Oh I meant for the inverse ziggurat, without checking my copy of White Plume, I can't recall if the walls are Walls of Force or Glassteel.
D&D 4E Bridging the cognitive gap between how the game rules work and what they tell us about the setting
Zeromaru X
Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
The game? Yes. Why would you play it otherwise? Myself, I have sufficient stressors in my real life to play a game that adds more.
But, I think I understand what you mean with realism. For instance, the fact that the attack is so consuming that it cost you at least 2 turns to make it and that stuff. And the training to be able to use the gae bolga is represented in the prerequisites.
Addressing the original question of the topic, 4e has similar stuff, just adapted to its particular set of rules. For instance, there are the martial techniques in Martial Power 2 that ask you to get prerequisite stuff to be able to use them. For instance, the Arkhosian Blademaster is the traditional fighting technique of the dragonborn people, and you need to be proficient in certain blades used by the ancient Arkhosians and get certain feats and powers that make use of the particular dragonborn mechanics (like powers high STR prerequisites) to be able to use the techniques of the blademasters.
So, in a certain sense, 4e do has a cognitive relationship of its fiction and the rules. It's just that it's rules are less complicated than those of the older editions.
Last edited:
Voadam
Legend
I've got it up now, it is neither, but sort of close to both.
"Steps B, C and D are enclosed by magicallv-created glass walls which keep the inhabitants of these terraces confined. For good measure, they have all been charmed and ordered to stay on their levels as long as their glass walls are intact."
"The glass walls cannot be broken by fired arrows, slung stones, or such things as thrown helmets. An 18 strength character could break a hole in one with 2-5 swings of a heavy mace (longer for less strong types)"
"If opened incorrectly (Le., trap not removed), a vibration device in the wall is triggered which will shatter the glass walls in 1-6 rounds."
"If all of the glass walls are broken, a wall of force like the one at No. 2 will activate immediately in front of the door on level E, preventing the water from forcing the door open and escaping into the corridor beyond."
"The glass walls cannot be broken by fired arrows, slung stones, or such things as thrown helmets. An 18 strength character could break a hole in one with 2-5 swings of a heavy mace (longer for less strong types)"
"If opened incorrectly (Le., trap not removed), a vibration device in the wall is triggered which will shatter the glass walls in 1-6 rounds."
"If all of the glass walls are broken, a wall of force like the one at No. 2 will activate immediately in front of the door on level E, preventing the water from forcing the door open and escaping into the corridor beyond."
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
But even the WSG is, as was noted a couple pages ago in this thread, 'lipstick on a pig'. I mean, I spent a lot of my youth camping, hiking, mountain climbing, caving, etc. and learned a reasonable amount about orienteering, what kind of supplies you need/can carry with you, how to scrounge for stuff, etc. Again, no survival guru, but I know enough to get by.
Now, the WSG is presumably written in at least a modestly realistic 'verisimilitudinous' fashion. At least that is the argument. However, there is a primary issue here, which is that the core hit points, levels, etc. that are at the heart of D&D are pretty unrealistic to start with, so there's a limit to what can be achieved here. Beyond that even fairly detail oriented players and GMs are unlikely to spend vast effort on constantly keeping the books on various little bits of equipment, etc. Finally, how do you structure something like "will we get lost and how do you orient yourself in the wild?" It's not a simple topic and entire books have been written on just this, specific to one type of terrain! What is realistically applicable to a temperate forest in summer is meaningless when talking about someone traversing an ice sheet in fantasy Greenland! No WSG that is feasible to write (or use in play) can handle all that, so at best the rules are going to be highly abstract and merely representative, and will probably produce results that are not particularly realistic.
Lets look at the section starting on page 61 "Camping and Campfires" and see what we can see! (I'm picking this at random, I haven't read it yet).
Starting out is a discussion of shelter in the wilderness. This points out that natural shelter may exist, but unless you already know where it is (IE the area is mapped and you are familiar with it) stumbling upon shelter is hit or miss, and claims that different sorts of terrain will be more or less able to provide it. Then there's a table 'Table 35: Chance of finding Natural Shelter', which has dimensions of season and terrain type.
I'd note that both of these dimensions are, at best, suited to a northern temperate to sub-arctic type of environment. Also the types of terrain seem fairly arbitrary to me, and subsume a WIDE variety of possible conditions. For example conditions in the Green Mountains of Vermont and on Mount Ranier in Washington (both places I am moderately to very familiar with) are QUITE different! I mean, maybe they both qualify as 'mountains' and I guess the fairly arbitrary assignment of a 40% chance of finding shelter in any season there is hard to argue with, but I know that they're just not THAT similar in most cases, though I'd mostly note that conditions in both areas will vary widely depending on exactly WHERE you are in the 'mountains'.
Not that I'm really criticizing the chart, just pointing out that it is basically arbitrary. Someone pulled the numbers out of their head, no way they're based on anything given the level of generalization and lack of detail.
