Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Crazy Jerome]

To me, the idea that a rule "displays itself" in the game universe has it backward. The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first. The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.

In my ideal world, players should not say, "I have a fighter with Come and Get It. How do I describe this in the game world?" They should say, "I have a big guy with a sword, who likes to bait opponents into traps. What class and powers do I use to describe him in the rules?"

In practice, of course, it has never been that clear-cut. Even before 4E, players would often start with a class and then build a character concept around it...

Our table is very much biased towards a "concept first" approach to character design. And this is a big reason why we like 4E more than 3E. That flexibility of approach that Scribble talked about is a huge part of making that possible. We gladly give up the idea that the "fighter" label on the mechanics relates to something in-game, in order to have more of that. In fact, we did that in 3E, as much as we could. Comes from 13 years of Fantasy Hero prior to 3E, I guess. Plus, the limit of "not every possible concept is going to work in this system" is a feature, not a bug for us. Gets the creative juices flowing.

Now, it is true that we've always started the campaign with an idea of what kind of concepts, in general terrms, would be played. That necessarily means having some idea of which system is going to support them well. And most players have several concepts in mind that they are perfectly willing to pick one from. So if several of the concepts being discussed don't map well to 4E (or map much better to another system), then we'd merely play the other system. If only one person's first choice doesn't work, he or she has several more that are nearly as good.

So many people try to "play D&D with something else" that I think we sometimes lose sight of the fact that occasionally someone tries to "play something else with D&D".

I can see how a group that is primarily built around the idea of every player having a particular concept in mind, bringing it to the campaign which the DM has developed mainly independently, and then it all works--would find 4E very confining. I just can't imagine how 3E/3.5/PF would be much more freeing. Trying that kind of play with the idiosyncratic limits and traps in any d20 systems would drive me crazy (well, more crazy)--and send me straight off to GURPS or Hero.

 

[Dausuul]

As I see it, in 3E, "extraordinary," "supernatural," and "spell-like" are three different classes of "fantastic ability." They represent places where the fantasy world explicitly deviates from the real one. The only difference is in how they interact with other abilities.

Anti-magic shell will shut down a dragon's breath but not a monk's slow fall. That doesn't mean the monk's slow fall is a normal, mundane ability that someone in real life could do. It just means it's not in the category of stuff that's affected by anti-magic shell. There is a vague sense that extraordinary abilities are "mundane turned up to eleven," but that isn't a universal rule.

Also, citing monk abilities as examples of martial classes getting to do "magicky" stuff isn't quite fair, since monk is not a martial class.

 

[Cybit]

It's like playing Batman in a mutant game...except your group is Thor, the Hulk, Phoenix, and Superman.

Martial not being magical is fine, but then you run into the 3rd edition issue (and Pathfinder has the same issue) where you are chopped liver past 11th level as a martial character. I've noticed a high correlation between folks who used to play caster-y types in older editions, and those who do not like 4th. Magic being super kick ass is awesome...as long as you get to be the magical guy.

That said, I approve of the dual system idea -- you have D&D, which is the base mechanics, Basic D&D, which is more 4th Edition like (Vancian Power System, simplified due to level), and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which gives the building blocks to build a world, and is more immersive in that respect.

 

[Balesir]

The definition of the word supernatural is "outside of natural".

Actually, it's "above the natural", which is kind of the problem - an assumed superiority. But this word, and this view, is something of an anachronism as regards myth and legend, in any case. It - and most of the prescriptions you place on the worlds of D&D - are heavily predicated on a world view of scientific materialism. "Martial" can only mean "what is natural and possible according to science (or, worse, "common sense") if we assume a basic correctness for the scientific world view. This may be only reasonable for the real world, where the vast preponderance of evidence suggests that this is in fact so, but for a world where "magic" (or, better said, "arcane feats") are in the realm of proven fact, it seems far less tenable.

