D&D 4E How does 4E hold up on verisimilitude?

[Keltheos]

Will do. The irony, of course, is that I read 8 pages into this thread to post the above.

 

[Voss]

Personally, I'm tired of the current fad where elitism is somehow a bad thing.

 

[tomBitonti]

So that clerics could heal *and* join the rest of the party in stomping Goblin ass.

In other words, to make playing a cleric more fun in actual play.

If you want to go through the effort to make it less fun, go for it.

Well ... having players look at you and say "that doesn't make any sense" isn't very fun. Also, having something in-game happen that you cannot explain, cannot extend in an intuitive way isn't very fun either. Plus, cases that don't make sense tend to lead to disagreements, and to time wasted arguing, which is definitely unfun.

 

[Mister Doug]

Well, going back to articles that The Gygax wrote about these issues and OD&D and AD&D, the to hit roll is a way of abstracting the chance that some portion of the flurry of attacks lands a telling hit, and hit points equal the abstract effect on the target's ability to avoid death. Gygax included in the AD&D Players' Handbook a paragraph on why hit points were of course an abstraction, and didn't make sense as a literal representation of ability to withstand wounds.

Attack rolls and damage have always overlapped. Back in OD&D, it was clearer that a level one character, on average, would die if hit-- hit dice and damage were both rolled on d6s with limited ways to increase either hit points or damage. More advanced characters were more likely to survive more fights because they had more hit dice.

I'm okay with HP being more than just physical wounds, but this definition of their abstract-ness frustrates me to no end.

Let's say Bob has 30 hit points and an 18 AC. George the Goblin rolls a 19 to hit, so that hits Bob; George then deals 8 points of damage.

Assuming that when you hit bloodied is when you first take actual damage (seems a legit assumption), that means that Bob was not actually hit by the weapon - he dodges, or it's a near miss, or George screwed up his swing a bit, something.

...but isn't that represented by the attack roll?

It's a question of correspondence. What does the attack roll represent? What does the damage represent? Some people are okay with these things being nebulous, and that's cool, but these things irk me. I want these things - HP, attack rolls, damage, AC - to be relatively "concrete" things. Abstract is fine, but the abstract definitions shouldn't overlap, which seems to be happening here.

And just in case... hong, I have no interest in hearing your mantra again.

 

[Spenser]

Personally, I'm tired of the current fad where elitism is somehow a bad thing.

Agreed. Particularly all this hating on "latte-sipping elitism". I mean, lattes are delicious! What's wrong with you people!

 

[Mistwell]

Personally, I'm tired of the current fad where elitism is somehow a bad thing.

I don't think it's a fad. It's not new in the sense that it's been around a concept for at least my entire lifetime (though it might be new to this field). The books I read on the topic all started in the 1970s and earlier.

Elitism for things like hobbies serve to bind a community tighter, which is a good thing, but to exclude newcomers from entering that community, which is a bad thing. For this particular hobby, I think our community is bound plenty tight without the need to resort to elitism to make it even tighter. However, the hobby does need (in my opinion) new blood, and elitism discourages that.

Can you tell me why using, for example, complex acronyms that are difficult to find definitions for is something that is a positive for this community? Or using words that you know are a great source of confusion and strife and usually result in the posting of further definitions, is something useful for this community?

To put it a different way (to borrow a phrase from a popular movie), can you think of any good reason to use the phrase "'I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request" instead of just saying "no", unless your intent is to communicate a sense of privilege (elitism)?

 

[Mister Doug]

Now what would have happened if Celia was the one who managed to bring Bob back from unconsciousness with her prayer, and then the warlord yelled at Bob to suck it up, such that Bob is no longer bloodied. Does the wound just stitch itself up because of the warlord? If the bloodied condition is an actual representation of being physically wounded, and the non bloodied condition is the state of not being physically wounded, then how can an inspiring word ever get you out of being bloodied?

The only way I can every see any HP related condition, whether it be 1HP, full HP, bloodied, or even unconsciousness, is if the entire aspect is abstract and never actually mean anything in game.

