Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Bedrockgames]

And if you want to put the simulation back, as I said right after 4E launch, all you have to do is houserule that using surges takes healing magic, and then charge an appropriate amount for potions and CLW wands. Voila! If your concerns are not just suspending your disbelief, but distaste of the mechanic, limited healing by character, or other such thing, then my suggestion may not work. However, then your concerns are no longer exclusively suspending disbelief, and should not be portrayed as such.

There remain believability issues with this. For one thing, why am I am being assured access to magical healing at a set rate each day? Unless you are suggesting that the HS hinge on access to things like wands and potions (in which case, why even have the healing surge, why not just go back to wands and potions healing a certain amount of damage with each use). Also woudn't this cap my magical healing? If I am out of healing surges, would I not be able to use a wand or potion?

My problem has never been with the mechanic itself. In fact healing surges were something people had talked about and houseruled long before 4E came into being. In my own group we discussed employing such a mechanic. I just always kept running into believability issues with it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If it is not obvious, the problem with process simulation to produce believable results is two-fold:

1. The process becomes overly detailed to try to account for every result via the process. This is what pushing D&D towards Rolemaster would be doing, and is not the objection in this discussion, as few here have even hinted at it. For 4E fans, this is mainly a slipperly slope concern.

2. The process produces results that are not consistent with the desired fiction and/or results that are believable in some circumstance but not in others.

I tend to think #1 can be reduced by a more abstract design (e.g.: zooming out from the direct detail of multiple steps of what it takes to perform the action, and simply encompassing the entire attempt in one die roll).

I tend to think #2 falls into the camp of trying to impose order on chaos (having a "desired fiction" in the first place seems problematic for a game involving 6 autonomous human beings), and/or ignoring the DM's imperative to adapt the rules to the situation (which abstract rules help more with).

I still am in broad agreement that a Pg42-like "core" is a good way to go, in part, but IMO, it needs to "realistically" conform to the world, as well, in some abstract sense. It doesn't need to be very detailed out of the box for me, but it DOES need to mesh up with the idea that the rules elements are tools that can be used in a variety of creative ways, not just outcomes that you then have to justify.

 

[El Mahdi]

I tend to think #1 can be reduced by a more abstract design (e.g.: zooming out from the direct detail of multiple steps of what it takes to perform the action, and simply encompassing the entire attempt in one die roll)...

That's a good point, and one I've come to notice on my own while working on my houserules.

Mechanically, I have found that a lot of times it does work better to use a more abstract process to determine success, and leave the specifics of it (the nod to realism) up to the DM's (or players) narration.

But I do so looooove elegantly and realistically designed mechanics. I want a mechanical answer to everything, but I know it's just not possible...at least short of an AI programmed for RPG resolution considering all possible variables - a D&D Watson). (Maybe WotC and IBM can forge a partnership.)

It's an extremely fine balance for a designer to navigate.

I'll be interested to see if Monte and company are up to the challenge.

 

[Mark CMG]

A somewhat late response, as I've been caught up in a few matters recently.

Really, I don't think it matters whether narration follows crunch or crunch follows narration. The problem happens when the narration turns out to be more or less effective than the DM thinks it should be (a yardstick that would vary from DM to DM) and the DM has to choose between sacrificing consistency (or "realism") or game balance.

With experience and hindsight, of course, we could pick narrations that are less subject to abuse (or nerfing) in a wider variety of situations and thus satisfy the needs of both balance and realism. However, if we have become wedded to certain narrations, then changing them becomes problematic.

For example, if you wanted to narrate a magical effect that:

(1) Could be used by a relatively low-level wizard and
(2) dealt fire damage
(3) in an area
(4) to all creatures, friend and foe,
(5) that could be reduced or even evaded completely by non-magical means

there are a variety of ways that this could be (better, IMO) narrated instead of as an exploding ball of flames that completely filled the area (point 5, in particular, makes this specific narration problematic in some cases). However, because fireball is such an iconic spell, we continue describing exploding balls of fire in our games, and just try to work around the corner cases (sacrificing either balance or realism, to taste) when they do show up.

