This is false. It's not a roleplaying game if what you do fictionally has no impact on what you do mechanically. Plain and simple. You simply CANNOT impact what you do in Monopoly by roleplaying things out in the fiction.
You're right, you don't have all the choices you have in real life. Which isn't a requirement for a role playing game. You can't choose to get a job as a computer programmer in a D&D game, since computers don't exist. You also can't choose to settle down and stop adventuring in most D&D games, since that would cause you to leave the group and stop playing the game. You need to accept certain limitations as part of playing a game.
In the same way, you wouldn't be able to to stop rolling dice and moving forward in a Monopoly RPG. That's the way the game world works. Stop doing that, and you aren't playing the game anymore. The "fiction" of this world is about a bunch of nomads moving from place to place as they buy properties. If you stop being one of these nomads, then you aren't existing in the "Fiction". This world doesn't have people who aren't nomads.
The same thing applies to D&D. By not allowing fiction in the game to impact the mechanical functions of the game, you're turning it into a board game. That's fine if you want to have that experience. I'm not knocking it. But, let's not be naive and call it roleplaying.
Unless you change the "Fiction" of the game to conform to the rules of the game so there is no gap. Since the fiction of the game only exists in the head of the DM and the players, it can be changed at will. You are assuming you need lock picks to open locks because you need those things in real life. You are assuming no one should be able to grab swarms because it works that way in real life.
No where in any D&D book does it say these things. In fact, Thievery works just fine without lock picks.
I think you need to broaden your horizons as far as RPGs. What games have you played?
D&D 1e, D&D 2e, D&D 3e, D&D 3.5e, D&D 4e, Shadowrun, Star Wars(WEG and D20), Gamma World, Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, Paranoia(both old and new), Beyond the Supernatural, Champions, Heroes Unlimited, GURPS, Legend of the Five Rings, Mech Warrior, D20 Modern, Ninjas and Superspies, Vampire: The Masquerade(both tabletop and LARP), Havok(a LARP system), Call of Cthulu(old and D20), Dragonstar, Middle Earth RPG(old version), Marvel Super Heroes, World of Warcraft RPG, HARN, Star Trek RPGs(all versions), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and an RPG made up by my friend for fun (the Smurfs RPG).
I've read through but not played the Everquest RPG, Hackmaster, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Lord of the Rings(Decipher version), Ninja Burger RPG, Pathfinder, Sengoku, and Mage: The Ascension.
Also, a large number of video RPGs. Although, I'm assuming that you don't consider those RPGs.
If you want to play a "anime" oriented game, and I'm interested in a more classic fantasy experience, we need to reconcile those differences and figure out what kind of theme we're going for in the campaign.
My philosophy, after playing as many different games as I have is to use the best system for what you want. "Classic fantasy" works pretty well with any edition of D&D before 3rd, or with a system like HARN or Palladium Fantasy. Gurps and Hero can be made to emulate that genre pretty well.
4e D&D is meant to simulate a way higher level of fantasy than previous editions. And it does it well. But when you attempt to apply genre conventions from older editions of D&D directly onto 4e, you run into a couple rough edges. I realized this shortly after reading the books and decided I needed to go into 4e with a different philosophy on DMing than I have previous games.
I never once said anything about realism, except that I don't give a
about it.
It's coming from your imagination. The same as where mine is coming from. And, when we tell this story, when we describe our actions and our characters, we're created a shared story.
This here IS my point. Yes, it's coming from your imagination. But who decides whether I am capable of destroying the entire world with my mind or not? I'm sure that there are creatures within the fiction who might be capable of that. There are Psionics, people can use the power of their mind to kill people. Who is to say I don't have the power to blow up the whole world with my mind?
Normally, it is a combination of the DM's imagination and the rules. Anything not said in the rules has to come from the DM's imagination(and possibly a player's IF the DM allows it).
So, if the rules say "you can grab any creature" and you're DM says "You can only grab a creature if you can give me a valid explanation as to how you do that, and I get to decide what is valid or not based on my image of how the world works", then the fiction comes entirely from the DM.
In which case, you aren't playing the game anymore. You are playing the DM. If the DM feels that stretchy hands which expand to cover the swarm are "Plausible" in his eyes, then you win. If he thinks that isn't "Plausible" then you fail. But nothing in the game says if that's plausible or not.
