gimme back my narration

[Tigerbunny]

...I prefer to imagine that the underlying world the game takes place in is a "working" world, just like ours but with elves, magic, dragons, etc. That's the only way that's fun for me.

I hear this all the time from people, but then I think about the real world, which really does work by a set of universal, consistent, logical rules. Which hardly anybody living in it reasons out correctly by mere observation and common sense. Indeed, observation & common sense will give you wrong answers in some pretty fundamental ways in the real world.

In contrast to THAT world, a world that actually does work on a small, explicit set of visible rules + a whole lot of "story logic" (you know, the kind that human brains use much more often than formal logic?) seems pretty comprehensible and fun to explore.

Then again, I like stories & games. I'm not particularly interested in rigor in my fantasy. But even for those who are, I have a hard time understanding how it's even possible - it sure isn't easy for the real world.

 

[Scribble]

I'll object to that. To my eye, the whole "flavor text vs. rule text" is both recent and unwelcome. In Classic D&D the whole work was just "rules". There may have been parts easier to change and parts harder to change, but there was no "fence" between them, and any description had potential side-effects you could use to your immediate advantage in-game.

When did I say anything about flavor Vrs rules? My point was that flavor has alwyas been easier to change then the rules, and that it's always had elements of flavor not called out rules wise. If you want them to have an effect, that's perfectly valid, but nothing is actually mentioend in the rules.

What do the rules say about how easy it is to spot a magic missile? Can you see by a magic missile?

What about entropic shield?

What if I color my armor white? Or Green? Or If I paint a big eye on my shield?

Do the rules have an issue with me making a magic speaking tube instead of a mouth? Or instead of a mouth making it look like a parrot? What if I just want it to look like an orc mouth instead of a human mouth because I'm an orc casting a spell? If I make any of those changes will it effect what the spell does?

What if instead of a bit of wool and a piece of metal I use a pickle and a copper wire? I'm still using components, what difefrence does the actual object make?

What if I just go generic and say: "I use my components to cast the spell." Do the rules break down?

If I write my scrolls in blue ink instead of black do I still get my loan? err wait...

None of these things have any kind of specific effect called out in the rules. If you want to make them have an effect in your game, cool, you have every right to do so, but changing them doesn't have any effect on the rules in the book.

The original rules used 1d6 for every weapon and all other aspects were just flavor. Oh you use a sword instead of a dagger? d6 damage! An axe? cool it does d6 damage!

I don't believe there's a new "fence" being made... I think it's just a case of people paying attention to how flavor and rules interact, and using that to the game's advantage.

 

[Kishin]

So pardon us if we're trying to work this out as a group here at EN World rather than do it alone at home. If this isn't your cup of tea, there are many other threads here at EN World that may be better suited to your style of game. But don't tell us that our idea of fun is bad or wrong (which is exactly what you did with your condescending comment).

I never said your style of game was badwrongfun, sorry to say.

4th Edition assumes you're not going to approach the game the way you choose to approach it. When you come at it that simulationist, it doesn't work as well. Its entirely a case of trying to put round pegs in square holes.
No matter how much you try to work it out over ENworld, alone at home, etc. This will never change. 4E's' holes' will never reshape to accommodate the simulationist pegs you're trying to put into them. To reuse my above example, I don't blame my DVD player for not being able to make toast. I watch DVDs on it, and make my toast in the toaster.

 

[Delta]

When did I say anything about flavor Vrs rules? My point was that flavor has alwyas been easier to change then the rules, and that it's always had elements of flavor not called out rules wise.

Yep, that's what I disagree with.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I never said your style of game was badwrongfun, sorry to say.

Of course not. You just stated that my preferred gaming style involved "Completely overthinking things", which isn't an insult at all. It's hardly like the level of thought that goes into a game could be a subjective preference, right? You just were stating an objective fact when you said I "over think things", as impartial and cool as observing the color of the sky or that a gravity well points towards the largest nearby mass.

I would just like to note, and I am totally impartial and objective in this, I assure you, that not thinking as hard as I do about the game rules and their in-game interpretation involves numbered steps including "Pull wool over my eyes", "Turn brain off", and "Stick fingers in ears and shout 'Nah nah nah' until cognitive dissonance ameliorates." These steps can be skipped by people for whom considering n-order effects and recursive systems is just too complicated to grok with their tiny little heads.

Which isn't saying that you're dumb or that this style is badwrongfun at all. Really. It's just the truth.

4th Edition assumes you're not going to approach the game the way you choose to approach it. When you come at it that simulationist, it doesn't work as well. Its entirely a case of trying to put round pegs in square holes.

No matter how much you try to work it out over ENworld, alone at home, etc. This will never change. 4E's' holes' will never reshape to accommodate the simulationist pegs you're trying to put into them. To reuse my above example, I don't blame my DVD player for not being able to make toast. I watch DVDs on it, and make my toast in the toaster.