Our medieval forbears, it seems, would not have found the idea of "living dead" with minds in the least implausible, at least in Europe/Christendom. Their image of the living dead seems to have sprung from the Bible, which said that, on Judgement Day, everyone would rise from the grave - presumably with much the same faculties that they had in life. To be sure, if some individuals had arisen before Judgement Day it was a sure sign that something had gone seriously wrong - but that need not mean that the risen should be in any other state than would be normal and "natural" for the risen to be in...

Insisting on a basically scientific materialist world view has a certain logic - and certain merits - in a world where the players of the game are, generally, raised on the scientific materialist world-view. On the other hand, insisting that a mythic and/or legendary world conform to a scientific materialist world view contains in itself a degree of illogic, and generates certain problems.

To me, the idea that a rule "displays itself" in the game universe has it backward. The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first. The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.

This is one way to formulate game rules, sure. If you want to prioritise anything but "immersion" and Simulationist, explorative play, however, it is a strictly inferior one for several reasons.

Where I think this approach really comes unravelled with D&D, however, is that D&D has, as core "tropes", levels, hit points and xp. If these elements of the rules really do describe real phenomenae in the game world, it is, in my experience, extraoriinarily difficult to get the game world to make any sense in an "internal consistency" way. It just doesn't "fit"; people can't be people any more when they can wipe out armies and yet are not rulers. Rulers cannot rule in any "normal" way when unchecked peons may develop into superheroes. In short, I think "simulationist", "explorative" or "world-based" play is a chimaera in a classic D&D world setting.

Clearly, this doesn't prevent some folk pursuing such play - all I can say is "good luck with that".

 

[pauljathome]

Has this ever happened in your game? Or anyone else's?

In my game, a massively intelligent wizard has never decided to suddenly close with the fighter to attack. But the wizard (or archer, or ...) has found himself wrongfooted by the fighter, and in melee when he didn't want to be, or has tried to fall back but found no clear path and ended up next to the fighter, or . . .
.

I am completely failing to understand your point.

I (the player) am looking at the battle mat. I SEE the wizard suddenly pulled towards the fighter (who is NOT moving). How the heck can I possibly interpret that as the wizard being wrongfooted or finding no clear path or anything else?

But my main problem is that I'm trying to play the fighter and see what happens from his point of view. As the fighter, I do what, exactly? And this causes the wizard to charge at me with his dagger (NOT hit me, just charge at me) why?

My problem is immersion. I want to know what happens from my fighters point of view. The guy who CAN see the world around him.

But I think that I've said my piece now. I'll try and not reply to any more CAGI posts .

 

[pauljathome]

A "bit of a problem"? My current Pathfinder PC has 3 EX abilities; she can turn the surrounding air into an invisible barrier that protects her as well as plate armor, see and hear at a distance, including around corners, as per the clairvoyance and clairaudinece spells, via air currents, and, 2/day, create a terrifically damaging burst of thunder --13d6-- in an area, at range, presumably by clapping her dainty hands together.
.

That is clearly absurd. Those should be Supernatural Abilities (if not spell like) and not Ex.

Please don't interpret my not liking CAGI as liking everything in 3.5 or PF .

 

[pemerton]

A Fireball doesn't ignite material in 4E.

This is not true. It does fire damage, and fire damage burns.

That rule has only been around for a little over a year. For two years, that rule did not exist.

Pages 65-66 of the 4e DMG:

Damaging Objects

Like characters, objects have hit points and defense scores (except for Will defense; see Object Immunities and Vulnerabilities, below)...

Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there are a few exceptions​

I think this makes it pretty unambigous that objects can be damaged. And the exceptions mentioned on page 66 are all to do with damage types.

The targets of a Fireball spell are the creatures in the area. Not paper in the area. Not a table.

Here is the wording of Fireball on page B18 of my Moldvay Basic rulebook:

This spell creates a missile of fire that explodes into a ball of fire 40' diameter when it strikes a target. The fire ball will cause 1-6 (1d6) points of fire damage per level of the caster to all creatures within this area. If a victim of a fire ball saves vs. Spells, the spell will only do 1/2 damage.​

Even as a 10 year old, however, I worked out that the spell would burn objects as well as people.

