A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

But the rule in 4e is clear: it is the player whose characer made the attack who can make these decisions.

Perhaps you prefer not to use such a rule, but it doesn't make the game unrealistic that authority for making this decision is allocated to the player rather than the GM.

It makes the game MORE(you misrepresented again) unrealistic that the authority to alter damage types exists for the players at all. Fire is not non-lethal. If a player can just make it and other lethal damage types non-lethal on a whim, the game's realism drops significantly.

 

[pemerton]

It makes the game MORE(you misrepresented again) unrealistic that the authority to alter damage types exists for the players at all. Fire is not non-lethal. If a player can just make it and other lethal damage types non-lethal on a whim, the game's realism drops significantly.

Presumably if a player shared your view that too much of this was unrealistic, they wouldn't make such whimsical decisions!

 

[Maxperson]

Presumably if a player shared your view that too much of this was unrealistic, they wouldn't make such whimsical decisions!

They did share my views on 4e. Due to things like this, not one of them ever suggested we make the switch from 3e to 4e. The same can't be said about 3e to 5e.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the fact that you and your group didn't play 4e doesn't respond to what I posted:

(1) It can't be true that, in D&D, it is unrealistc or (more unrealistic) for someone to survive a fireball, as that has been part of the game from the beginning;

(2) You've not articulated any reason why it the way the survival is determined at the table (by roll or by stipulation) should affect the degree of realism of the fiction;

(3) It can'be be true that, in D&D, only the GM can make decisions such as that a fireball doesn't kill someone - because in 4e a player can make that decision;

(4) If a player or GM, on any given occasion when they can make such a decision, thinks that survival would be unrealistic then they can make that call - which has happened on occasion in my 4e game.​

This isn't abour preferences. This is about whether or not a particular mechanic affects realism. You've given no reason why it should. And you make assertions about your game being more realistic than my game, but with no evidence - eg you have no idea what proportion of characters have survived fireballs in my game compared to in your game.

Which really goes back to the proposition at the heart of this thread: if realism is about the properties of the fiction, there is no reason to think that GM-driven play increases that realism; and if realism is about the process of producing the fiction, no reason has been given to suggest that GM-decides is more realistic than any other method of authorship.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the fact that you and your group didn't play 4e doesn't respond to what I posted:

(1) It can't be true that, in D&D, it is unrealistc or (more unrealistic) for someone to survive a fireball, as that has been part of the game from the beginning;

(2) You've not articulated any reason why it the way the survival is determined at the table (by roll or by stipulation) should affect the degree of realism of the fiction;

(3) It can'be be true that, in D&D, only the GM can make decisions such as that a fireball doesn't kill someone - because in 4e a player can make that decision;

(4) If a player or GM, on any given occasion when they can make such a decision, thinks that survival would be unrealistic then they can make that call - which has happened on occasion in my 4e game.​

This isn't abour preferences. This is about whether or not a particular mechanic affects realism. You've given no reason why it should. And you make assertions about your game being more realistic than my game, but with no evidence - eg you have no idea what proportion of characters have survived fireballs in my game compared to in your game.

Which really goes back to the proposition at the heart of this thread: if realism is about the properties of the fiction, there is no reason to think that GM-driven play increases that realism; and if realism is about the process of producing the fiction, no reason has been given to suggest that GM-decides is more realistic than any other method of authorship.

Are you even capable of not misrepresenting what people say to you during a discussion? I never said it was unrealistic for someone to survive a fireball. That's your Strawman. I said it's more unrealistic to make fire from a fireball non-lethal damage. It doesn't matter whether the DM does it. The player does it. Or Santa Claus does it.

And yes, I have given reasons why it affects realism. To say that I haven't is yet another misrepresentation on your part.

Are you afraid that you will be ineffective in a discussion if you don't misrepresent the other side?

 

[Hussar]

I always find it funny to see things like this.

4e - This is so unrealistic we won't play it.

5e - This is the same rule as 4e. It's so unrealistic, but, we'll just ignore that rule and make the game our own.

Somehow that makes 5e more realistic than 4e? I honestly love how folks that hate things 4e just make room for it in their 5e games. It's so deliciously inconsistent.

Sorry, either both are realistic or unrealistic because they are the exact same rule. Having a problem with one and not the other is really, really funny and a testament to how well WotC has written 5e so as not to trip people's Belief O' Meters.

 

[Maxperson]

I always find it funny to see things like this.

4e - This is so unrealistic we won't play it.

5e - This is the same rule as 4e. It's so unrealistic, but, we'll just ignore that rule and make the game our own.

So first, Strawman. We did not say that the one rule was the only reason we didn't play 4e. I specifically said on multiple occasions here that it was just one reason. Second, it's not even close to being the same rule. Not only does it not work with spells in 5e, it doesn't even work with all weapons. Only melee weapons.

