D&D 4E 4e and reality

[P1NBACK]

Even if it were a characteristic of all undead, 4e runs on exception based design, your unique undead wouldn't be breaking a rule, it would simply be an exception.

Lol. This is hilarious when combined with:

If a DM wants to change the rules and say swarms can't be grabbed, but they can subjected to involuntary movement, that's a house rule, it might influence some players choices or it might not, but it's up front, the players know what it means.

On the one hand, you're advocating "exception based design" and then on the other, you're saying it's a "house rule". One in the same, imo.

Ok. Fine.

But, let's get one thing super-straight.

I never said "all swarms cannot be grabbed" - please, go back and read over my posts. That's all I ask. Read carefully.

In sum, I said, "In some cases, a swarm may or may not be able to be grabbed. It depends on the fiction. DMs, if you believe a swarm should not be grabbed, write 'Immune: grab' in its stat block. If a player comes up with a maneuver that breaks a rule, like no forced movement, use DMG page 42 to let them try - if it makes sense in the fiction (like taking a board and pushing back a medium swarm of rats). To do something mechanically, do something fictionally. And, if they do something fictionally not represented by mechanics on their sheet, don't disallow it - use page 42 of the DMG."

There's no "arbitrary" method behind this. It's what's happening at the table, at the moment, and what is going on in the fiction. If a rule needs to be broken in order for that to happen, so be it. If the rule swarms cannot be forced to move by a melee needs to be broken because it makes sense in the fiction - I will break it. It's not "on a whim" because the immediate happenings at the table matter. It's not arbitrary because it's directly tied to fictional circumstances and the rules as written as a guideline.

 

[P1NBACK]

And when it comes to engaging the ingame situation they use "their resources" - the rules.

I would just like to point out that rules aren't really player resources. Player resources are things like, powers - skills - feats - hit points - surges - etc... These are things on the character sheet the player can use to engage his character with the fiction.

Rules are there to help adjudicate the flow of the fiction and how your resources interact with the fiction. If you do something, use some of your resources, rules help explain how that interacts with the fiction at the table.

So, as a player, I know I have "Intimidate +12" or whatever. I know that this is a resource I can use to accomplish things in the fiction. I can approach an NPC, describe how I slam him up against the brothel wall in the alley and force him to tell me who he was planning to ambush. The rules kick in - the DM adjudicates a DC using the rules as a guideline (and let's make it clear here... the DM sets the DC based on Common Sense - what she thinks the DC should be set at), I roll my Intimidate check add my bonus, then we compare it to the DC - then we go BACK to the fiction. The DM describes the smell of piss permeating the frigid air. The poor guy has pissed himself in fright of you. He hastily explains that he was going to ambush the pretty red haired girl and her husband. But... He's leaving things out. You know he's still hiding details from you. Now what?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with you that the GM can play a crucial role in providing suspense, and this entails a certain degree of authority over the backstory. But I prefer that this be shared with the players, especially as far as their PCs and their PCs' relationships are concerned.

Oh, I agree. In fact the backstories of individual characters I generally leave to the players to devise for the most part. I check them out and provide suggestions and background information. I let the players manage inter-PC relations too. Of course my players are pretty much old hands, they pretty much make sure their end of the game runs well. Newer players or problematic ones sometimes need a bit more help, but I really can't remember the last time I TOLD a player how something was going to be. Presumably this is the best way, though you will of course get different views on that (and maybe there are a few cases where it isn't entirely true, perhaps very young players).[/quote]

With your murder mystery example, I'm happy for the GM to choose the murderer. But I prefer that the players have control over when the reveal occurs, by engaging the ingame situation via their PCs. And when it comes to engaging the ingame situation they use "their resources" - the rules. So I think on the issue of whether or not the GM has a responsibility to edit the rules in the service of the plot, I think we just have quite different preferences.

I should add - thanks as always for the interesting series of posts![/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'd expect in the murder mystery scenario the players will essentially control the pacing and structure of the adventure, and quite possibly the identify of the antagonist, though without knowing it. I'm famous for rewriting plot on the fly (well, I would be if the players ever really knew about it...).

It has been fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been trying very hard to make my point without sounding insulting, but it's clearly not working, so I'm going to make one last try, then 'ban myself from the thread,' as it were.