It requires handwaving or house rules from the DM to allow an Arcana check to sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon.

No. It needs page 42.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's like playing Batman in a mutant game...except your group is Thor, the Hulk, Phoenix, and Superman.

Wait, did you just imply that Batman would actually lose to any of those characters

I've noticed a high correlation between folks who used to play caster-y types in older editions, and those who do not like 4th. Magic being super kick ass is awesome...as long as you get to be the magical guy.

I don't like 4th edition (even if I find a lot of it interesting in theory). I liked 3.X for a long time. A chunk of this was due to the magic system. When I did play 3.X, however, I played three spellcasters. One was level 2, and two were level 1. All the rest of my characters were mundane characters.

But, when I created my own SRD-based RPG, I completely ripped out the 3.X magic system and installed my own (which was toned down, though much more versatile). So, go figure. I definitely like 3.X's approach more, but that doesn't mean that the execution shouldn't be improved to fit my tastes (at least, when I'm making my own game!).

Just my thoughts though. The Batman thing just stuck out... As always, play what you like

 

[RHGreen]

The problem I have with lack of D&D reality can be summed up in title "My Bard made a Gelatinious Cube cry so hard it died."

This is not only unrealistic it takes giant dump on any sort of logic possible even explained by "A wizard did it" magical logic. In fact it is this sort unrealism that makes me think the designer thought we were such a bunch of dim-witted numpties that he could knock this rubbish out in an afternoon, metaphorically spit in our faces and then take the rest of the year off snorting the white stuff of hooker's breasts using a £20 note placed in his hand by a poor, one legged beggar child with wonder in his eyes waiting to delve into a new PHB.

Anyway, OTT rant over.

As long as this level of realism is fixed I have no problem ignoring rules on how many times I need to go to the toilet. The absence of this sort of thing does not reduce realism. It simply happens in the background, unseen.

The same can happen with things like starvation and exposure for the most part. But I would like adventures designed with add-on rules that might deal with finding shelter, keeping warm, hunting/scavaging food, etc.

Terminology can make a big difference. I have no problem with Healing Surges because I can see what they are. But what they should have done is called it Endurance and then suddenly it sounds 'Realistic' rather than 'Board Gamey.'

Exactly the same mechanic but without the Coool Megablast! BS.

 

[Derren]

I've noticed a high correlation between folks who used to play caster-y types in older editions, and those who do not like 4th. Magic being super kick ass is awesome...as long as you get to be the magical guy.

Ah, the usual "Everyone who dislikes 4E is a powergamer/munchkin defense (Which of course implies that real role players love 4E).
Haven't seen that one in a long time.

I havent read the whole threat, but I guess "Realism in a game with dragons lolololol" also already came up.

4E simply has problems with realism (or equivalent, however you want to call it. You know what I mean).
It starts with Shroedingers Wounds, continues with the difference between PCs and NPCs (Which might not be so glaring now after the feature bloat, but was very visible in the beginning) and is also obvious with many powers which simply can't be explained logically except with very outragous theories which earn you as many strange looks as the actual power itself. The classic here is the "Pull" ability from the fighter but also includes how you can stun a flying enemy by making it believe it is falling down a chasm, etc.

The problem is that while 3E was still designed with basis on realism, or more specific "How can we fit this pseudo realistic adventure into rules" (actually it was more likely just "How to port 2E to 3E, but D&D started with the idea to translate the real world+fantasy into rules). 4E on the other hand started as a mathematical construct. A board game which doesn't represent anything. "Player 1 can move 6 squares, has a 60% hit chance vs level equivalent monster B and does Y damage to be balanced". Only when that construct was finished actual labels were applied.

And this complete disregard of "reality" during 4Es design is painfully obvious and unless the design process changes for 5E it won't change.