Oh god, wherein he tries to define "roleplaying game"... Gimme a break. I can "roleplay" my banker in Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a roleplaying game? It has some rules and I'm playing a character...
Yep, it is if you start roleplaying in it. That's the point roleplaying as part of a game makes it a roleplaying game. If you use a houserule that says everyone has to come up with an idea for their Monopoly character and you should consider your decisions in terms of his/her personality then absolutely it's a role playing game.
I generally, also like to have "improvement" mechanics in a game to qualify it as a True RPG. Which means getting XP and going up levels. Monopoly fails at this test, but it could certainly be a light RPG if played the right way.
First of all, I never once mentioned realism as the stated goal. Never. Plausibility? Yes. Realism? No.
Which is why I put quotation marks around "Realism". I use the world "Realism" to mean "Being in line with how you feel the world is supposed to function". Plausibility is just as good a word but not entirely accurate. It's certainly plausible that people have expanding hands and can grab an entire swarm in one hand(in the same way that it's plausible that people can make fireballs by waving their hands).
On the other hand, although it's plausible, it isn't "Realistic". People in real life don't have that ability. I find more people have objections due to "Realism" than "Plausibility".
Nothing in any of the D&D books ever say that people DON'T have expanding hands capable of growing to a size big enough to grab a bunch of creatures at once. You only assume they don't have that ability because it doesn't work that way in real life. Therefore, the issue is one of "Realism".
However, my main concern is the fiction. As I just discussed, without that fiction carrying my character and my choices, we're playing a board game and "roleplaying" is just us masturbating with our voices.
The problem is, where is this "fiction" coming from? I have an ability that says when I hit someone with it, they are grabbed. So, it's possible within the game "fiction" since the rules describe what you can do within the game world. The rules ARE the fiction.
Simply roleplaying your version of the "fiction" isn't superior to roleplaying my version of the "fiction". And both my version AND your version are simply "masturbating with our voices". In the end whatever we say matters only to us and the group of friends we are playing with.
But, you're assuming spellcasters are more elite in the fiction. This isn't necessarily true.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it is much easier to justify how to shoot the planet into the sun when you have magical powers than it is if you are a "normal guy" with a sword. If you have to justify everything, you get a pass just by having the "fiction" say you are a magic user.
Really? That sounds fun as hell to me. All of sudden, we're immersed in the fiction because of one simple question. I'm imagining the Wizard modifying his spell and recalling his lore of elementals.
Not to me. I want the combat to be over in less than 2 hours. If we stopped for every power someone used in order to justify things like this, we'd extend the time it took to nearly double.
Even if it's exciting to describe your magic missile the first or second time, but the 40th or 50th time you've used the power in the campaign, I just want to know how much damage it does.
If the Rogue had justified it in the fiction, "As I strike at the elemental, I make sure to place my blade in the ember that rests at it's heart so that my poison strikes at it's weakest location..."
Until your DM says "There is no ember that rests at it's heart. It's entirely made out of fire. It has no veins, no blood, and no vital areas. Now, describe to me how it is plausible at all that your ordinary poisoned blade can do anything at all to it?"
Your powers then become the whim of your DM. After all, it isn't very plausible that weapons could harm a creature of pure fire at all. It would require an extreme justification just to be able to use your weapons on it.
After all, there is fiction within the D&D worlds claiming that creatures like this need magic weapons to harm at all(since they did in previous editions). On the other hand, spells count as magic, so casters get a free pass again.
Understood. You like description. I like some flavor now and then myself. We currently use a lot more flavor description in our current games than I did back when I started D&D. Back then the DM would resolve initiative in clockwise order and he'd point at you and you'd say only two things: AC you hit and amount of damage dealt. Unless you wanted to move somewhere first. In which case you stated that.
Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will.
DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though. How do you do that?
Wizard: Well, I just cast it.
DM: Oh, cool. Well, roll to hit. Roll for damage.
DM: Rogue, you're up.
Rogue: Sweet. I use Poison Strike at-will.
DM: Oh, uh, sure. Roll to hit. Roll for damage.
There's certainly nothing wrong with this. Except maybe the DM stopping to ask "How do you do that?" I'd be prone to say "What do you mean 'How do I do that?', I have the ability to wave my arms and a poison missile shoots out at a target I choose. I do the same waving my arms motion I always do and I choose the elemental as my target. The same missile that always appears shoots at the enemy and then does 27 poison damage to him. It's not like anything has changed since the last time I used the ability."
Nah... I'd rather hear...
I think that is entirely a matter of taste. Whether someone describes how their power works or not doesn't change what the power does. It does the same amount of damage and has the same effect. The description is simply "masturbating with your voice". But that's ok. It just shouldn't become the basis of how the game works.
Not at all. Rogues can deal damage to undead. There's nothing saying they can't. They just need to justify it in the fiction, same as the Wizard or Cleric.
As I've said, this "fiction" is heavily dependent on what is in your DM's head. If your DM has the image of a ghost as having no vital organs. Since it is just a spirit, it has no weak points in his mind. Sneak Attacks rely on your hitting weak points in the fiction. So, in the DMs mind(and therefore, the fiction), Sneak Attacks cannot be done to undead. No matter what justification the Rogue comes up with, the DM is going to say it isn't supported in the "fiction". So, the high level Rogue with the dagger goes from doing 1d4+10+3d8 to 1d4+10. Changing his average damage from 25 to 13. Actually halving it.
