Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Mallus]

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.

Let me try to cut to the heart of this... and forgive me if you're tired of Vicious Mockery, but it makes for a damn handy example.

You accept bards as plausible; people who can work magic through words, song, and various performance art.

You accept skeletons and shadows as plausible; undead creatures animated by dark magic and curses.

But you find it implausible that a bard can hurt these magic creatures with their magic words (either aimed at the creatures directly or at their creator/source).

What's your definition of "sense"?

 

[LurkAway]

But you find it implausible that a bard can hurt these magic creatures with their magic words (either aimed at the creatures directly or at their creator/source).

What's your definition of "sense"?

After everything that has been written to specifically address this question over the last x pages, now I just feel like I've wasted my time.

 

[Imaro]

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.

The problem is that you aren't being consistent with the rules for a fireball in 4e. The power has specific keywords, damage types, etc. as shown below

Wizard Attack 5 Fireball

A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact.
Daily

Arcane, Evocation, Fire, Implement
Standard Action Area burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in the burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 4d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage.
Miss: Half damage.


Evocation
Evocation powers bring various magical effects into being, including explosions, rays of magical energy, and lingering environmental effects. This is the most widely practiced school of magic.

Ah, so it's not a summoning...

Implement

Implements are items wielded by certain characters to channel their powers. Your class description or a feat tells you which implements you can wield, if any. To use the powers and the properties of a magic implement, you must be able to wield that implement.

The implement keyword identifies a power that can be used through an implement, and the implement must be a type wielded by the power’s class.

You can use implement powers without an implement, and wielding a nonmagical implement confers no benefit. If you wield a magic implement, you can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of implement powers you use through it

So we know from the ruless that you are wielding an implement to cast it (unless you're forsaking the implement bonus to hit). It is an Evocation spell (so it doesn't summon anything) and has the fire keyword and has the fire damage type... let's look at damage type...

damage type
A specific type of damage: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, or thunder. Each damage type has a keyword associated with it. If a power has such a keyword, the power deals that type of damage (the exception is poison, the keyword for which refers to damage, a nondamaging effect, or both).


Emphasis mine: So unless it has the "cold" keyword it is not a cold flame. It does fire damage which is, from the compendium the following three categories...

Fire (Damage Type)

Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.

Hmm, well that certainly rules out alot of things you're claiming it could be. And also seems to restrict what exactly this spell can be reskinned as.

 

[Tovec]

Let me try to cut to the heart of this... and forgive me if you're tired of Vicious Mockery, but it makes for a damn handy example.

You accept bards as plausible; people who can work magic through words, song, and various performance art.

Barely, but yes. I accept it because there are numerous other classes which perform magic. Perhaps not as Bards do but they do perform supernatural acts.

You accept skeletons and shadows as plausible; undead creatures animated by dark magic and curses.

But you find it implausible that a bard can hurt these magic creatures with their magic words (either aimed at the creatures directly or at their creator/source).

What's your definition of "sense"?

I accept skeletons and shadows as plausible, along with ghouls, ghosts, zombies, etc. They're undead, they have common rules of how they exist and have HP and all that fanciful stuff.

I do not accept that bards can hurt the fundamental laws of magic by using their words alone. There are no other mechanics* that do what the bard is described of doing. The words in the spell itself don't even lend the ability to mock gods, dead creators or the source of magic itself. That is why I find it implausible in gaming terms.

*Once again, don't actually have the source spell, but going by what I've seen around here.

 

[El Mahdi]

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

I don't believe he is. Consistency is a facet of realism. Realism when applied to RPG's means that things happen according to preset rules and remain consistent with those rules, unless acted upon by an unknown factor. If there is an unknown factor in play that the DM or ruleset intends (even if the DM or ruleset hasn't yet defined that unknown factor), then it's okay. If a DM or ruleset allows for inconsistent results, then it degrades the sense of realism.

Not being consistent is counter to a "Nod to Realism", and is instead a nod to the fantastic and mysterious. Neither is bad. Both are completely enjoyable, though not by everyone. I occasionally enjoy the randomness and mysteriousness of a fantastic game myself, but by definition such an approach is not a "Nod to Realism".

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?