You're right. So describe it for me.
And if someone says, "I don't want to. There's a description of how the power works in the book. You want to know, you look it up. I'm tired and not in a great mood today. I just want to grab this creature so that he doesn't kill our Cleric next round." Then what do you do? Do you kick the player out of your game because he isn't good with descriptions? I know a number of my friends are bad at them.
Nope. The rules are there to resolve the fiction. Fiction is the fiction. Seriously. Saying, "I roll my Intimidate skill" is NOT fiction. There's NOTHING there that is fictional. That is a real world thing you are announcing.
Saying "I roll my Intimidate skill" IS fiction. The intimidate skill and how it works in the fiction world is described in the book. It explains the kind of things you do with Intimidate. Saying "I use my Intimidate skill" is basically saying "My character, who is much better at Intimidating people than I am comes up with an appropriate insult that would REALLY scare the crap out of the guy. I mean, he'd do anything we want him to. My character is that good at Intimidating people. I can't come up with threats that would affect people nearly as well as him though, so I'll just rely on his skill instead of mine."
Which doesn't affect the "fiction" at all. The fiction is what happens IN the game world. The character still comes up with an appropriate threat and the guy he was intimidating still spills the beans.
The only difference is what I said in real life. The fiction is the story created by what we say in real life. No one is jotting down everything we say and making a book out of that. Instead we say "I Intimidate him" and in the game world my character does somethings. We all use our imaginations to imagine exactly WHAT was said.
Not if we're playing a roleplaying game. You're not masturbating with your voice if your fictional actions with your character(s) has a direct impact on the game (see my Monopoly example above).
So, what's the difference in impact on the game between:
Player: "I Intimidate him!"
DM: "He squirms away from you, clearly afraid. He says 'Please don't hurt me. I'll tell you what you want to know! Anything!'"
Player: "I ask him if he's seen the guy we're chasing."
DM: "Oh, yes...him. He was here 2 days ago. I saw him leave to the east. He said he was heading to Eastfair."
AND
Player: "I pull out my sword and sharpen it, slowly sliding the whetstone up and down the blade. I say 'It would be a shame if I were to drop this sword right now. It's very sharp and likely to cut you in two if it were to fall on you."
DM: "He squirms away from you, clearly afraid. He says 'Please don't hurt me. I'll tell you what you want to know! Anything!'"
Player: "I say, 'Have to seen a man, human, about 5'6 tall who was wearing leathers and a blue cloak. I am looking for him!'"
DM: "Oh, yes...him. He was here 2 days ago. I saw him leave to the east. He said he was heading to Eastfair."
Other than the length the words took to say, and how much we might enjoy hearing one set of words other than the other...what difference did my words have on the "fiction" of what was happening in game? I don't disagree that some people have a preference for the second one because it is easier to imagine what might have been said when you have someone narrate it to you word for word and it's a little more immersive.
However, when I play I just imagine the second one even when the first one is said. My imagination doesn't need help. In fact, since the extra text didn't have any direct impact on the game, by your definition it is "masturbating with your voice".
I think that depends on the magical power and the sword.
This just proves my point. It doesn't matter about any of that. It matters whether the rules say you are capable of shooting the planet into the sun.
Let's say that you have an average +6 sword and are a level 30 fighter. Your most powerful ability hits a lot of people with your sword and knocks them down and stuns them, if you are lucky. If you are a wizard with a +6 wand, you likely have an ability that brings down meteor from the sky in order to hit your enemies. It's RULES effect is perfectly balanced with the fighter power. It hits some enemies, knocks them down and stuns them.
However, it's much easier to say "I call down a meteor that knocks the planet out of it's orbit and hits the sun" than it is to say "I...hit the planet with my sword. It's magical remember...and knock it out of orbit." Some DMs might allow both things to work, but 90% of DMs are going to rule that the first is "plausible" and supported by the "fiction" while the second is not.
This is an issue with 4E, not roleplaying.
Some roleplaying adds to the problem, however. If it takes an hour to play a battle with everyone saying "I hit Reflex 22 with magic missile for 15 damage" then it takes two hours to get through the same combat with everyone saying "I wave my hands and chant as power channels up my arms. They glow blue which coalesces at the end of my wand and then bursts out in a blue, glowing missile that smacks the enemy in the chest, searing it. I hit Reflex 22 for 15 damage."
