Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Imaro]

Yes, seriously. It still seems interesting that you are even trying to use the PHB descriptions for any type of flavor text. I'll take a look at one for a simple comparison.

This is the description/flavor text of a Trip in 3.x
Trip - Flavor Text (possibly?) - You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack.
Rules - Everything else is rules text.
Effect - If successful target prone

This is the flavor text of powers that knock an opponent prone in 4e.
Shield Bash - Flavor Text - You knock your adversary off balance with your shield and follow up with a strike.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Driving Attack - Flavor Text - You drive back your adversary with a hail of blows.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Takedown Attack - Flavor Text - You bash your foe with a vicious attack and then drag the creature down to the ground.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Knockdown Assault - Flavor Text - You smash your weapon into your foe so hard that the enemy loses its footing.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Spinning Sweep - Flavor Text - You spin beneath your enemy’s guard with a slashing strike, and then sweep your leg through your foe an instant later, knocking it to the ground.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

I've only used 5 example out of one character class (fighter). There are at least 40 other powers for that class alone that can result in effect of knocking the target prone. So there are at least 45 ways that players can decide to use the default narrative, or expand it as desired, just for that class. In 3.x there is something that says you can attempt to trip.

BTW, the description in 3.x is not really flavor text, it is a simply a description whereas the 4e description is specifically designated as flavor text so the player can have a gameworld narrative of what his attack looks like.

So yeah, I was serious when I said that previous editions really had no flavor text for attacks for non-spellcasting classes. What flavor text did OD&D, BECMID&D or AD&D have? Possibly, the one invented by the players and DMs out of whole cloth. Like I said, in 4e at the least the player gets a base description from where they can start, and if they want to create the description from whole cloth they still can.

First... quantity does not equal quality. If 4e is suppose to be a game played with a malleable narrative... then all those words of fluff (especially because they have absolutely no bearing on how the attack will be resolved or how it's effect will turn out, don't really add up to much. I mean honestly with the pervading attitude of many 4e fans, it was just wasted word space.

Second. I specifically said trip was a non-descriptive maneuver and you decided to go with it... ok.

 

[Imaro]

What rules should I use?

The one's for the fireball spell, the very thing that we are discussing.

Fireball

Evocation [Fire]

Level:Sor/Wiz 3Components:V, S, MCasting Time:1 standard actionRange:Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)Area:20-ft.-radius spreadDuration:InstantaneousSaving Throw:Reflex halfSpell Resistance:Yes
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Material Component

A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.





Emphasis Mine...

 

[Tovec]

Not specifically. That would be covered by 4E's general resolution system, ie. page 42.

One DM might rule catching on fire in a different way than another DM. Is this a benefit or a drawback? In my opinion, if one is concerned about "realism", this is a benefit. There are other drawbacks concerning this method (eg. maintaining consistency over months of play), but eh. Costs will always exist.

I think developing general principles for the DM to use when he makes judgement calls is going to create more "realism" at the table during play than having a book full of specific rules meant to cover everything.

(You just illustrate my point, I'm not trying to target you specifically LostSoul.)
I this really addresses the topic of the thread.

As far as "realism" in the game world. It comes down to expectations.
In 3e there was an expectation that fire would burn things, and would set things on fire. Indeed there were rules for it, yes most of these rules addressed players as opposed to all objects but then again so does 4e.
In 4e, however, there is an expectation that it may not unless the DM wills it to be. Using page 42.

I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?

 

[D'karr]

First... quantity does not equal quality. If 4e is suppose to be a game played with a malleable narrative... then all those words of fluff (especially because they have absolutely no bearing on how the attack will be resolved or how it's effect will turn out, don't really add up to much. I mean honestly with the pervading attitude of many 4e fans, it was just wasted word space.

For you maybe. For a lot of people that enjoy the baseline flavor that then they can adjust to their taste, it is not wasted at all.

Quantity does not equal quality. I agree. There was quite a quantity of rules in previous editions that were of very suspect quality.

Second. I specifically said trip was a non-descriptive maneuver and you decided to go with it... ok.

Since you are the one alluding to all these descriptive maneuvers that exist for non-spellcasting classes, then why don't you give an example? You specifically mentioned a non-descriptive maneuver, and I showed at least 5 examples of how 4e had made that exact same maneuver into a descriptive one, which was exactly my original point.

 

[LostSoul]

The one's for the fireball spell, the very thing that we are discussing.

Those "rules" seem to have about as much weight as the flavour text for Spinning Sweep.

Do those rules tell me how much damage an object takes while burning? How about how fast the fire spreads? What's needed to put out the fire? How long something will burn?

What I see, if those rules are applied, is that combustibles will catch fire and, if not destroyed by the initial damage, burn forever like the cast-aside ironwood staff.

I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?

That's the way I see it. I wonder what the merits and drawbacks to those two different methods are, and why one would design a game using one over the other.

 

[LurkAway]

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.

It doesn't matter. That is, it doesn't change the fact that myths can be translated in various ways, some with more nods to realism than others. Or to put it another way, Legolas and Gimli killed a ludicrous number of orcs, but still had a certain gritty LoTR tone for most of the novel... inconsistent, probably. But for me, better to tone down the gonzo throughout the novel than have more ludicrous pervade everywhere.

