Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Mallus]

Personally, I find it insanely inconsistent that a wizard can choose whether or not the fireball sets papers on fire but can NOT choose whether or not it hurts his friend Bob.

I would find it inconsistent if the wizard were employing a flamethrower or lobbing a Molotov cocktail. Assuming the wizard is using magic, I'm okay with it...

I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects". Especially when you have things in world like constructs so that one piece of paper (the animated object) is affected and a different piece isn't (or is, depending on somebody or others decision)

Well, they are magic flames. Conjured out of thin air by bat guano and pig Latin or some such.

What if the fireball was described as the invocation a minor fire spirit/elemental? Something the wizard could command to burn this but not that?

In the same time it took you to formulate your objection, I came up with a perfectly suitable, not to mention flavorful and congruent with the source fiction(s), explanation.

Not bad, eh? This is what you can achieve when you spend your effort trying to make the game make sense. Instead of working hard to make it less sensible.

(Why try to make D&D look more ludicrous? That's like shooting fish in a barrel with a grenade)

 

[Mallus]

In 4th edition we may get the first or we may get some absurd combination where the creatures burn but the papers don't

Like I pointed out before, in AD&D you could have a fireball scorch a PC a tad while melting the armor they were wearing (not to mention melting their precious gold pieces!), and in 3e, you can have fireballs detonate under water.

You were saying something about absurdity??

 

[Balesir]

Doesn't fireball target all creatures in the area of effect?

I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects". Especially when you have things in world like constructs so that one piece of paper (the animated object) is affected and a different piece isn't (or is, depending on somebody or others decision)

Therfore, I personally find it insanely inconsistent that a wizard can choose whether or not the fireball sets papers on fire but can NOT choose whether or not it hurts his friend Bob. And it doesn't matter at all if the Player or GM made things insansely inconsistent.

In my mind, there are essentially 2 consistent conditions for a fireball
1) It affects everything in the area (incendiary go boom)
2) It affects what the wizard wants to affect (Directed bolts of flame)

Up to 4th edition we had the first. In 4th edition we may get the first or we may get some absurd combination where the creatures burn but the papers don't

You seem to be conflating the concept of "realistic" with the concept of "consistent".

On the first, since damage to living bodies requires temperatures of only 100 degrees C or so (boiling the water in our bodies does horrible things to us) whereas setting light to paper requires temperatures well over 400 degrees C if the ignition source is short lived, I don't think a fireball that damages living things but does not ignite papaer is in the least "unrealistic". Heat transfer is a subject I studied at degree level, and the flame heat required to get paper surfaces up over 400 degrees in a second or two would be well above that of many "fireballs" (especially gas-based ones).

On the second, I find 4E is generally very consistent; it treats objects the same for all powers - viz. powers affect objects only if specifically intended to target objects and only then with DM agreement. Creatures are quite clearly different from objects in both the 4E and the 3.X D&D worlds - 3.X even distinguishes between "attended" and "unattended" objects. In a fantasy world, where magic indisputably exists, I don't see anything "inconsistent" or even surprising about this.

 

[Derren]

and in 3e, you can have fireballs detonate under water.

Actually it was not quite that easy.

Fire

Nonmagical fire (including alchemist’s fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made a Spellcraft check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect.

On the second, I find 4E is generally very consistent; it treats objects the same for all powers - viz. powers affect objects only if specifically intended to target objects and only then with DM agreement. Creatures are quite clearly different from objects in both the 4E and the 3.X D&D worlds - 3.X even distinguishes between "attended" and "unattended" objects. In a fantasy world, where magic indisputably exists, I don't see anything "inconsistent" or even surprising about this.

Doesn't the "It has magic so it does not need consistency" defense get boring after all that time?
4E also has different labels for creatures (Minions, etc.) which are completely gameist (can't be explained in game) yet radically alter how the creatures interact with the game world (making minions immune to missing attacks for example)

PS: What heat level would be required to heat water from 25 to 100 in 2 seconds? More or less than igniting paper?

 

[pauljathome]

What if the fireball was described as the invocation a minor fire spirit/elemental? Something the wizard could command to burn this but not that?

So these fire elementals/spirits can differentiate between the piece of paper and the paper construct but can NOT figure out that my friend Bob shouldn't be burnt?

So, the rules text would be something like :
"This spell summons thousands of fire spirits. Each can unerringly detect invisible objects and unerringly differentiate between creatures and objects.

They burn ALL creatures in the area of effect but burn only those objects that the caster wishes to burn. Note that it is totally immaterial if the wizard can actually detect the objects, the fire spirits can do so"

As I said, I find that insanely inconsistent.

 

[Mallus]

Seeing as I'm on a posting-tear in this thread... I thought I dredge up a few things I missed while on a holiday break from ENWorld...

A man who can kill with a plasma rifle is a fighter.