Somehow that makes 5e more realistic than 4e?

Yes. The 5e rule is more realistic than the 4e rule.

I honestly love how folks that hate things 4e just make room for it in their 5e games. It's so deliciously inconsistent.

Are you "honestly" incorrectly equating the two rules, or was it deliberate?

...because they are the exact same rule.

You might want to read the 5e rules, because if you think that's true, then it's pretty clear that you haven't.

 

[Hussar]

Sigh. Yup, you're right [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]. There are differences, which, by dictionary definition, makes them different. Congratulations, you are technically right, and that's the best kind of right.

Now, let's look at it though. You're issue was that you could go back in time and change the effect of an attack, changing the damage from lethal to non lethal retroactively.

Which edition am I talking about?

Sure, 5e limits it to melee attacks. So what? The impact is exactly the same - retroactively changing the results after the fact. 5e also allows an Evoker Wizard to exclude targets from area effect spells - IOW- he or she can control a fireball, which was one of your issues as well.

At this point, you're just two smurfs arguing over who is more blue. If it is unrealistic to retroactively change results, then it's unrealistic. OH! 4e was more unrealistic. Ok, who cares? It's the same rule, just slightly differently applied.

Which, like I said, makes me giggle because you simply ignore the rule in 5e, but, apparently couldn't come to the same conclusion in 4e. It's truly very funny to see how relatively minor changes in writing has such an enormous impact on how things are received.

But, this is all edition warring crap anyway, so, it's not really important. Just an observation.

 

[Maxperson]

Now, let's look at it though. You're issue was that you could go back in time and change the effect of an attack, changing the damage from lethal to non lethal retroactively.

Which edition am I talking about?

It really doesn't matter. If you are being deceptively vague like that in order to win points on the internetz, then sure, they sound the same.

Sure, 5e limits it to melee attacks. So what? The impact is exactly the same - retroactively changing the results after the fact.

The impact is not exactly the same. There are major differences in the 4e version.

5e also allows an Evoker Wizard to exclude targets from area effect spells - IOW- he or she can control a fireball, which was one of your issues as well.

In game shaping of spells was never one of my issues. It helps if you understand what the issues are before you post.

If it is unrealistic to retroactively change results, then it's unrealistic. OH! 4e was more unrealistic. Ok, who cares? It's the same rule, just slightly differently applied.

So first, I and my players care, as do others I'm sure. If you don't care, great, but don't try to minimize things for other people. Second, it's a major difference between the 4e rule and the 5e rule. Leaving out everything but melee weapons is much less than including every form of damage the PC can come up with. Third, that was a False Dichotomy. Things aren't just unrealistic or not, realism exists on a spectrum, so one unrealistic thing can and usually is more or less realistic than some other thing.

Which, like I said, makes me giggle because you simply ignore the rule in 5e, but, apparently couldn't come to the same conclusion in 4e.

Again, it's a pretty good idea to know what you are talking about before you post. I said just a few posts ago that my group found the 5e rule to be dumb and changed it in about 30 seconds. If you're going to respond to someone, read first.

But, this is all edition warring crap anyway, so, it's not really important. Just an observation.

Finding fault in the rule of an edition is not edition warring, but thanks for trying to get me into the "Let's Play Edition Wars" game. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing that. And for something to be an observation, you actually have to observe first. Since it's pretty clear that you didn't bother to fully read my posts, you haven't observed any such thing. Because if you had fully read my posts, you'd know that I also found the fault in the lesser 5e version rule and changed it.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - there's a difference between not reading your posts and not really caring. I believe I walk that line every time I post with you.

But, in any case, I'd point out that I did, indeed, read your posts, and even showed that you had, in fact, changed the 5e rules, so, claims that I didn't read your posts don't really work do they? I was just finding it funny that you would look at 5e, and think, "Hrm, I don't like this rule, I'll just change it" but, read 4e, with virtually the exact same rule and think, "Wow, I don't like this game so much I won't play it."

I stand in awe of how WotC has managed to win over folks with 5e. It's a testament to how important voice is in writing. Six years ago, WotC was the evil corporation trying to force a garbage game on fans. Now, it can do no wrong, even though the new version of the game is so very close to the other version.

I guess the devil is in the details. For me, it's not. I look at these two rules and think, yup, these are pretty much the same thing. Sure, there's superficial differences, but, in play? Yeah, a whole lot more things die to melee attacks than anything else. Shifting the rules to say, "Yeah, only melee attacks can be retroactively converted" probably only applies to a very small fraction of actual deaths at the table in play. In both editions, the majority of NPC deaths will be from melee attacks. The minority that come from magic attacks? Meh.

To be fair though, with the Dragon Heist AP taking place in Waterdeep, the archer ranger has had a bit of a tough time with the rule change since killing any citizen for any reason carries legal penalities. So, yeah, there are some differences. Not really major, but, some.