This is problematic both in that it shakes the foundations of the sense of wonder and creates inconsistency in that it requires mechanical re-explanation. If it was more clear what could be done narratively, and the mechanics followed the flow, some of the problems created by your check list are removed, IMO.

 

[BryonD]

If it didn't, it would become a typical action.

Not to dispute your opinion in any way, but to simply present the other point of view:

That is on my list of beefs with 4E. Things that should be cool become too easy and thus just become typical actions.

I *DO* see Bull Rush attempts in 3E. I wouldn't say I see it in every game, or even every other game. But I do see it. And I think I see it in what, to me, is a completely healthy organic frequency driven not by having a daily or encounter based power to use or lose but instead by making the call when the circumstances fit.

And yes, sometimes they don't work. But they often do work and because the nods to realism make them harder and not "typical", the successes feel HEROIC, like they should.

I also dispute that your description fits your claim of mechanics controlling actions. On very cursory inspection your logic appears to hold up. But what you leave out is that those mechanics are themselves FIRST controlled by the narrative merits. Bull Rushing is not heard because the mechanics say so. Bull Rushing is hard because it SHOULD BE from a narrative, heroic point of view. The mechanics then simply come along for the ride in a manner that supports providing the opportunity for failure and only through that opportunity for failure a related opportunity for glory.

I think looking at a list of powers and describing a narrative that complies with the results dictated by the selected power is a much better example of mechanics controlling actions.

Again, not disputing anything about how you have fun. Just presenting an alternative. I'm also glad that after thirty years of design the focus fell to you side if you felt neglected before. But I am also glad that the market showed clear resistance to this deviation as well.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think there are serious flaws in Edwards' work. One thing I think he presents very poorly, but has a grain of truth to it, is that there is a tendency of fans of "simulation" to ascribe more capability to processes than they really can carry. (And in custom software development, dealing with users, I've found this not limited to table top games, either. It is a huge problem with some users, that want the clicks of the mouse to exactly mimic how they do things now, using paper, instead of thinking about what the real process is, and streamlining that. If you want to drag the things you throw away to an icon of a trashcan, that may help a new user. But if you insist that everything be like that, you'll unnecessarily complicate the work for everyone else.)

Or as Einstein said, for every problem, there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong. For every problem of believability, there is some gamer on a forum that says, essentially, "just model how the character does it in the rules, and everything will work out." A lot of times, that is the wrong answer. However, you can't simply dismiss the process answer out of hand. Sometimes it is the right answer (or at least the best one that is still feasible), as perhaps with the trash can icon.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This paragraph makes sense (thigh I am beginning to think process simulation is a jargony term for fairly simple and intuitive concept). sure that makes sense and doesn't contradict what I've been saying which is D&D has occupied more of a middle ground when it comes to believability and playability. This has enabled it, IMO, to attract a larger audience. By suddenly focusing on one or the other, it loses part of it's fan base.

It is simple, but it is not easy. The players should rarely, if ever, even care. The DM should only grasp the distinction well enough to have a good flow to his game--and most of that will arise intuitively in a good system, without necessarily thinking in design terms.

One of the reasons that it can be this way is that often in D&D, the distinction does not matter. In Red Box, if your starting fighter swings his sword at an orc, you can easily treat that check and described action as all three at once: process, result, and drama/narrative. This is because in this case, the process of swinging the sword, the likely results, and the described action are highly in sync. You might be a bit put off when you miss and the orc kills you the next round, but you'll quickly adapt the presumed narrative to, "Oh, this isn't exactly a story. This is D&D, where Joe Fighter goes into the dungeon and dies in the first 15 minutes." Or your DM might have fudged the process or the results so that the narrative was more what you had in mind. (That is, the DM had at least intuited these disconnects. So the player need not.)

The problems are all in the edge cases--even if some of the edge cases are fairly prominent in certain playstyles. People have been leaving D&D for other pastures since their were other pastures for this very reason. Heck, often people were building those other pastures because of these kind of problems. When you hit one of these problem cases, the answer is often tricky. One can't get beyond "just model what the character does" as the default answer until one accepts that there might be limits to that method. And in fairness, we've already seen the same thing on the other side. "Just narrate it" is not always a good answer, either.