If the AD&D 2e PHB used a man with a plasma rifle as an example of a fighter, that would raise certain expectations, no? Such as: "my fighter may one day obtain a plasma rifle" and "plasma rifles belong in at least some campaigns". Otherwise such an example would be a kinda nutty.

Unless you've played D&D like a greek myth, you're mixing up 2 different mediums.

My modest proposal is: since the AD&D 2e used two children of Zeus as examples of fighters, perhaps playing in the style of Greek myth isn't all that incompatible with the game (mythic figures from other mythoi are cited, too).

Well, I assume that for that to matter to anyone, they'd need to know who Hercules is.

Naturally.

Knowing that, I could see how they could accept him being a Fighter, but I don't see the logical leap to "all Fighters are therefore like Hercules!"

Did anyone other than people trying to misconstrue my point say that?

That is, it follows that Hercules is a Fighter (they said so). That does not mean that all Fighters are Hercules (obviously).

Equally obviously, it means the fictional space defined by [FIGHTERS] includes mythic figures. Which, to me, says something.

Are you comparing the son of Zeus, a demigod, to regular human fighters?

I was pointing out the AD&D 2e PHB compared the son of Zeus --and several other mythological heroes-- to the PCs a player could create. This is generally what is meant by citing something as an example.

I'm also assuming the writers of the AD&D 2e PHB had some reason for doing this. Perhaps they were suggesting ways a D&D milieu could be framed/conceived of, or ways in which the game could by played?

Why not mock fire to make it not burn you?

I'm sure some mythological figure has done precisely that. Maybe in the Kalevala?

However, if you start with the assumption that the PCs are exceptional in ways beyond their official game statistics (not a palatable option for some people, I know), then the question becomes "How can this PC do something which most people cannot?"

This is a wonderful explanation for why AD&D/2e PCs can gain levels, and the vast majority of people can't.

How can this warlord heal wounds when he uses inspiring word? Because one of his distant ancestors was a celestial, and he is actually able to channel small amounts of divine healing power.

This also explains why, in the past, D&D core book authors used the kids of gods as examples of PC classes!

Bard A: You suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard B: No, you suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard A: Idiot! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard B: Moron! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard A: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!!! (kills opponent)
Bard B: Oh, bon mot! I wish I had agreed to a duel of swords, but alas, you have slain me with words. Good bye, cruel world, good bye!

You know, I could make virtually any D&D combat sound ridiculous, with very little effort. But what would the point be?

Give that flavor some weight, and you have nods to realism like: do bards know the insult that harms any personality or just those he understands which buttons to push? Can he effectively insult all fellow human beings, humanoids like giants, abominable demonic minds, non-sentient artificial minds, the higher minds of devils and gods, sticks and stones, and the fabric of magic itself? Must the insult be spoken or whispered to a single soul to direct its potency, or does the potency of the word dissipate like ink in a lake when shouted openly to many ears in a room? Is the victim harmed if he cannot hear? Is the victim harmed if he does not understand the bard's language? Do lethal insults always kill you in 6 seconds, or might it take a day or longer? Is this talent the epitome of bardish lore and only master bards are so gifted, or can any bard kill with a word instead of the sword? All of these and more are natural, organic questions about the process.

Do you ask the same kind of questions about all the traditional D&D spells. If not, why? This kind of analysis and extrapolation seems arbitrarily applied.

 

[Mallus]

Actually it was not quite that easy.

I know the rule -- I looked it up! Note I said "they can"... not "they always".

So these fire elementals/spirits can differentiate between the piece of paper and the paper construct but can NOT figure out that my friend Bob shouldn't be burnt?

What I said was I could come up with a reasonable explanation for a selectively-damaging fireball.

As I said, I find that insanely inconsistent.

And I find the amount of effort and over-thinking you're engaging in, in service of making something not work... confusing.

 

[Tovec]

I think "simulationism" is getting used for both of its common meanings in a somewhat confused way, here.

I used it because people are describing a simulationist game and I prefer it to the vague "make it up" game.

In general, I think what you seem to be seeking is not "simulationism" in any clear game agenda sense, but "realism". In other words, you want to be able to use the game systems to model a world that, apart from certain specific departures (commonly identified as "magic"), behaves in ways that conform to the ways you believe the real word to behave in.

In the way they were describing, I want a game that models the real world. When I play someone without magic, I don't want or expect a magical result. This would include if I swung my sword and moved an enemy back 2 squares. I am a strong man, at 6'1-6'2, and I am very capable of doing a number of impressive things with a weapon in my hand. I cannot force an enemy back 10 feet just by swinging my muscly arms at them. I could force them back if I ran into them and pushed them but that is a different mechanic entirely. Yes, I do want realism but as that post previously stated, the "nods to realism" that this thread is about has very little connection with actual realism or realistic outcomes. Instead it seeks things which seem realistic while being improbable.

The second meaning you seem to be using is that you like the rules system to describe how the game world works in terms of principle, as opposed to describing it in terms of the capabilities of the characters and creatures in the game.