The mechanics may represent themselves in game such that they physically effect how thing turn out, but as in the situation above, if the warlord really was the one who got Bob to no longer be bloodied, then Bob really never was physically wounded, and it was only ever something that the warlord could "heal."

However at the same time, the ability for your scenario to take place must also be true. Therefor those two, as well as many other scenarios must exist at the same time. That can only ever work when everything is abstract as possible and never actually be represented in game as anything.

An honest question: is being bloodied in the new rules more problematic than the fact that in previous editions heroes were either fine (1 hp or more), unconscious (0hp), dying (-1 to -10) or dead? Was this more challenging to verisimilitude? If not, why not?

 

[Obryn]

Personally, I'm tired of the current fad where elitism is somehow a bad thing.

I don't remember arrogant snobbery ever being in vogue?

-O

 

[mmadsen]

I don't think it's a fad. It's not new in the sense that it's been around a concept for at least my entire lifetime (though it might be new to this field).

The current popularity of attacking elitism is clearly political in nature -- so we probably shouldn't debate whether it's right or wrong -- but it's based on the obvious disconnect between what the "coastal elites" take for granted and how that differs tremendously from what "ordinary Americans" care about.

Elitism for things like hobbies serve to bind a community tighter, which is a good thing, but to exclude newcomers from entering that community, which is a bad thing. [...] Can you tell me why using, for example, complex acronyms that are difficult to find definitions for is something that is a positive for this community?

None of that strikes me as elitist. Using jargon is perfectly normal for any group -- lawyers, scientists, policy wonks, whatever -- discussing a specialized topic.

And, as I mentioned earlier, I hardly think of using verisimilitude as either elitist or a fad that came about because it was cool.

People started using verisimilitude for the simple reason that when they said realism someone would always quip, "How can you be concerned about realism in a game with wizards and dragons?"

Verisimilitude is not a word most of us use in everyday conversation, but it is the correct word, and, more importantly, it sidesteps that facile "there are wizards and dragons" counterargument.

 

[KarinsDad]

No. Which is why at no point did you find anything in my post that said or implied that their opinion on the topic was invalid.

Can you please tell me what I said that resulted in you inferring that?

It's not semantics, and yes. I am complaining that it is a form of elitism, not semantics. It doesn't matter if you use, as a hypothetical example, an ancient Sanskrit word properly, if you are attempting to communicate a concept and failing to communicate. And my point is that the repeated use of the term is not fostering communication, but it is fostering elitism and a sense of exclusion for newcomers, which I find to be a bad thing.

They are not forced to do it. People choose to use a word that by now they know is not working well to communicate the concept they wish to communicate. If they continue to choose to use the word anyway, then they should expect people might not understand, and hence they might want to explain the definition again. All of that could be avoided if they simply used the definition itself, rather than the word. Using the word might in theory save time, but in practice having to explain it over and over again is causing much more of a time waster than simply using the definition itself rather than the word.

I am bothered by the fact that the motive to use it is, from my perspective, a form of elitism that serves to make newcomers feel excluded from the hobby. Because if the intent were to communicate, people would have always used the definition rather than the word. I think the intent was not to communicate - or rather not to communicate about that word - but was instead to send a message that the writer is superior in some way because they used a word that most people don't know. You see this often in, for example, academia.

I'm not sure what this has to do with point of view or validity - but hey, thanks for using another unnecessary acronym. It helps me convey my message, which is my goal.

I guess you missed that my post was attempting to be facetious and you took it literally.

You appeared to be ranting for the sake of ranting. There is no elitism from using that word, the elitism you are experiencing is self imposed.

The reason for using that word is that the word "realism" is not accurate and opens the door for invalid strawman counterarguments.

So in retrospect, the anti-4E verisimilitude crowd is damned if they do (use the word realism incorrectly) and damned if they don't (use the word verisimilitude instead and be denounced for being elitist).


In other words, your rant was dumb and merely another "anti-other side" white noise. I mean, come on. They are elitist for using the word verisimilitude? You are bothered by the "motive behind that word"?