 15 years or so, RPGs have been designed which put story front and centre without a GM script, or a pre-determined path. Various rules systems can facilitate that style of RPG play better or worse.

My objection to Monte's column is that it appears to show no awareness of this particular trend in RPG design, and therefore to miss much of what is attractive about 4e to many of those who play it.

I am sure cook is aware of these games, it just isn't his approach to design.

It is probably worth keeping in mind that while the approach you describe appeals to a portion of gamers it is also something many other gamers react negatively to.

 

[Imaro]

Using page 42 is not houseruling. Is a key part of 4e's action resolution mechanics.

Here are the rules for Twisted Space...

Encounter

Arcane, Evocation, Implement, Teleportation
Standard Action Area burst 1 within 10 squares
Target: Each creature in the burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier damage, and the target is teleported 3 squares and slowed until the end of your next turn.

What exactly did you have to use page 42 for? As long as the target only needed to be teleported 3 squares to escape, and was within 10 squares... I'm not seeing how page 42 was necessary at all? Maybe if you elaborate we can see how this power's effects somehow were different when being used in this particular situation.

The consequence - that various NPCs/monsters move their position - will always be the same. The method by which this is procured won't necessarily be the same, because the power says nothing about how this is achieved. And those differences can matter in the fiction. For example, a fighter who taunts foes into attacking him/her is presenting a different fighting style, and can expect different reactions and responses from those who s/he confronts, from a fighter who relies primarily on weapon play.

The method will always be the same... it will always be a weapon/implement/etc. + X attack that causes some factor of [W] damage to the target and it will always move them Z squares. You can describe it however you want but nothing in the rules facilitates a different narrative response depending on how it is described... that is again pemerton's playstyle overlay on 4e's rules.

EDIT: In fact I would argue that many of 4e's keywords force one into certain narratives depending upon the powers one's adversaries have and how they interact with certain keywords.

 

[Balesir]

But what does the fiction matter in this instance? How does the fiction of whether you use weaponplay or lulling an enemy influence the gameplay, your chances of success or the effect? It in fact doesn't... Come and Get It will always work the same without a DM houseruling it.

I'm beginning to think this "is the fiction important" thing comes down to what one means by "important".

If "importance" is taken purely in the sense of "will the flavour/colour description change the mechanical outcome of an action", then the situation in 4E is that it will have no "importance". And, FWIW, I say "halleluja" to that.

If, on the other hand, the "importance" of the colour/flavour elements is taken to be allowing each player present to have a coherent picture of the fictional events - to have a model that makes sense for them of what has occurred in the fictional space - then I would submit that (a) the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of doing this and (b) it is very important in that it allows a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character.

On fireballs burning stuff/setting paper on fire, frankly I see no compelling "realism" argument either way. A flamethrower-type effect would certainly set stuff on fire, but it would also create ongoing fire effects (which the Fireball spell does not do). A gas explosion, on the other hand, for many fairly small gas clouds (and a 25' cube is "small" in this context), will not persist long enough or heat the air hot enough to set paper on fire reliably. It will also cause burns to exposed persons without the likelihood of ongoing fire damage. So having it work either way in a (fantasy) game seems like a non-issue, to me.

 

[Imaro]

I'm beginning to think this "is the fiction important" thing comes down to what one means by "important".

If "importance" is taken purely in the sense of "will the flavour/colour description change the mechanical outcome of an action", then the situation in 4E is that it will have no "importance". And, FWIW, I say "halleluja" to that.

And I would say this is where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, players stay more engaged, when the fiction of their actions actually has an effect in the game... otherwise what's the point? If the description has no effect, then all you really need is to be able to recite the formula on the power card.

If, on the other hand, the "importance" of the colour/flavour elements is taken to be allowing each player present to have a coherent picture of the fictional events - to have a model that makes sense for them of what has occurred in the fictional space - then I would submit that (a) the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of doing this and (b) it is very important in that it allows a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character.

Explain to me how the treatment of colour/flavor in 4e does this, as opposed to the players around the table (which of course they can do with any roleplaying game if they want to and try hard enough)? similarly how does ever-malleable flavor allow a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character? In both instances the game isn't doing anything to facilitate this, the players are.