Next the section gets into PORTABLE shelters, ones that the party would be bringing with them. The rules on carrying shelters seem fairly incoherent. First off is a statement that "even a single mount or size M pack animal is in the group, it can easily transport all the gear needed for many types of shelters with plenty of carrying capacity left over."
What the heck does that mean? That if I have a pack mule I get free shelter for the whole party? What kind is it? Table 36 gives stats for small, medium, and large shelters of 'poor, adequate, good, and superior' grades. There's no explanation given! There are encumbrance values, but we already learned we need not worry about that, and the text even reiterates that a single person can reasonably transport shelter for several people in addition to their other gear (nonsense, BTW this is quite unrealistic even in the day and age of nylon and aluminum). Anyway there are some ratings for durability, water resistance, and wind resistance for different grades of shelter. This is all, again, arbitrary but in a game sense where nobody wants to dig into the details of how you set up your tent I guess it 'works'. Frankly I could create more realistic rules than this, though in terms of 'aimed at some degree of realism' they certainly are.
After this there are some detailed, but again I feel pretty arbitrary, rules which detail exactly how long a shelter will last, the effects of weather on it, and then finally fairly complex, but again rather arbitrary, set of rules dealing with how much effective rest you get, the effects of deprivation of sleep and rest in game terms, etc. As I stated earlier, the issue here is the pig at the center of the whole thing. Given that D&D's core character rules are pretty unrealistic and gamist, we can't really do a lot in terms of 'realism' here, but the general idea is "the less you sleep, the worse off you are", so I'd put it in the realm of the core falling rules, it aims in the general direction of realistic, but doesn't try too hard.
Then there's a discussion of fire, which starts off with a HIGHLY INACCURATE assessment of the value of cooking! In fact, sure, you can eat raw food, and if the food is already processed stuff, like bread, pemmican, dried fruits and meat, OK then eating it raw is fine, though you will need to drink plenty of water in that case! However, raw meat, raw vegetables (especially root vegetables and other less normally edible sorts often found in the wilderness) REALLY need to be cooked! Yes, you can eat them raw, but REALISTICALLY you would want to count that as half rations, at best. There's a reason man invented fire!
Anyway, there's a LONG and complex section which purports to give pretty exact rules on starting fires, the warmth provided, how much fuel they use, availability of fuel, time required to start a fire (oddly with no mention of different means of doing so, which realistically vary widely) etc. Again, these rules are so abstract it is hard to make much of them, even in this detailed book and discussing a topic of such central importance to actual wilderness survival. Not to really criticize the rules, just to point out that, at best, they're a huge generalization and mostly just pulled from someone's head. I mean, I don't know of any actual source for information like "how long does it take to gather firewood?" My experience says it is hugely variable and might range from 'you hardly need to bother' up to 'it is pretty much hopeless'.
Finally there's a pretty long section on the dangers of fire, pointing out that it can be seen from a distance, but then mostly dwelling on the possibilities of fires getting out of control and what might ensue in such a situation. This is not really 'rules' per se, just 'Smokey The Bear' kind of stuff. Where it gets specific I would again say it is such a generalization and basically arbitrary text that I'd just say 'yeah, it is not specifically unrealistic, or realistic either one'. A rule for fire damage is given, again this falls into the usual D&D level of realism 'fire can burn you'. There's a special set of 'if you are on fire' rules as well, which begs the question of why you need special rules for being burned by an out of control campfire, but they don't seem intended to apply in any other situation. Typical AD&D!
That's the end of the section, total 6 pages, very abstract and general discussion. Not inaccurate necessarily, but just basically number soup with no real conveyed sense that the numbers relate to reality much, though one HOPES they add up to an interesting game (I have my doubts on that score as well, but never having employed these rules I cannot say with authority).
And, IMHO, this is pretty much a capsule of all of AD&D in terms of verisimilitude/realism. Not very, but usually not leaping into absurdness, just aping our expectations mainly while attempting to remain within the realm of what might plausibly be playable.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, reading parts of the old WSG I couldn't help thinking that a much more practical and easier to use rule set for 'shelter and fire' would just consist of a couple survival and nature checks! Maybe with the fictional consequences scaled to the sort of environment the PCs are in. I think the 4e DMG actually does this, to an extent, though I would have thought tying it all into the SC system would have been a more solid approach.
Lord Shark
Adventurer
I've got it up now, it is neither, but sort of close to both.
"Steps B, C and D are enclosed by magicallv-created glass walls which keep the inhabitants of these terraces confined. For good measure, they have all been charmed and ordered to stay on their levels as long as their glass walls are intact."
"The glass walls cannot be broken by fired arrows, slung stones, or such things as thrown helmets. An 18 strength character could break a hole in one with 2-5 swings of a heavy mace (longer for less strong types)"
"If opened incorrectly (Le., trap not removed), a vibration device in the wall is triggered which will shatterthe glasswalls in 1-6 rounds."