And considering all the extra text doesn't affect the in game world at all, it isn't needed other than as verbal masturbation.
That's fine. If you're playing "I roll to hit. I roll damage. Next?" Which is more boring? I don't want to hear that 50 times in a row. THAT to me is boring.
You're going to have to hear it one way or another. It's not like using a flowery description is going to prevent the need to say what defense you hit, what you rolled, and how much damage you did. Would I prefer it if no one had to speak to relay critical information in order to make the game faster? I would love it. I'd be one of the people that would love to take the dice entirely out of people's hands and have a computer do all the calculation so the player just decided the power and what targets to hit and we could avoid the needless looking up of attack bonuses, defenses and hitpoints. But until then, I must hear at least that minimum amount of information.
I want to hear how you're using that Magic Missile NOW in THIS situation in THIS moment on THIS particular enemy.
The thing is, there are only SO many ways to say "A blue bolt streaks across the battlefield and hits the guy." After a while, you are doing nothing but repeating the same thing. Everyone at the table knows what a magic missile looks like at that point. We can all imagine it.
Does it really take that much time to say, "Two bolts of bluish force streak out of my staff and strike at the two minions."
It can if it is being done by every player on every one of their actions. If it's quick enough, I don't care if someone describes their power. Sometimes it's nice to get a little color in the game. I'm not going to require it to use your powers, however.
Really? That was hard? You're telling me you want to hear. "I use my At-Will attack power Magic Missile. I got a 20. For 6 damage..." "Ok, The minions die."
No, I'm saying it doesn't matter what I want. Just because I'm the DM doesn't make me an overlord. If my players don't feel like giving descriptions of their powers, that's perfectly fine with me. I'll use my own imagination. If they describe their powers, I'd prefer they not go too far with it, both for time sake and just in case they decide to stomp on my narrative with their over describing.
The last thing I want someone to do is start saying "I stab the creature in the heart, spraying blood all over the place, and he falls to the ground dead." Especially when, I'm the one that gets to decide if you stabbed the creature in the heart. I describe things, not my players. Also, the player has no idea how many hitpoints the monster has left, he doesn't get to decide when the monster dies. Also, the creature might not even have a heart. As the DM, I get to decide if it does or not.
The DM must adhere to the rules and fictionally justify it as well. I never said the DM could give monsters powers fictionally. I said you have to justify your actions it fictionally. If the fire elemental is not immune to poison, the DM must supply a reason why, fictionally. Plain and simple.
You tell me, Majoru, why is a Fire Elemental not immune to poison?
Don't get me wrong, I can justify it like 20 different ways that aren't very plausible. I know that poison contains chemicals that interact with the molecules of a human body in bad ways, killing off the cells. Since Fire Elementals aren't made up of the same things humans are, it likely would have no effect on it at all. Anything else just isn't very plausible.
On the other hand, maybe the word "poison" means something different in the game world than it does in real life. Maybe poison consists of chemicals that work the same way against every living creature in existence. Maybe fire elementals ARE made of the same things humans are. No way to tell, since they don't actually exist. None of that is all that plausible. The laws of physics don't work that way. But they work as stop-gap explanations of the rules.
However, this started as a discussion about the ability for a DM to restrict the use of a grab on a swarm. Since it isn't immune to grabbing, it's the DM's job to supply a reason why you can grab it, fictionally, plain and simple. Exactly the same as the poison immunity case.
Not at all. I gave a perfect example earlier in the thread. Powers are never the whim of the DM. I never said that. I said, "To do something with your character mechanically, you need to do something fictionally."
But just above, you said that a fire elemental isn't immune to poison so it was the DM's responsibility to justify why poison works on it. But in order to use my grab power on a creature who isn't immune to grabs, it's the player's responsibility to justify it?
And even if it's the player's responsibility, who gets to decide if it is suitably justified? That was my point here. You are saying "You need to do something fictionally to do it mechanically. You need to come up with a proper justification, or you can't do it(i.e. if you can't justify it, it can't grab a swarm)" The DM decides if something is properly justified. Therefore, whether you can use your power or not depends on your DM.