To see the difference in this second meaning, adopting more of this approach might see the power "Vicious Mockery" described as follows:

I'm actually failing to see the real difference in what you're saying, vicious mockery aside.

A. I want the game to describe how the world works, and hopefully it resembles things I can relate to but in terms of magic not necessarily.
B. I want to understand how the rules relate to the capabilities of character, creatures and objects in the game. Anything that effect will likely intersect with. I don't really need to know what happens if a lightning bolt were to hit the pea (or globe as of 4e)-sized fireball before it exploded but it would be good to know if it is meant to set things on fire, or how it works underwater, or why it hurts things which are left on their own vs something held.

Vicious Mockery is the Arcane skill of using Charm magic to manipulate and magnify an enemy's emotions to the point that he or she takes damage from them, and becomes distracted such that they have a reduced chance to succeed at tasks that require coordination or dexterity (including striking with attacks or using skills). Any creature with a mind and any discernible driving needs or feelings may be targetted with this power, but some will be harder to affect than others (based on their Will defence). Vicious Mockery will typically inflict 1d6 + the Bard's Charisma modifier of psychic damage and impose a -2 penalty to actions that require coordination or dexterity for one round.

Would that suit your sensibilities better?

What does the power currently look like in 4e? I haven't been able to find an online quote of the power exactly how it is now. Does it suit my sensibilities better? *rereads* I guess so. I can't imagine what circumstances it might be missing but it does seem to address the skeleton problem from before - so I'm happier.

For the record, once again, I never said that vicious mockery shouldn't affect the skeleton. Though, based on this description, I could find reason against it. All my points on the subject were how little sense it made for vicious mockery to hurt the (shadow) magic which binds the skeleton, its dead creator, or the god who has the portfolio associated with the spell.

My main issue with many of the assumptions of those on your side Balesir is that you are saying 4e works very different then (i) it actually does and (ii) 3e.

Beyond that, if you need me feel free to quote or summon, but I'm just going in circles with you people. I'm tired of replying to (nearly) everything that is addressed and in turn only getting quoted with individual lines. It is especially bothersome when I feel as though you make no real counterpoints to my comments and concerns. (Not you/just you Balesir.)

 

[LurkAway]

Now in fiction, magical fire can burn hot, cold, with pretty audiovisual effects but without deviating significantly from the ambient temperature, etc. It can incinerate bad guys, such as Nazi's, without damaging so much as a fiber of their clothing. It can, in short, do quite a lot of things that deviate from real fire and a strict accordance with the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.

OK, my reference point for magical fire from movies, books, videogames is usually apparently mundane fire summoned and hurled as bolts, arcs, and fireballs. They do burn on contact like regular fire, and set alight draperies, papers, etc. The protagonists manage to dodge/duck/jump away from the fire and you imagine/assume that they and their clothing would burn if they didn't evade it.

You're referring to a more looser fiction of magical fire -- sorcerous energies which looks like fire but can be different colors and not necessarily be mundane fire.

That's fine... if you want to flavor a fireball as arcs of green fire, I can imagine this allows for more leeway. That said, the flavor text of fireball and the burst area effect have always implied to me (and I think to a lot of people) a standard spherical explosion of as-we-know-it fire that probably would and should burn everything in its path but we simply gloss over that for fun, convenience and simplicity, and not for "realism" sake.

If 4E had gone with a fiction-first approach, they could have easily thought of allowing wizards to a) hurl a proper fireball with chance of collateral damage AND/OR b) semi-directed arcs of fire with less collateral damage (and fluff the spell description accordingly). And a little blurb under an entry for 'fire' keyword they might have even thought of suggesting options to summon green fire with unique properties vs mundane fire with standard fire catching properties.

So I can definitely meet you halfway on that, but none of the above still changes the fact for me that a) the default fluff doesn't particularly seem to try to nod to "realism" IMO b) there is no official ideas AFAIK anywhere for changing the default fluff c) a lot of DMs and players don't have endless font of creativity and inspiration to refluff as needed, d) Enworld is not an "official" source for better fluff and shouldn't be the "to go" place to slog through hundreds of pages of forum arguments looking for ways to rationalize/justify effects of mechanics in order to have nods to realsm in a pro-simulationist 4E game.

 

[LurkAway]

Do you ask the same kind of questions about all the traditional D&D spells. If not, why? This kind of analysis and extrapolation seems arbitrarily applied.

I do instinctively have questions like that from time to time, but they come up a lot more with 4E - what else can I say? At least I feel I know that other editions/systems try to think about these questions a little bit when designing the mechanic, and that makes enough of a difference, I guess, in the overall impression.

I think the other important point is that these questions are interesting to me. The process is interesting to me. The process is what really distinguishes one power from another. And the correlation of cause and effect (if I re-fluff the cause, does it change the effect?).

The effect purely on its own is not so interesting to me. Damage, push, pull, slide, daze, stun, I don't really care.