"If all of the glass walls are broken, a wall of force like the one at No. 2 will activate immediately in front of the door on level E, preventing the water from forcing the door open and escaping into the corridor beyond."
If you're talking about magical effects that PCs can never have, note the casual mention of the monsters in the ziggurat being charmed to stay put. Charm monster is not a permanent effect in 1E, and it's not one of the spells that can be augmented by permanency. And even if it could be, every casting of permanency in 1E costs you one CON point, so it's not the kind of thing you want to be doing just to keep your monster minions docile! The whole thing is literally A Wizard Did It, Don't Ask Questions.
Voadam
Legend
I should probably clarify that I believe fiat is appropriate and probably how Schick decided on those features in White Plume Mountain. I just don't think that leads to players not being encouraged to interrogate the phenomena or for DMs to not think through possibilities or reasons for their games.
The fantasy elements of the typical weird D&D world allow a lot of odd phenomena beyond what is covered by player mechanical options and engaging with weirdness in different ways is part of the fun of playing and DMing D&D.
The fantasy elements of the typical weird D&D world allow a lot of odd phenomena beyond what is covered by player mechanical options and engaging with weirdness in different ways is part of the fun of playing and DMing D&D.
Did somebody say Torchbearer?
Voadam
Legend
1e Charm Monster is a decently long lasting spell with a week between checks for breaking the charm, I used it to get a walking menagerie as a bodyguard team in a dungeon for a while in an AD&D game.
The tough part here RAW using that spell is the communication.
Charm Monster (Enchantment/Charm)
Level: 4 Components: V, S
Range: 6” Casting Time: 4 segments
Duration: Special Saving Throw: Neg.
Area of Effect: Special
Explanation/Description: This spell is similar to a charm person spell (q.v.), but it will affect any living creature — or several creatures of lesser level as explained hereafter. The magic-user casts the charm monster spell, and any affected creature regards the spell caster as friendly, an ally or companion to be treated well or guarded from harm. If communication is possible, the charmed creature will follow reasonable requests, instructions, or orders most faithfully (cf. suggestion spell). Affected creatures will eventually come out from under the influence of the spell, and the probability of such breaking of a charm monster spell is a function of the creature’s level, i.e. its number of hit dice:
Monster Level or Hit Dice Percent Chance/Week of Breaking Spell
1st or up to 2 5%
2nd or up to 3 + 2 10%
3rd or up to 4 + 4 15%
4th or up to 6 25%
5th or up to 7 + 2 35%
6th or up to 8 + 4 45%
7th or up to 10 60%
8th or up to 12 75%
9th or over 12 90%
Naturally, overtly hostile acts by the person charming the monster will automatically break the spell, or at the very least allow the monster a new saving throw versus the charm, the spell will affect from 2-8 1st level creatures, 1-4 2nd level creatures, 1 or 2 3rd level, or 1 creature of 4th or higher level.
Also I don't know if this was originally conceived of using Oe rules where charm monster was permanent until dispelled.
Charm Monster: The counterpart of a Charm Person spell which is employable against all creatures. If animals or creatures with three or fewer hit dice are involved determine how many are affected by the spell by rolling three six-sided dice. It is otherwise identical to the Charm Person spell.
Charm Person: This spell applies to all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size, excluding all monsters in the “Undead” class but including Sprites, Pixies, Nixies, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins and Gnolls. If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the Magic-User until such time as the “charm” is dispelled (Dispel Magic). Range: 12”.
The power of Oe charm is amazing and surprised me when I eventually got a PDF copy of the Oe rules. "completely under the influence of". It certainly makes a one shot 1st level magic user potentially more viable.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, basically 4e, TB2, you could do similar stuff in FitD, etc.
To elaborate, I own a copy of the DSG and the WSG for 1e AD&D, but I am not even sure we ever read much of them let alone actually used them. This is typical awkward largely unplaytested post-Gygax TSR stuff. It sounded good in the days of 'realism will make your game better', but the fact is, it doesn't, and that was becoming quite apparent in that time frame.
I mean, consider that whole WSG 'shelter and fire' chapter. What advantage is there to using some arbitrary %-based tables, which certainly are just filled with numbers pulled out of thin air by some gamer geek in a 4th floor TSR office. I mean, I don't think I have better numbers, but anyone can make up a number out of thin air, why do I need a book and a bunch of tables for that?
So, IMHO, something like a Dungeon World game where we use the 'Make Camp', 'Take Watch, and 'Undertake a Perilous Journey' moves seems no less 'realistic' nor less authentic in any sense than the WSG's table after table of arbitrary numbers. Fictional position and dice, plus the GM applying principles to make moves where called for will likely produce a range and type of fiction that is going to be largely similar to the dozens of die rolls and detailed tracking required by the stuff in the WSG.
Even back in the day I never really understood what the big draw was.
Similar Threads