And yet, here I am, having a discussion with the OP and our fellow gamers, discussing the whys and hows of 4E's shortcomings (a necessary step to writing house rules that make it a better match to our tastes). Thanks so much for your contribution to our efforts. I know that being told to "Give up, go home" is always very motivating and inspirational regardless of context - not just at EN World.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm not particularly interested in rigor in my fantasy.

Whereas I enjoy being rigorous the way many people enjoy eating chocolate. I actually get excited by a good Socratic argument.

Thankfully I realize that this condition is rare, and most people do not enjoy a good Socratic interrogation of their deep-seated beliefs and personal preferences. So "game on" as it pleases you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4E's' holes' will never reshape to accommodate the simulationist pegs you're trying to put into them.

If this is true (and I don't for 4 minutes believe this to be true), then 4e is a suffocating cage from which there is no escape, a limited field, a pre-described grid that you can't go off of. D&D has been many things, but the bywords of every edition -- from Gygax through Rule 0, have been "Do What Thou Wilt."

(of course, there's frequently the corollary of "you're mostly on your own!" that the two most recent editions have tried to alleviate to varying degrees in varying places)

Of course, if it's not true, then you probably shouldn't shut down discussion of 4e's flaws, the end result of which is actually to make each table have more fun.

So is 4e a confined corral of our imaginary wilderness, unlike any edition before it? Or can we talk about the subjective flaws in order to improve it for us, and, perhaps, for anybody else who might be watching?

 

[Kishin]

If this is true (and I don't for 4 minutes believe this to be true), then 4e is a suffocating cage from which there is no escape, a limited field, a pre-described grid that you can't go off of. D&D has been many things, but the bywords of every edition -- from Gygax through Rule 0, have been "Do What Thou Wilt."

(of course, there's frequently the corollary of "you're mostly on your own!" that the two most recent editions have tried to alleviate to varying degrees in varying places)

Of course, if it's not true, then you probably shouldn't shut down discussion of 4e's flaws, the end result of which is actually to make each table have more fun.

So is 4e a confined corral of our imaginary wilderness, unlike any edition before it? Or can we talk about the subjective flaws in order to improve it for us, and, perhaps, for anybody else who might be watching?

Rule 0 is always the exception, and a rules system by default is a confined corral of your imaginary wilderness.

Its not impossible to 'go off the grid'. Its just significantly more difficult, and will cause you added frustration. Ultimately, the choice is still yours, but to go off the grid and then complain about how the grid isn't doing you any favors anymore is a bit counterproductive.

Of course not. You just stated that my preferred gaming style involved "Completely overthinking things", which isn't an insult at all. It's hardly like the level of thought that goes into a game could be a subjective preference, right?

I know that being told to "Give up, go home" is always very motivating and inspirational regardless of context - not just at EN World.

Actually, I'm going to stick with 'don't try to make toast with your DVD player' again. But I'm done listening to someone play games rife with semantics so that they can chisel out a slab of offense out of the nothingness of the air. Feel free to continue completely misinterpreting
everything I said to bolster your argument about how a system not designed to do what you want it to do doesn't do what you want it to do.

 

[GlaziusF]

Of course not. You just stated that my preferred gaming style involved "Completely overthinking things", which isn't an insult at all. It's hardly like the level of thought that goes into a game could be a subjective preference, right? You just were stating an objective fact when you said I "over think things", as impartial and cool as observing the color of the sky or that a gravity well points towards the largest nearby mass.

Yep, it was.

Because I see it too.

You're inventing obstacles to put in your own way and then complaining about how you can't get over the obstacles you invented yourself.

That is badwrongfun.

I mean, why stop there? Why not assume that Twin Strike is you teaming up with your twin? Where does that twin come from? What's its name? Is its hair color the same as yours, or different? Was it a fraternal or identical twin? HOW CAN I USE TWIN STRIKE WHEN I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I HAVE A TWIN?!

You're assuming that a power doesn't do what it says in the "effects" box if the flavor text implies differently. That's where the problem starts.

 

[Mallus]

As a roleplaying game with castles & kingdoms and NPCs I prefer to imagine that the underlying world the game takes place in is a "working" world...

Without sarcasm, I ask: how's that working out for you? Personally, I've never encountered a D&D world that held up to much scrutiny. I've never seen a game that honestly deserved to be called a 'simulation' of anything... except, perhaps, a simulation of a crappy fantasy novel (and I mean "crappy fantasy novel" in the loving, not the pejorative, sense, seeing as I'm a fan of many of them --David Eddings, I'm looking at you...).

I have to ask "What does this rule represent in the game world? How to the PCs and NPCs perceive this rule's function?"

See, asking questions like these make me wonder why charging knights on horseback don't posses inertia (in D&D 3.x).