Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[pemerton]

I'll leave the elaborations to D'karr, but will make a general comment. By setting a range of default DCs and expected damage, page 42 creates a "safety net" for players to try new and/or wacky things. It puts an outer limit on how badly a player can hose his/her PC by stepping outside the more tightly defined action resolution mechanics. (The flipside of this is that it also puts a limit on how successful any wacky stunt can be - for example, there is no "autokill" result on the default damage charts. How big a change this is to the effectiveness of old-fashioned "creative spell casting" will probably vary from group to group.)

It is true, as [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has pointed out upthread, that the actual numerical values for the default DCs have been errata-ed multiple times. The damage has also been errata-ed once (the MM3 changes). This doesn't particularly bother me, and I work around it when running published encounters or scenarios. I see it as fine-tuning the defaults in light of play experience and the evolution of the character build options.

More importantly, for me, has been the concept of default DCs and damage, and the limits on risk of failure and consequences of success, to which they give rise. For me, at least, it's quite liberating compared to more simulationist rulesets, which can lead to wacky stunts getting bogged down in attempts to draw on real-world likelihoods of success and consequence.

 

[Mark CMG]

Essentially, as I recall, it's figure out the kind of check needed, set a DC, and decide on the results, yes?

 

[Incenjucar]

More or less. It also provides things like damage ranges. The overall point is to make sure that atypical actions are viable in the proper situation, but are not going to replace a character's powers.

 

[FireLance]

More importantly, for me, has been the concept of default DCs and damage, and the limits on risk of failure and consequences of success, to which they give rise. For me, at least, it's quite liberating compared to more simulationist rulesets, which can lead to wacky stunts getting bogged down in attempts to draw on real-world likelihoods of success and consequence.

Just playing "realism"'s advocate for a moment, the other flipside to insulating the player from poor results is that everything becomes more or less equally effective, regardless of how silly, ludicrious or "gonzo" the DM thinks it should be.

So it seems to me that it boils down to whether you want to encourage more creative ideas (page 42 resolution) or better creative ideas (DM adjudication, assuming the DM is a reasonable, fairly knowledgeable indvidual whose views on what is possible are close to those of his players).

 

[Mark CMG]

An Ability or Skill Check, followed by setting a DC, followed by a description of what happens is basically what happens in all editions for most of the situational examples above, except maybe where a "To Hit" combat check would be better. (I don't really see grapple being appropriate where that one is suggested.) Anyway, the problem some might find with Page 42 isn't with how innovative it is touted as being (it's not, IMO), but rather with the sliding scales some suggest to keep things challenging from character level range to level range. Anyway, since you mention it, if Page 42 is meant to handle much of the supposed grunt work of figuring out things not covered by the rules (which as I noted were easily handled in other editions by an Ability score check or Skill check), then why wouldn't a DM prefer to slim down the "powers" list to remove things easily handled by Page 42? Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?

 

[Incenjucar]

Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?

You'd have to develop Page 42 into something resembling a Slayer, significantly increase the overall power of the options, riddle every encounter scenario with debris and objects to use, so on and so forth.

While a P42-based system could certainly be interesting, and certainly some RPGs use similar ideas, you ultimately have greater complexity with less flexibility.

Also keep in mind that narration-first RPGs tend to come down to players talking their DMs into things AND requires player and DM creativity that the current system does not.

 

[Mark CMG]

Also keep in mind that narration-first RPGs tend to come down to players talking their DMs into things AND requires player and DM creativity that the current system does not.

My own experience with systems like this aren't problematic (in the DM-may-I way that I have seen a few detractors describe over the years) and tend toward a more shared storytelling experience. I do agree it engenders (rather than "requires") more creativity and roleplaying among all participants but perhaps that's not a direction D&D can easily go on its current trajectory. Though this does seem odd considering how much Page 42 is praised by the more vocal adherents of 4E that I generally see posting here and elsewhere. Maybe there is room for greater flexibility in this area than is currently perceived in the community? Thoughts? Would this move forward an agenda of nods toward realism as well?

 

[Incenjucar]

Keep in mind that D&D is the introductory RPG for many people. As robust as it can be, it's also a very simple game - on purpose. While I play with plenty of very creative people, I also play with people who are just there because they want to spam at-wills in good company, and who couldn't be bothered to get creative if you put a gun to their head.

D&D is an especially good game for a mixed audience because, while it lets you be creative, it doesn't require it, and it doesn't assume that you've found a group that "gets it". Not to mention that not everyone likes to play fully sober.

 

[FireLance]

Anyway, since you mention it, if Page 42 is meant to handle much of the supposed grunt work of figuring out things not covered by the rules (which as I noted were easily handled in other editions by an Ability score check or Skill check), then why wouldn't a DM prefer to slim down the "powers" list to remove things easily handled by Page 42? Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?

I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I still like my crunchy bits. It's the same reason I prefer D&D (in all its editions) to White Wolf's Mage: whatever guidelines you can come up with to make on the fly adjudication of effects as quick and painless as possible, they will still require a bit of mental effort. Sometimes, you just want to drop a fireball on the bad guys and not think too much about it. Of course, you could work out some standard effects beforehand, but then it stops being an on the fly adjudication system, right?

 

[Mark CMG]

I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I still like my crunchy bits.

Me, too, but what if the crunchy bits followed the narrative bits instead of the other way around? With the crunch guided by some simple overarching principle(s) along the lines of a Page 42? The narrative aspects would also, thereby, determine the depth of the realism for any given, individual campaign and/or setting.