Are there going to be some DMs who are more open to making up fiction as you go along? Sure. But where is the line? How often does your character have to suck in combat in order to fulfill the desire to "stay within the fiction"? And if you play in multiple D&D games are you going to have to guess at where that line lies for every DM you play with?
Being immune to something and having characters justify it in fiction are two entirely different things.
You miss my point. But I agree with that statement. The point I was trying to make was if the book says a particular creature is immune to poison, the game designers felt there was a fiction reason for that(it has no blood, or whatever). If it isn't immune to fire, then there is likely a fictional reason for that as well(fire burns it the same as it does everyone else).
No justification is going to convince the DM that you should be able to poison the creature that specifically says it is immune to poison. However, why does using fire on the creature require a justification more than "I use fire on it"? I already used a dice to determine if I was capable of using the power and hitting the enemy. Do I need to answer a pop quiz in addition?
Sigh... Again. We're not talking about realism. I play my games in a very cinematic manner. A rogue striking the ember heart of a flame elemental? Oh yeah.
I play my games in a very cinematic manner as well. The rogue gets to strike the ember heart of a flame elemental. That's why he gets his Sneak Attack damage. We just save time by not describing it every time. And we keep the balance between the classes by not requiring a justification for each one of their powers. If the game lets them use their powers, then they can use their powers.
Yeah. I'm of the school that says, "Everyone's powers work if you can justify it in the fiction."
See above. It's much easier to say "It's magic, of course I can do it" and convince most DMs than it is to say "My poison dagger can poison that ghost...because I....umm...hit it in it's head..and...I...twist the blade?"
If you can justify it easier with some classes and whether you can use your powers requires justification then certain classes become more powerful than others.
If you can justify it in the fiction. Yes. The example given earlier of someone using their shield to hold down a swarm of lizards or whatever is a good one.
It's a matter of "What IS the fiction?" Where does the standard of "the fiction" come from? If I'm playing a grappler fighter where all of my powers require a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand, and all grab my enemy(therefore no shield) and I say "I suck up all the insects into my glove by spinning my arm really fast. Faster than anyone has ever moved before." Does that fit the fiction? Or is that too magical to fit what a fighter can do?
And, this is sad to me. We're playing the game for the explanation. For the fiction. We're not playing Monopoly or D&D Minis.
Why are we playing the game for the explanation? I'm certainly not playing the game to determine how the metaphysical reality of the D&D world works whenever I cast my magic missile. I'm concerned with whether or not it hits my enemy and whether the enemy dies, so I can save my friend from being eaten and continue on my quest to save the princess from the evil archmage, become rich and famous, and then go to the tavern for ales and wenches.
Whether the magic missile hits the enemies shoulder or chest doesn't so much matter to me. It's an interesting fact to know. But not required by any stretch of the imagination. And if described every single time might cause it to take months instead of weeks(in real time) for me to save that princess.
So... Why play combat at all? Just skip it. "You guys win. Good job. Now... back to roleplaying..."
Because part of the game is seeing IF you succeed. You might die. One of your allies might die. The NPC you've been protecting might get kidnapped in the battle.
It's also fun to fight things because you enjoy combat mechanics. I love the idea that my characters has the ability to shoot fireballs out of his hands. I like seeing if I can tactically outsmart the monsters and use my powers as effectively as possible to reduce the damage me and my allies take while maximizing the damage my enemies take.
I derive the same fun out of playing through a battle as I do playing a game of Warhammer 40k or playing a game of Starcraft on my PC. With the added benefit that I get to spend time with more friends this way and the battle has a context behind it. I get to play a character who has a personal stake in the fight. I get to think of it from his point of view. Which fulfills some of my desire to be someone else for a while.
To me, the fun parts of combat are being smart enough to use my immobilizing power on the big damage melee creatures on the back so they are effectively out of the battle while we take care of the ranged enemies before finishing off the melee enemies second. I like the idea that we used teamwork in order to defeat a challenge put before us.
Which is part of the reason having a DM tell me "Sorry, your immobilizing power is shooting arrows at the enemies and pinning them to the ground. You can't pin Oozes to the ground, they flow around it" is so annoying. It takes my good plan and turns it around on a whim because my powers don't fit the sensibilities of the DM.
My advice to that player: "Use your imagination. This is D&D. Not, Monopoly."
Imagination doesn't get you out of every bind. At least it shouldn't. I find it equally bad when a player can get away with murder simply by anticipating the DMs thoughts or when the DM restricts the players simply because they weren't creative enough.
For instance, it's annoying when 3 players use their biggest daily powers against an enemy, each doing around 30-40 damage a piece against a big, nasty creature, realizing this is going to be hard. Then one PC suddenly has an idea. The roof of the cave was described as being unstable. He shoots a basic ranged arrow at the roof. The DM says "Excellent, you are being creative, the roof collapses and immediate does the other 500 points of damage needed to kill the monster."
What really happened is that the DM planted an idea by giving a hint of what he wanted the players to do. Then rewarded them for coming up with the idea that he gave them. As soon as that happened, they ceased playing D&D and began playing the "Guess what the DM was thinking" game. Since, guessing what the DM is thinking lets you do 500 points of damage while everyone else has to roll to hit in order to do 30 damage.
The reverse can be true as well. If you come up with an explanation your DM likes, you get to use your powers. This requires knowing your DM well enough to know what he likes. The players who are better at reading the DM get to be more powerful in game.
It ceases to be a game about playing a character who has cool powers in a fantasy universe and instead becomes a game about being yourself and attempting to use your power of imagination in order to wow your DM.
