Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Nemesis Destiny]

I like that to be the norm rather than the exception.

I do too, but some of my players need some encouragement to "think outside the box," or rather to "think outside the stat-block."

 

[Mark CMG]

It only adds additional adjudication if the DM wants it to.

"The DM decides" requires an addional decision to be made, or as you put it forth in your example, the players asks the DM to make the decision and the DM not wanting to be bothered makes the decision to not make the decision. In a game where it is automatic, the question of making a decision doesn't arise. The ten by ten by ten room is toast.

And ease of play also includes things like making it less subject to rules-lawyering, which the DM-call-as-rule certainly does.

That's the opposite since as I point out in the tourney situation above, the added decision-point creates problems whereby one DM might rule one way and another the opposite on a question that never need some up in the first place. Again, an added decision that need never have been written into the rules. This is not ease of play.

I still hold that reinforcing choice is not bad design.

The choice came when the player decided to throw the fireball. Adding new ambiguity to the situation through requiring additional adjudication is bad design.

 

[D'karr]

I do too, but some of my players need some encouragement to "think outside the box," or rather to "think outside the stat-block."

In my games that is the "rule" rather than the exception, and the main reason why I created that particular "metagame construct." I'm glad someone is using it.

You can read all about it here, and the reason for actually creating the "powers". If you like them enough you can download them from there.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

"The DM decides" requires an addional decision to be made, or as you put it forth in your example, the players asks the DM to make the decision and the DM not wanting to be bothered makes the decision to not make the decision. In a game where it is automatic, the question of making a decision doesn't arise. The ten by ten by ten room is toast.

It's just as easy to say that now - takes 5 seconds.

That's the opposite since as I point out in the tourney situation above, the added decision-point creates problems whereby one DM might rule one way and another the opposite on a question that never need some up in the first place. Again, an added decision that need never have been written into the rules. This is not ease of play.

I find it eases play to have the final decision rest in my hands. Clearly, this is not universal. I suspect that in a tourney situation, or LFR, it will just be skipped over.

The choice came when the player decided to throw the fireball. Adding new ambiguity to the situation through requiring additional adjudication is bad design.

I disagree. I think that having the freedom to decide what happens on an individual basis hardcoded into the rules is excellent design.

 

[ashockney]

Feel free. Certainly nobody is stopping you
An interesting mechanic.

I also have a mechanic in my home games that allows players to do things that are outside the descriptions of their powers. I lifted the concept from someone in the 4e section, and basically it is an encounter power that is called "Do Something Cool" which allows for precisely the kind of tricks you mentioned (subject to any DM-imposed limits, naturally).

I think what you're calling out here is EXACTLY what I'd like to see in a future edition. An add-on component to the core raw which you can flex to your taste, that gives the DM the right to affect the narration, and in turn the players earn benefits that allow them to affect the narration or combat (like AP's). This seems to play itself out in very interesting ways in the FATE system.

 

[D'karr]

"The DM decides" requires an addional decision to be made, or as you put it forth in your example, the players asks the DM to make the decision and the DM not wanting to be bothered makes the decision to not make the decision. In a game where it is automatic, the question of making a decision doesn't arise. The ten by ten by ten room is toast.

That might be true because there is a decision to be made, a simple one btw. However by using the more restrictive reading of a spell, then only the things that the spells "spells out" (no pun intended) can happen.

If there is another spell that doesn't say that it sets things ablaze, then it never can, except with a DM decision, as that is always an option.

I don't see the more restrictive reading as a desired feature, exactly because of the opposite effect it engenders.

I made an comment before of a torch. Does the description of the torch ever mention that it can set things ablaze? If it doesn't then the DM has one of several options, he can decide that because the torch does not mention it sets things ablaze, it can't. Or he can use some common sense and make a rules adjudication that makes sense for that table at that moment.

The DM is not an computer game AI that can't think outside the written word.

A rules lawyer has no leg to stand on if the DM decides that a torch sets a curtain on fire if the description of the torch is totally mute about it. The decision is entirely on the hands of the DM.

I prefer the design that leaves the door open for the DM rather than the one that boxes him to the rules as written.