So, P1NBACK and I have been going back and forth about the issue of realism and fiction vs rules and playability. P1NBACK is clearly a talented, experienced DM, and he has a group of players who, I'm guessing, have been together a while and who have a style of play that works for them. I'm not saying it's a bad style of play. Quite the contrary, it's what could reasonably be called an 'advanced' style of play, one that can give very good results, potentially 'better' than could be achieved with a more conservative style.

A more conventional style of play can still be fun, though, and it's, well... 'safer' or 'easier,' perhaps, for a less experienced or more casual group, or even an experienced, serious group that sees some turnover due to RL issues or otherwise can't count on everyone being on the same page, all the time.

If this topic had come up last year, I'd be much more in accord with P1NBACK, since I was in a group that had been together for 10 years, with relatively little turnover in that time, and we had a talented, experienced DM that we trusted to make good rulings, even on the fly. The last year or so, though, that group started to fracture, and I'm now in a very new group that mixes experienced and inexperienced players, with a DM who is a very experienced player, but new to DM'ing. So, I'm seeing issues like this from a different PoV.

If a DM - or even player - seeks the advice of an internet community about how a power or keyword is supposed to work, my assumption would be that he's not currently participating in the advanced styles of play that P1NBACK is used to (and I was accustomed to in the past), but, rather, is looking for a reasonable answer based on the rules of the game, that would fly in a more conventional or casual or varied group, perhaps even with the intent of 'settling' an argument. While P1NBACK's advice would be a cool thing to shoot for in a stable group, I have to counsel some caution in attempting to adopt it. Sticking to the rules, and handling house-rules up-front and consistently when you feel the need for them, is a more ...hmm... 'prudent?' ...course.

 

[Argyle King]

I in no way feel fantasy needs to completely break reality. I 100% realize that dragons, elves, and magic are not real. However, I see nothing wrong with having a game in which (for an example) a fireball acts just like any other mundane fire once it comes into play or a game in which lifting the heavy rock mentioned in an earlier post was based on strength and leverage. I play a rpg which does this, and I very highly enjoy it.

However, I have come to agree with those who feel realism has no place in D&D; especially with 4th Edition. You can add realism into 4th Edition if you want to; you can play your game at home any way you want to. However, I don't feel that -generally speaking- 4th Edition and realism make for a good mix. There are certain assumptions that the structure of D&D 4th Edition and the core mentality behind its design tends to (from what I can tell; in my opinion) make about the style of game you will play when you sit at the table.

In the end, you should do what works for you and for your group. However, if you're trying to use a system to do something which is against how the system is designed, you might be better off trying something else - either a different style or a different system. If you do plan to houserule, tell your players before the game or talk it over with them. Surprise houserules usually aren't fun.

To answer the OP: I have experienced a lot of groups who try to houserule more realism into D&D. Usually the GM makes sure the players are well aware of the rules changes though.

 

[pemerton]

I would just like to point out that rules aren't really player resources. Player resources are things like, powers - skills - feats - hit points - surges - etc... These are things on the character sheet the player can use to engage his character with the fiction.

Rules are there to help adjudicate the flow of the fiction and how your resources interact with the fiction. If you do something, use some of your resources, rules help explain how that interacts with the fiction at the table.

So, as a player, I know I have "Intimidate +12" or whatever. I know that this is a resource I can use to accomplish things in the fiction. I can approach an NPC, describe how I slam him up against the brothel wall in the alley and force him to tell me who he was planning to ambush. The rules kick in - the DM adjudicates a DC using the rules as a guideline (and let's make it clear here... the DM sets the DC based on Common Sense - what she thinks the DC should be set at), I roll my Intimidate check add my bonus, then we compare it to the DC - then we go BACK to the fiction. The DM describes the smell of piss permeating the frigid air. The poor guy has pissed himself in fright of you. He hastily explains that he was going to ambush the pretty red haired girl and her husband. But... He's leaving things out. You know he's still hiding details from you. Now what?

There's only two things here that I'd differ from.

First, I think that the powers, skills, feats etc tend to bring with them the rules that govern their application. Which is what I had in mind when I said that the rules (meaning, mostly, the action resolution mechanics) are a player resource.

Second, when it comes to setting the DC for the Intimidate check I prefer the method that is implicit in the DMG and explicit in HeroQuest and DMG 2 - set a DC that is consistent with the DCs-by-level table and with the current demands of pacing, and then narrate the scene and/or add colour to the scene to ensure coherence between the scene and the fiction.