Again. No.
no. Where in my example above did the Rogue
not get to attack the elemental with poison? Please. Show it to me.
You did not. However, another DM might. Based on the idea that in their "fiction" fire elementals don't have hearts and therefore, the description isn't justified enough to allow you to poison them. My point is, that each case becomes different from DM to DM. If you use the right words and impress the DM, he's likely to say "Awesome, I like that description, you get to use your power", if you use the wrong words(even if they sound justified to you), the DM says "No, you can't do that..it makes no sense in the fiction".
I like fiction, i.e. roleplaying. Sure. I also like board games, but when I play D&D, I don't want to play a board game.
Roleplaying is playing a role. That's why it's called that. Fiction is a story that isn't real. If I say "The man walked down the street, he then died as a piano fell on him", that's fiction. A game has rules and goals and you attempt to accomplish those goals by following the rules.
Combine the 3 together and you get a Roleplaying Game. Where you play a character in a fictional world and write a story by attempting to accomplish your goals using the rules.
"A man walked down the street." is fiction.
"A dark, scary man with brown hair and a scar on his face walked down the streets of New York." is also fiction.
The same way "I shoot him with a magic missile" is fiction.
One is just more descriptive. You don't like fiction, you like description.
How is this relevant at all? It's not.
I was trying to illustrate that when I was taught to play D&D, it was with even less description and I never once thought I wasn't playing a roleplaying game. That it was also not the opinion of the other 13 people in our group that we were doing anything other than playing a roleplaying game. And, that the issue of description wasn't an edition thing. Also, that I like description to, that's why I decided to actually add more to the game than I was used to when I first started playing.
Everything has changed, hopefully. You're telling me every battle you get in has the same enemies? The same circumstances? The same whatever? I find that hard to believe.
No. But the description of a magic missile hitting the enemy doesn't change simply because I'm fighting an orc instead of a goblin. It's just that I substitute the word "orc" for "goblin".
"A blue bolt streaks out of my hands and hits the <insert word here> for X damage."
"Majoru, your wizard steps up onto the deck of the hovering airship. Lord Baltu is there and he has your sister in his arms, using her as a human shield. Now how do you use your Magic Missile?"
I'm a Fighter/Thief, not a Wizard. Heh. But, sure, Let's say this was the situation.
"How big of a penalty do I apply to my attack roll, DM? If it's really big or if I think I have a chance of hitting my sister, I won't use it. But if I think I can do it, then I shoot the magic missile at Lord Baltu, trying to avoid my sister."
The description is not masturbating with your voice, because your description directly impacts the fact that you are using the power in the fiction.
No it doesn't. When I tell the DM that I am using the power, that effects that I am using the power in the fiction. The description doesn't have any effects at all.
No. It's heavily dependent on what's in YOUR head.
Only if your DM allows it. 90% of what happens in game happens because the DM planned it, the DM thinks it's plausible, the DM has decided that the "fiction" of his world includes whatever description you've given and so on.
Are you kidding? You don't think spirits and undead have weak points?
I don't care if they have weak points or not. But, they were immune to sneak attacks in 3e under the justification that they didn't have weak points. So, it isn't me, it's the designers of 3e D&D that believe they don't have weak points. And because the designers thought so, a LOT of DMs I know think so as well.
I know DMs that if you told them "In D&D, players HAVE to justify their actions in the fiction or they can't do it" then sneak attacks would immediately no longer be allowed against undead, since they don't have weak points.
"I strike at the zombie's sinewy tissue that connects it's neck with it's head."
Bam. Sneak attack. It took me about 2 seconds of game time to come up with and say that.
Until your DM says "That doesn't allow you to sneak attack. You are telling me that you think the sinewy tissue that connects it's neck with it's head is somehow more vulnerable in a zombie than anywhere else on it's body? That's stupid. It's magically held together by evil magic that keeps it moving even though it has taken enough wounds to kill it. You can cut it's head off and that wouldn't matter. You don't get your sneak attack against it."
You justify it, but your DM doesn't have to accept your justification.
Same thing applies to grabbing a swarm. If I justify it simply by saying "I grab the swarm, with my hand. I hold it tight and it can't leave" then the DM should either accept the justification. If he doesn't, then whether you can use the power is up to the whims of the DM again.