Ahhh, but now you've created a whole new set of problems due to your now "defining" what a fireball is in your campaign. If that definition isn't adhered to as the game progresses, then you've introduced a very obvious inconsistency that will degrade the sense of realism.

From this point on your players can assume that Fireballs are a type of Summoning magic (as compared to the default assumption from previous editions of it being an Evocation). Also, the Elementals in question have the ability to see invisible objects/creatures that are counter to the caster (even if the caster isn't aware of their presence) and not harm things the caster wouldn't want harmed - which now grants these elementals the ability to read the casters mind, sense alignments or intentions, and see invisible. With these assumptions, it's only natural for a player to want to use this information in crafting new spells/powers, or find ways to exploit this that the DM or ruleset couldn't anticipate. Quite likely introducing abilities to a power/spell that are far beyond it's actual level.

You've added a new and unintended facet to the game.

Adding a new facet isn't a bad thing. As a DM, I find that my adjudications often have unintended consequences, and I roll with them as they usually make for something pretty fun. But not all DM's are capable or accepting of that. It's the unintended part that can cause the problem for many.

Of course though, this also highlights that "Fluff" does matter. It's not a simple thing to just "change the Fluff" to fit what you want it to be, while keeping the "crunch". Realism means that "Fluff" and "Crunch" are consistent with eachother, and work consistently throughout the game.

 

[Balesir]

Doesn't the "It has magic so it does not need consistency" defense get boring after all that time?

That's not what I'm saying - please look again. I'm saying that the way 4E handles this is consistent within itself. The fact that objects and creatures are different is established and quite consistently applied.

The only meaning of "consistency" I can think of that you might have in mind (that justifies your claims of "inconsistency") is the meaning of "consistent with the real world". In this sense you have a valid comment - but since the world of D&D is manifestly not the real world, I'm not at all sure why you insist that it is important. "A world that is not the real world does not behave in all ways like the real world" - isn't that a case of "dog bites man"?

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)

OK, so you are using "gameist (sic)" to mean "can't be explained in terms of the game (world)"? Why not? "Can't be explained in terms of analogues in the real world, sure. But why can't a game world have creatures that are destined to fall at the first successful hit? It's not the real world, for sure - but it was never intended to be that, as I think must be pretty clear.

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

Assuming that by "heat" you mean energy, how much water are we talking, and how much paper? If by "heal level" you mean "temperature", then what form is the heat source in? A gas flame? A burning liquid? A detonation front in a well mixed gas-air cocktail?

Put it this way: put some sheets of paper into a gas cupboard with a small cloud of hydrogen or methane mixed with air and ignite the cloud. Neither will ignite the paper, but the hydrogen will hurt and the methane will give a nasty burn/scald to exposed flesh. A person totally immersed in such a cloud would suffer external burns and, if they were unlucky enough to breathe in at the wrong moment, some very nasty lung and trachea damage.

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.

Why is a world where magic works likely to work in the same way as the real world in any respect? The reason magic does not work as it does in D&D in the real world is because the laws of real world physics preclude it. If they did not, there would most certainly be people doing it! The laws of physics in a world where such magic exists cannot possibly be the same as those of the real world. It is wise for world designers to make some of their outcomes broadly recognisable to inhabitants of this universe - but they simply cannot be identical.

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.

OK; to my mind, 4E does this well. It explains the effects in system terms, which seem a little strange, but I take these terms to be the terms of "4E universe physics" - and they are certainly no more strange than the terms of Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics...

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.

Vicious Mockery Bard Attack 1

You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic to send the creature into a blind rage.

At-Will * Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Ranged 10

Target: One creature

Attack: Charisma vs. Will

Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Level 21: 2d6 + Charisma modifier damage.

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.

Those are just explanations of how the characters think the power works in sundry game worlds. In 4E, the facts (verifiable by experiment) are that Vicious Mockery does what it says in the power description. Theories about why it might do this are left to the characters (and the players) to come up with.

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.

4E certainly works very differently to 3.X and earlier editions. How I am saying that 4E works differently to how it actually does you will need to explain to me; I'm baffled.

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.)

I sometimes feel the same way about those claiming to see uncontestable flaws with 4E. Overall, though, I do think that both "sides" are (very) gradually getting a clearer idea of what the other is saying.

 

[Mallus]

The problem is that you aren't being consistent with the rules for a fireball in 4e.

