Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5311229" data-attributes="member: 5143">I disagree that you can have both.  The problem is that an effort on creating a coherent world creates an opening for breaking the rules and causing large imbalances.After all, if there is a spell in the game that turns rock to mud and it affects 500 square feet of rock, it makes perfect sense to allow this spell to bury 10 enemies at once so deep in mud that they can't breathe and they all die(if they were all standing on rock).  On the other hand, game balance is hurt by allowing it.  It means that the spell, which was often balanced against similar spells of its level because the designers were thinking of it in terms of non-combat uses, is now often the best choice at it's level by far.It also means that this spells has far exceeded what other people in the group can accomplish.  Why ask the fighter to attack on enemy with a sword for 20 damage when you can do 500 points of damage to 10 different creatures with one spell?So you are left with a decision: Disallow the use of the spell to immediately kill enemies, even if means the believability of the story is slightly hurt.  Or you can allow it and cause an imbalance between spells of the same level and between characters(which can cause hurt feelings/boredom in some players).The thing is when you try to separate how the world works from how the rules work you cause a problem.  That's when you get into the gap where you need to make a choice: Rules or World.  I know which one you'd choose and I'm glad that you appear to have players who agree with that decision.  But not all players do.  And often DMs don't know whether their players agree or disagree since most D&D tables have created a social contract where if you disagree with the DM, you aren't allowed to say anything.Besides, there is consistency in the way powers work in 4e.  You can grab anything with a power that says "the target is grabbed", it's extremely consistent.  In fact, it's the other way around that creates the inconsistency.  Devotion to "World" first tends to cause situations like "You can grab someone, unless they are a swarm, or insubstantial, or have phasing, or I determine that they are mostly made of non-solid materials(like fire, air, or water elementals), or they are too slippery, or they have non-grabby magic, and so on".  Which is to say, your powers as a player get translated into "You can use these when the DM says it's ok."To me, a game is fun when I can contribute fairly equally to the rest of the group.  To this end, assume a game has powers like:1) do about 5 damage2) do about 5 damage3) do about 4 damage and move the enemy a square4) do about 3 damage and root the monster to the spot so they can't moveThese are fairly balanced.  Each of the 4 players in question would probably feel they were equally adding to a battle.Now, all you have to do is add a little bit of extra information to those powers and start using "logic" in the game to completely imbalance it:1) do about 5 fire damage(which means 0 against creatures who live in fire, rock creatures which can't be burned, and so on)2) do about 5 damage by blowing the creature against a nearby surface with the power of wind(which means it doesn't work on anything that can't be moved, or when there is no nearby surfaces)3) do about 4 damage and move the enemy a square by moving the ground under their feet(which means it doesn't work against flying creatures or creatures standing on artificial floors)4) do about 3 damage and root the monster to the spot so they can't move by freezing their feet to the floor(doesn't work against creatures who don't have feet, aren't on the floor, or creatures strong enough to break out of the ice without missing a stride)And then it becomes a roulette game in each encounter to see which player will not be able to use their powers for the next hour and need to watch the game instead of playing it.The thing is, a world where people can grab swarms, hurt fire elementals with fire spells, and freeze birds to the air around them isn't less consistent and it doesn't have any less depth.  It's simply not the real world.  As long as all heroes in the world can grab swarms, it's completely consistent.  It's just not exactly the same as the real world.  i.e. it isn't "realistic".I think you are drawing way too simplistic a difference between CRPGs and D&D.  I don't miss the point of them at all.  I like playing a game with my friends around a real table.  I like the fact that the DM is there to adjudicate my actions when I try something the rules don't cover.  I like that when I try to climb to the second floor window I'm not faced with the problem that there is no climb button.  I like when I talk to NPCs they don't repeat the same wall of text each and every time.  I can ask them questions and get intelligent answers.  I like that the monster can anticipate our tactics and change its own accordingly.  I like that I don't have to repeat the same 10 quests over and over because I have a DM making up new ones each week for us.  I like that the quests can be more directly applicable to our characters since they aren't created to appeal to millions of people at the same time.  I like that I can ask for clarification on what things look like or what my character knows about the history and background of things and get an answer.That stuff all makes D&D different from WoW.  And none of it requires me to add a gap between the rules and the game world.  It's also assuming that following the rules suddenly causes a "lame story".  I find some of the best stories happened BECAUSE we followed the rules.  The fighter who grabs the swarm and slams it against the wall makes for a pretty awesome story.  The fact that we can adventure in an entirely fire-based environment and not worry if one of the players is going to feel left out because he has all fire based powers makes for a better story than having to make it more generic so all the players have fun.</blockquote>

Verification