Omg... The designers relied on fiction?? HOW DARE THEY!
I'm telling you that in 4e, they did NOT rely on fiction. That fiction ceased to be THE deciding factor on what abilities an enemy has. I'm saying that all of the "fiction" based reasons why Oozes, Undead, and Constructs were immune to sneak attack went away in 4e when they realized they were hurting game balance. All of the fiction based reasons why fire elementals were immune to fire went away when they realized players were having no fun being the "fire based wizard" and not being able to harm the fire elementals.
So fiction got thrown out in exchange for game balance and fun. At that is the root of 4e D&D. I'm HAPPY that's the root of 4e D&D, that's why I play it. I was that player being the "fire based wizard" in 3e and having no fun as none of my powers would work.
Which is why I don't like the idea of DMs throwing "fiction based restrictions" back into the game. When I am no longer able to grab swarms because I can't come up with a reason it would be allowed, it'll be like I'm playing 3e again.
Why are you trying to argue with me about things I never said and things I agree with?
My point was...if you allow the lack of justification to prevent you from using a power(i.e. you can't grab that swarm, you haven't justified it) thus breaking the rules, then the reverse should be true. You should be able to use a justification to allow you to do things the rules say you can't.
No. We just established that if a creature is immune to fire, it is immune to fire. Period. The DM should explain this in the fiction, just like you should.
I don't know it's immune to fire. I'm not the DM. I'm just a guy playing a game of D&D. I just describe my power as shooting out and hurting the enemy like I always do. It's up to the DM to describe the effects of my powers, since I don't know 90% of what happens in the game world. That's the DMs job.
How is that possible if you don't describe anything? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Because cinematic things happen in the game. We leap over large chasms while being chased by nasty creatures. We survive things that no human could survive in a larger than life, movie-like way. We climb the highest mountains in the world surviving days of snow storms. They are all cinematic scenes. Given that cinematic means "movie-like" and often implies grand visuals.
If someone made a movie about what was going on in our games, it would be extremely grand and visually impressive.
We only describe it in terms of "I shoot a magic missile at the orc" but the "movie of our game" shows the magic missile in all of it's CGI glory. But those special effects are all firmly in our own minds, we don't need to narrate them in order to get the image in our imaginations.
Wrong. You never knew about the ember heart if you didn't describe it. Hell, I never imagined a fire elemental with an ember heart until this very thread where the fiction demanded we describe it. So, don't tell me that we'd have all imagined that somehow if we never described it.
I'd have imagined something. Maybe not a ember heart, but maybe I'd have imagined the rogue sticking his dagger in the back of the elemental and the elemental roaring in pain as the Rogue's dagger glowed with magic and the fire around it became darker.
Either way, whether he hit it in an ember heart or in its back doesn't really change the fiction dramatically. In the end, it's one of 10 or 20 hits it takes to bring down the elemental. And it certainly isn't an important part of the story. Even if every player at the table imagines something slightly different, it doesn't matter to the story in the long run, and each one is probably an equally good version of what happened.
I'd probably help you out if you were struggling and tell you about the shimmering parts of the ghost that seem to come in and out of the material world, beckoning to be brought forth from its ethereal state.
The thing is, you are a very allowing DM. Most DMs I know would say no if you didn't come up with a reason that fit their version of the fiction. They are the arbiter of the rules and they get the final say.
Plus, you've already said that "I stab it with my dagger" isn't enough justification for you. So there's a point where you would say no as well. Or at the very least, a point where you'd do the describing for me.
Not at all. Justify how you use fireball underwater? The fighter doesn't have this problem.
It's easy. It's magically hot. It's not real fire, it's magic fire. It's summoned from a plane of pure fire, hotter than anything in existence. It gets to burn anywhere it wants.
Didn't we already cover this? I think so. Suit the fiction to YOUR group's preference. It's not the control of the DM the style of fiction your group wants to tell. It's your group's control.
And I think we get down to the real point here. It seems as if you are playing in a weird sort of extremely narrative game where the players get to make up the fiction. When we play there is only one fiction, that made up by the DM. You get to suggest ideas to him and he gets to say yes or no.