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.

Again, doesn't matter in context of my point. Generally speaking, I can well imagine and be immersed in the idea of the swordplay, and find it compelling, even if the words spoken at the table are only "I swing", etc.

I don't have much to add to @LostSoul 's long reply to your post, but the question you ask here applies equally to a sword duel.

I re-read LostSoul's point and I don't see anything that directly contradicts my concerns, so much as offering a counterbalance ("Yes, A is a problem, but there is also B, which doesn't negate the validity of A but counterbalances B for me"). IMO, B does not counterbalance A enough, and that's where I think I can agree to disagree, which is fine...

How, in D&D, can I replay a (fantasy) variant of Reservoir Dogs, with a protagonist dying slowly from a stomach wound?

...whereas this kind of thing is more perplexing to me because I don't understand how your points integrate what my points.

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.

1) I understand that it's easy to get mixed up with different POVs from different posters, but please try to remember that when some people complain about 4E it doesn't mean they like everything about pre-4E.

2) The day that Power Word and True Name are used with the same frequency as the sum total of gonzo 4e powers is the day that I'll cast a more critical eye on them too.

3) Power Words are very high level spells and I feel that high level magic need not feel as gritty, unlike some low-level 4E powers that feel too gonzo to me fresh out of the gate.

Everything in context. "Realism" means that every puzzle piece is "realistic". "Nods" to "realism" means that some puzzle pieces are more wonky than others, but when you put some puzzle pieces together, the whole picture feels more "realistic" than the sum of its parts.

For whatever reason, IMO, the whole picture of 4E feels less realistic to me then the whole picture of 3E. We can dissect individual puzzle pieces until doomsday, but it's not going to change anything. Despite rationalizations to the contrary, I am certain that WoTC will get more market share if they're more proactive about making updates to the game that at least tries to incorporate both schools of thought, rather than just defending one school of thought (the 'Dear Mike & Monte' thread is pertinent here). I have tried to conclude my posts with progressive suggestions as they come to me.

 

[TheFindus]

I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?

No, I do not think you are. But neither am I. We just have different tastes. You see the disadvantages, I see advantages.
But surely, the designers of 4E went my way more than they followed yours. And lost part of the fanbase because of it. All those 5e polls and threads come up for a reason. I would say this is a very vocal group of people who do not like 4E and want it to be removed by something else. And I understand this sentiment, too, because after 10 years of 3e I most certainly do not want to play PF or 3e any longer. I really needed 4E and want 3e and PF to be much much less important. I am not going to make polls about it, though.
So, for us it is a question of simple taste. For WotC it is the much more important question of what kind of player do they want to attract. Who is going to play their game?

 

[Argyle King]

No, I do not think you are. But neither am I. We just have different tastes. You see the disadvantages, I see advantages.
But surely, the designers of 4E went my way more than they followed yours. And lost part of the fanbase because of it. All those 5e polls and threads come up for a reason. I would say this is a very vocal group of people who do not like 4E and want it to be removed by something else. And I understand this sentiment, too, because after 10 years of 3e I most certainly do not want to play PF or 3e any longer. I really needed 4E and want 3e and PF to be much much less important. I am not going to make polls about it, though.
So, for us it is a question of simple taste. For WotC it is the much more important question of what kind of player do they want to attract. Who is going to play their game?

While you weren't responding to me...

I think they could have made some of the changes they made when designing 4E, but not have taken some of the ideas as far as they did and ended up with a happier fanbase overall. Personally, I was fine with the idea of 'streamlining' if it made the game better. However, there were a lot of areas where I feel as though D&D went farther in the new direction than I wanted to go.

That being said, I honestly expect 5th Edition to take some of 4th's concepts even farther. I expect 5th Edition will maintain an identity which is closer to your tastes than mine; I'd even go so far as to say I would bet on it moving closer to your tastes. Essentials and the board games are among the reasons I say this.

I'm aware there is talk of modularity and such, but I just don't see that working out for the D&D brand. I'm not trying to be pessimistic; just realistic. The only way I can currently see the modular approach to D&D working is if they do it via boxed sets of some sort; perhaps using a model similar to the current board games. If that's the path taken, I do not believe complexity will be added in a way that satisfies the simulation crowd nor in a way that satisfies a more emergent-gameplay-focused crowd.

I hope to be proven wrong.

If I'm proven wrong, that would be nice.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Hang on. Didn't you just finish telling me that 4e doesn't empower DM's?

Yet, "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."

Color me confused here. If that isn't DM empowerment in your mind, what is?

 

[BryonD]

Hang on. Didn't you just finish telling me that 4e doesn't empower DM's?

Yet, "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."

Color me confused here. If that isn't DM empowerment in your mind, what is?

Did you really just base your argument for 4E DM empowerment on fireball?

I mean, seriously, come on. That isn't even honest debate. It is just playing "gotcha".

For myself I'll say that 4E has serious issues with DM empowerment and I'll also say that you can parse through and cherry pick exceptions.


As a separate note, I think pemerton will agree with me here: (please correct me if I'm wrong)

If played in the true spirit of 4E whether or not anything catches fire should NOT be the narrative control of the DM but should be the narrative control of whoever cast the spell. (With DM authority to trump if, but only if, absolutely needed)