But the stuff about moving from fiction to mechanics and back again - I agree with all that. For the reasons LostSoul has given, there are some issues about this in the context of 4e combat. My own approach is to take a pretty relaxed approach to "mere colour" (eg given that there is no hit location system in 4e, and nothing turns on where, in the fiction, a blow struck a character, I don't worry too much about how and to what level of detail this is narrated) but to look to those parts of the combat system that do engage the fiction - movement, terrain and positioning in particular (at least in my experience).

 

[Hussar]

I in no way feel fantasy needs to completely break reality. I 100% realize that dragons, elves, and magic are not real. However, I see nothing wrong with having a game in which (for an example) a fireball acts just like any other mundane fire once it comes into play or a game in which lifting the heavy rock mentioned in an earlier post was based on strength and leverage. I play a rpg which does this, and I very highly enjoy it.

Which game would that be? Cos, it certainly isn't D&D with lightning bolts that travel parallel to the ground and various other silliness.

I mentioned earlier that in 3e D&D, I can be standing waist deep in water, hit an enemy, also standing in the same puddle as me who is grappling my friend who is also in that water and holding onto my leg, with a shocking grasp spell and it only hurts the enemy.

Just as an example.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Which game would that be? Cos, it certainly isn't D&D with lightning bolts that travel parallel to the ground and various other silliness.

I mentioned earlier that in 3e D&D, I can be standing waist deep in water, hit an enemy, also standing in the same puddle as me who is grappling my friend who is also in that water and holding onto my leg, with a shocking grasp spell and it only hurts the enemy.

Just as an example.

Of course it is D&D, and it is somewhat disingenous of you to suggest otherwise! lightning bolts (of the natural sort) rarely figure in D&D, and if they do they will almost certainly be depicted as the natural thing. The lightning bolt SPELL magically makes electricalish energy zap something.

Of course, older editions of D&D reflected this somewhat better, with fire spells igniting flammables, and electrical spells expressly behaving differently in water (along with many others - see the 1e DMG for details)

Regards,

 

[Zaran]

Of course it is D&D, and it is somewhat disingenous of you to suggest otherwise! lightning bolts (of the natural sort) rarely figure in D&D, and if they do they will almost certainly be depicted as the natural thing. The lightning bolt SPELL magically makes electricalish energy zap something.

Of course, older editions of D&D reflected this somewhat better, with fire spells igniting flammables, and electrical spells expressly behaving differently in water (along with many others - see the 1e DMG for details)

Regards,

And everyone knows the reason why this is. It makes everyone need to know another set of effects that only comes up once in a blue moon. In older editions the wizard had so many options to choose from it made sense for them to by pass the lightning bolt spell when they were standing in water. In 4e you don't have 19 different spells to choose from and to limit someone's ability to play their character to full effect might be realistic but it's not fun.

I, for one, hate the excuse of something being magical and thus works differently because it goes against how we perceive the world. You have to think about it from the character's perspective. He knows that his lightning bolt spell will electrocute everyone in the puddle, BUT , it just so happens he has a spell that has many of the same properties as a lightning bolt that he can only use on occasions like this.

Using the Sleep spell on animated skeletons is another example. Animated skeletons don't sleep. The wizard knows this. That's why he used a spell that slows undead down and sometimes makes them helpless for a small amount of time. It's not that we have to ignore reality in our games, we just have to allow that our characters know how to deal with unusual situations.

 

[Hussar]

Of course it is D&D, and it is somewhat disingenous of you to suggest otherwise! lightning bolts (of the natural sort) rarely figure in D&D, and if they do they will almost certainly be depicted as the natural thing. The lightning bolt SPELL magically makes electricalish energy zap something.

Of course, older editions of D&D reflected this somewhat better, with fire spells igniting flammables, and electrical spells expressly behaving differently in water (along with many others - see the 1e DMG for details)

Regards,

Hardly disingenuous. The original point was that fireball was realistic, that it should behave "like normal fire once it's cast", but, since when do lightning bolts bounce? "Electricalish" energy? Now who's being ingenious?

Older editions were every bit as ridiculous as later editions. D&D has never, ever been even remotely rigorous in its treatment of reality.