If you say "I grab the swarm using the wall of force I magically conjure around it" the DM has the right to say "You are a fighter, you can't conjure any walls of force. You don't have any way to grab the swarm. You can't use that power." As in, what you can and can't do is decided by the fiction of the world, which is decided by the DM.
Whether the DM bases the fiction of the world on books he's read, "common sense", "realism", "plausibility", or the rules of the game is up to him. Any addition to the "fiction" of the world by me requires approval of the DM. If the DM feels that my description doesn't fit the criteria he is using for the "fiction" of his or her game, then it doesn't get added.
Hopefully it does in the situation I presented earlier. If the enemy is holding your sister at his chest, hopefully you'd want to hit him in the shoulder.
That's what dice and modifiers are for. If I roll well enough, I hit the enemy. If I roll too low, I miss. Whether I hit the enemy in the head or shoulder in the above example doesn't matter, as it does the same amount of damage and doesn't hit the sister. It's a useless fact.
Not really. Takes me about two seconds to describe my blue bolts of force striking at Lord Baltu's shoulder.
No problem with that. Be quick about your descriptions and I'm happy to have them. Just don't require I come up with a description good enough to impress you before allowing me to use my powers.
Ok. Sure. How does this go against anything I said?
Sweet. Glad to know. Irrelevant to the conversation though.
You were saying that the game ceased to be any fun or even a roleplaying game if I said "I stab it with Deft Strike" rather than "I stab it in the left shoulder with my blade and then tear out the blade and watch him squirm in pain".
You asked me why you would even run a combat if you weren't going to describe it in detail. I was explaining why combat happens. None of which involved the description of my Deft Strike at all. I was trying to make the point that there ARE reasons to run a combat that don't involve describing whether you hit someone in the left shoulder or not.
We could play a boardgame with that exact premise. What makes it roleplaying is that our fight has fictional weight.
I agree. All of the fights in my game have fictional weight. They can determine whether we defeat the evil archmage or not. Whether I describe hitting an enemy in its shoulder or not doesn't change the fictional weight the combat has.
Sure. Let's describe that. When you use your Magic Missile against Lord Baltu, do you SAY anything to him first? What about your sister? Is she crying? Are you scared for her?
No, I don't say anything at all. I'm the strong, silent type. I'm worried about my sister, but I'm stoic looking and no one can tell. She might be crying, but it's not my job to describe anything other than what my character says and does. My sister is an NPC and I'm not allowed to describe her actions, only the DM can.
Yeah. What does this have to do with fiction? You can still do this with fiction. Tactics and powers and skills, these things are all methods for resolving the fiction.
You asked how I could possibly have fun unless I was describing things. I was explaining that my fun doesn't come from describing things. It comes from other areas of the game. But it's still the same game.
There are rules that cover this on page 42 of the DMG. Check 'em out. 500 points of damage would have to be a pretty high level custom maneuver.
Well, this point wasn't really leveled at 4e. But then, it can apply equally. Keep in mind that all the rules are guidelines. If you can tell a player "No, you can't grab that swarm because you can't justify it in the fiction" then you can equally say "I think a collapsing cave could do enough damage to kill an enemy outright. At least, that's what makes the most sense in the fiction. It seems completely contrary to the fiction that anyone should be able to survive that."
If the fiction drives the rules, then then rules get out of the way as soon as the fiction makes more sense with different rules. If the rules drive the fiction then I should be able to grab a swarm no matter what the fiction says.
but I've never suggested disallowing something because you DID something and it wasn't "good enough". I am saying, you have to DO something.
I did do something. I used my Grappling Strike power. It grabs an enemy with one hand and attacks it with the weapon in your other hand. You were saying that you wouldn't allow me to do that because I haven't described it well enough for you.
Not at all. I think we've exemplified that your examples are gross exaggerations and the DMG and rules clearly support the truth.
My entire discussion was because I disliked the idea that a DM would tell me "the rules don't apply here, only game fiction applies. If game fiction doesn't support the rules, then the rules are wrong and will be ignored in this situation."
I like the rules, as long as we continue to follow them and no one makes strange demands on me beyond the rules then I'm good with them. I just don't like being told "That description wasn't good enough. Try again." or "Game fiction implies there's no way you could poison them. I'm not going to allow poison to work even though the rules say it can."