But what I suggested would work fine at the table.

Ah, so it's not a summoning...

So redefine it as one. Or simply accept it as an exception. What would be the negative consequence of that?

So we know from the ruless that you are wielding an implement to cast it (unless you're forsaking the implement bonus to hit).

Was there any point to bringing up the Implement rules, or were you just feeling quote-y?

So unless it has the "cold" keyword it is not a cold flame.

You missed, or avoided, the point I was making. I was listing some common attributes of magical fire in fiction. I wasn't talking about a 4e fireball.

Hmm, well that certainly rules out alot of things you're claiming it could be. And also seems to restrict what exactly this spell can be reskinned as.

Again, what would be harm be in using my reinterpretation? I'm really not interested in discussing rules as if they were case law. I err on the side of the creative and practical!

 

[Balesir]

I don't believe he is. Consistency is a facet of realism. Realism when applied to RPG's means that things happen according to preset rules and remain consistent with those rules, unless acted upon by an unknown factor. If there is an unknown factor in play that the DM or ruleset intends (even if the DM or ruleset hasn't yet defined that unknown factor), then it's okay. If a DM or ruleset allows for inconsistent results, then it degrades the sense of realism.

Not being consistent is counter to a "Nod to Realism", and is instead a nod to the fantastic and mysterious. Neither is bad. Both are completely enjoyable, though not by everyone. I occasionally enjoy the randomness and mysteriousness of a fantastic game myself, but by definition such an approach is not a "Nod to Realism".

Consistency is not dependant on realism at all; the real world is consistent, but a completely "unrealistic" world could be consistent. A universe with a phlogiston between the stars and faster than light travel could be perfectly consistent - but it wouldn't be realistic.

It seems to me that the universes of 4E are the most consistent of any edition of D&D to date. They are not, on the other hand, particularly "realistic", in the sense of operating with point-to-point similarity with the real world, compared to previous editions. Of course, the worlds of D&D have (quite deliberately) never been particularly realistic - but they have contained elements of point-to-point correspondance at arbitrary points.

Inevitably, 4E has many aspects that work in ways that mirror the real world. This is probably inevitable, given that it is written by people who live in the real world, and it is certainly wise, given that it is designed to be sold to and used by people who live in the real world. What 4E does not do, however, is retain those point-to-point correspondances where they break up internal system consistency in unpredictable ways (based on the beliefs and perceptions of those playing about the real world).

 

[El Mahdi]

Consistency is not dependant on realism at all; the real world is consistent, but a completely "unrealistic" world could be consistent. A universe with a phlogiston between the stars and faster than light travel could be perfectly consistent - but it wouldn't be realistic.

It seems to me that the universes of 4E are the most consistent of any edition of D&D to date. They are not, on the other hand, particularly "realistic", in the sense of operating with point-to-point similarity with the real world, compared to previous editions. Of course, the worlds of D&D have (quite deliberately) never been particularly realistic - but they have contained elements of point-to-point correspondance at arbitrary points.

Inevitably, 4E has many aspects that work in ways that mirror the real world. This is probably inevitable, given that it is written by people who live in the real world, and it is certainly wise, given that it is designed to be sold to and used by people who live in the real world. What 4E does not do, however, is retain those point-to-point correspondances where they break up internal system consistency in unpredictable ways (based on the beliefs and perceptions of those playing about the real world).

I didn't say that it had to be consistent with the real world. That's a conversation you're having with someone else. I think you need to read over again what I actually said...

And I do find a setting with a Phlogiston to be realistic.

 

[Balesir]

I didn't say that it had to be consistent with the real world. That's a conversation you're having with someone else. I think you need to read over again what I actually said...

And I do find a setting with a Phlogiston to be realistic.

You were taking me to task for saying that [MENTION=21807]pauljathome[/MENTION] was confusing "consistency" with "realism". I was referring to comments in his post such as:

I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects"

How is this "inconsistent"? If it were inconsistently applied, if some powers could not discriminate between objects and creatures but others could - that would be inconsistent. But every power (excepting special cases, perhaps, with appropriate explanation - your "unknown factor") discriminating between objects and creatures in a systematic way is surely a feature of the game universe, not any sort of "inconsistency" except that it be "inconsistent with the way the real world works", no?