 

[BryonD]

One thing I think he presents very poorly, but has a grain of truth to it, is that there is a tendency of fans of "simulation" to ascribe more capability to processes than they really can carry.

Absolutely true.

I have no doubt whatsoever that someone critical of my playing style preference could sit at my table and make comment after comment about where the reality of what happens falls short of the ideal I describe.

But I know two things.
One is that I've had players from other groups join into my games and comment afterward about how the level of depth is distinct from other games they have played in. So you don't need to be anywhere near perfect to achieve and prefer superior.
The second is that we are talking about mechanics. And if you want to strive for an ideal you should look for mechanics that also strive for that same ideal.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I tend to think #1 can be reduced by a more abstract design (e.g.: zooming out from the direct detail of multiple steps of what it takes to perform the action, and simply encompassing the entire attempt in one die roll).

I tend to think #2 falls into the camp of trying to impose order on chaos (having a "desired fiction" in the first place seems problematic for a game involving 6 autonomous human beings), and/or ignoring the DM's imperative to adapt the rules to the situation (which abstract rules help more with).

I still am in broad agreement that a Pg42-like "core" is a good way to go, in part, but IMO, it needs to "realistically" conform to the world, as well, in some abstract sense. It doesn't need to be very detailed out of the box for me, but it DOES need to mesh up with the idea that the rules elements are tools that can be used in a variety of creative ways, not just outcomes that you then have to justify.

I think there has to be some of all the methods, because while I love abstraction personally, I think there are limits to what it can deliver. I think details have to be there, but they need to be carefully chosen to maximize the gains while minimizing the side effects.

While I appreciate highly consistent mechanics, I suspect there may be a bit of an "uncanny valley" effect in such game rules, that directly affects suspension of disbelief. It is possible that carefully selected areas for details could mitigate this.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There remain believability issues with this. For one thing, why am I am being assured access to magical healing at a set rate each day? Unless you are suggesting that the HS hinge on access to things like wands and potions (in which case, why even have the healing surge, why not just go back to wands and potions healing a certain amount of damage with each use). Also woudn't this cap my magical healing? If I am out of healing surges, would I not be able to use a wand or potion?

My problem has never been with the mechanic itself. In fact healing surges were something people had talked about and houseruled long before 4E came into being. In my own group we discussed employing such a mechanic. I just always kept running into believability issues with it.

In order:

You aren't now being allowed access to a set amount of healing each day. If you run out of potions and wand charges, you can't use any of the cap that is remaining.

You keep the healing surge because the idea here is not to make a mechanic that is perfect for a particular style, but easily adapting one that other people like to a different style. "Just drop it" is great for you, but sucks for all the people that like it. Not to mention people like me that may play it differently from campaign to campaign. And if believability is the only problem with it, then it really isn't that hard to adapt.

As presented, it would cap your healing. If that also offends your suspension of disbelief (or perhaps merely doesn't fit with the conception of the game world you are playing in right now), this is equally easy to fix. If that is the problem, remove the limit on surges and simply use the value of the surge. Place the surges in the potions and wands. Now you have something that works very much like 3E rules, without the, "wizard with his piddly hit points gets a heck of a lot more out of CLW than the fighter does at the same relative damage spot" problem. You'll be firmly now in the "operational healing must be strategically managed" camp, but presumably that is what you wanted.

There might be other nuances. I don't know exactly what you might want in a given game to feel as if everything was sufficiently believable. But my point is that IF your issue with surges is solely one of suspension of disbelief with surges, there is some fairly simply tweaking of those rules than can be discovered and implemented that will address those concerns.

OTOH, if the concern is more, for example, lingering issues with suspending disbelief with hit points in general, and "healing surges" being a central mechanic is throwing those in your face all the time, then maybe not. But at that point, if you state that healing surges are the devil in the garden, when all was fine before, you are no longer self-reporting correctly. Perhaps, D&D is not the best fit. Obviously, only you and your group would really know.