More rules is not the solution for poor DMing.

 

[LurkAway]

I made an comment before of a torch. Does the description of the torch ever mention that it can set things ablaze? If it doesn't then the DM has one of several options, he can decide that because the torch does not mention it sets things ablaze, it can't. Or he can use some common sense and make a rules adjudication that makes sense for that table at that moment.

I didn't find the previous reference to a torch, but think it really depends on the wording of the rule.

1) Torches = 1d4 fire damage to 1 creature
2) Torches = 1d4 fire damage

Why must the fireball specify x damage to all creatures in a burst, instead of x damage in a burst? I suppose it seems to be a purposeful way of avoiding ick messy questions of fictional positioning. But so many groups seem to take the RAW so seriously, it seems to be becomes the de facto standard to ignore fictional positioning.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think that having the freedom to decide what happens on an individual basis hardcoded into the rules is excellent design.

I prefer the design that leaves the door open for the DM rather than the one that boxes him to the rules as written.

Except that it hardcodes ambiguity whereas choice was already a part of the game without the hardcoding.

 

[Imaro]

The example listed after the rules text is just that - an example of a situation. The actual rule specifically allows the DM to decide whether or not objects in the burst are targetted. Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is not the issue. That is a valid interpretation, according to RAW.

What I "admit" is that the rule was clarified, to make it clear that the DM was free to decide (just like always).

You know upon further reflection I agree... your interpretation is perfectly valid and, the more I think about the design of 4e, almost necessary.

I'll explain... 4e has so many powers with effects that activate with either a successful hit or,even if the hit isn't successful, the power being used with a valid target that the balance would be thrown out of whack if powers were granted the object as a universally valid target... or even if players could designate an objedct as a valid target on their own.

You'd end up with the bag o' rats problem only times 1,000. So yes I do agree that this is the way it's done in 4e and for good reason, though I don't agree about the reasoning being suggested by most...

Given the interaction of powers it isn't simpler or less to adjudicate and I don't think it was done for narrative reasons because it is always a DM call. It was done so that the game could function smoothly and with a greater degree of balance.

Edit: It's really starting to become apparent to me that it is the gamist design of 4e that I don't like. I play narrative games and I play simulationist games but I have never been a fan of more gamist systems. I guess this is also why I have such a problem when people claim 4e is narrative... it just doesn't strike those same chords for me as a game like Legends of Anglerre does, without me overlaying narrative conventions onto it. Very little in it's mechanics remind me of the narrative games I am familiar with but it's mechanics almost always scream gamist to me. This is all IMO and all that...

 

[Argyle King]

I responded to this upthread, with the comment that those PCs are epic demigods and so hardly common inhabitants of "the land" - and suggested that the overall fiction of the campaign should be developing to reflect this.

A fair assessment, but...

While it may not have been demon lords, my experience has been the PCs marauding over the enemy from about level 12 onward. In other threads I have said there were even times in Heroic Tier when it happens, but I've also seen Heroic Tier go the complete other way, so I'll chalk that up to skill of play.

Also, what I said was a poor way of getting at a related point. Upthread somewhere I used the example of PCs being able to easily blow through a door with at-wills while the BBEG and his uber-minions struggle to scratch it. To me, there's a disconnect between how the PCs interact with the world versus how everything else interacts with the world. I'm perfectly fine with different rules for building PCs and build monsters, but I'd prefer there to be some consistency to how those two branches of the rules interact with the 'physics engine' (so to speak) which the 4E world is built upon.

An item which showcases this would be Dimensional Shackles. A PC would have some chance of getting out of them. It's been my experience that placing a pair on even the most powerful of enemies tends to mean the fight is over. The guy who usually DMs for the Saturday D&D group I game with has banned them from his game for that reason.

I suppose part of my point is that there seem to be two different conflicting realities within the game. One or the other existing would be fine. (Though, due to my preferences, I'd honestly prefer something more toned down than the default PC level of 4th.) Having both exist side beside -at times- creates situations which my brain finds strange. What I would prefer to see is for the 'physics engine' of the game world to be used as one place where both realities conform to the same rules and form a connecting bridge of consistency between the two branches of the rules.