Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Dausuul]

That is a good point. Unfamiliar mechanics are always going to bother experienced gamers more than than equally problematic mechanics that they have gotten used to.

While this is true, I should point out that people unfamiliar with the hit point mechanic are few and far between nowadays, even people who've never so much as laid eyes on a die with more than six sides. It's the default approach for the vast majority of computer and console games.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Yes. And most people seem to have varying thresholds depending upon a given aspect of the game, sometimes widely so. If you had that rule, there would eventually be someone that came to terms with the Charisma check, but the Item Creation feats part was simply a bridge too far.

I think this is a biggie for a lot of people, and here's how I see it as a problem.

I have no issue with the 4e paradigm where some classes can use nonphysical stats to make melee attacks. In the context of a specific case - a class going for a particular concept - it's fine. If it were a general rule, like the example above, I would find it harder to swallow.

The problem though, is that some folks can't handle that level of abstraction or dissociation in their game at all. Designing around that fact though, makes people like me (i.e. those who at times find it actively desirable) unhappy. A game devoid of those constructs is essentially telling us, "no, you can't do that - it's badwrongfun." Especially since that particular can of worms has already been opened.

It's like the abstract version of what someone said upthread about the pro-simulationists getting used to clunky rules, then finding it jarring when those rules get removed for ease-of-play concerns.

And like another poster has already pointed out, no 5e will truly succeed unless both camps can somehow be satisfied. For what its worth, I think 2e handled that pretty well by making all the clunky wargame sim type stuff pretty much optional, and being pretty clear in sidebars about why.

As another, more recent example of how I believe both sides can be satisified: I think the Skald from 4e's Heroes of the Feywild does a pretty reasonable job of this - you can make your Skald as a pure Charisma class, for weapon attacks and all. At the same time, nothing prevents you from making the same character to swing an axe using Strength, and still benefit from all your powers. That way, for those who find it jarring, they can avoid it, but the rules are also there for those who want them and/or don't care about pure sim.

 

[Rogue Agent]

As an example, I think the Skald from 4e's Heroes of the Feywild does a pretty reasonable job of this - you can make your Skald as a pure Charisma class, for weapon attacks and all. At the same time, nothing prevents you from making the same character to swing an axe using Strength, and still benefit from all your powers. That way, for those who find it jarring, they can avoid it, but the rules are also there for those who want them and/or don't care about pure sim.

Are you playing your RPGs solo or something?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Are you playing your RPGs solo or something?

No. Who says you have to describe your stats when you tell your fellow gamers what actions your character is doing? Why should they even know your stats unless you want to tell them?

EDIT: I should point out that I do game with several others who actively take issue with what I described, but have no problem gaming alongside my characters (or others built along a similar vein). I know it's only one gamer's anecdotal experience, but it is what it is.

 

[Odhanan]

It's not and never was about "realism", to me. It's about immersion, i.e. about experiencing the game world from my character's perspective, as being that character (or, as a DM, experiencing the environment through its many moving parts, environments, monsters, maps, NPCs etc. it's fundamentally the same thing).

Some rules make this process easier on me than others, and there are different ways for the rules to manage that sine qua non condition for me to experience what I think of as "role playing". Some ways are rules heavy, and some are not. Some pay attention to details within details through the rules, and some paint the experience with a wider brush of abstract concepts that can be declined in play in many different ways.

 

[howandwhy99]

Instead of realism, why don't we try coherency? Magical realism is commonly quite coherent even if we believe half of it is fairy tale and the other more likely. Coherency I take as attempting to express one's self in the game in order to be comprehended by others. Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness) is basically that for game worlds. Here are the article's questions with this one change:

1. I need to feel that the situations created in the game are coherent.
2. I need to be able to at least justify the rules in the game as being coherent.
3.
4. I ignore or change rules that don't feel coherent.
5. Too much time spent making everything seem coherent wastes game time.

 

[Rogue Agent]

No. Who says you have to describe your stats when you tell your fellow gamers what actions your character is doing? Why should they even know your stats unless you want to tell them?

Maybe it's just that I'm primarily a GM, but this kind of mechanics-only focus is part of the problem. I'd find it disruptive no matter where it's coming from at the table.

"I use Rainbow Blades."
"Okay, but what are you actually doing?"
"Using Rainbow Blades."
"But what are you actually doing?"
"Somehow using my Charisma to swing my sword better."

I suppose it makes sense if you're entirely focused on playing the mechanics-as-mechanics or improvising-in-the-vague-vicinity-of-the-mechanics instead of playing a roleplaying game. Of course, that's the heart of the problem in a nutshell.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Maybe it's just that I'm primarily a GM, but this kind of mechanics-only focus is part of the problem. I'd find it disruptive no matter where it's coming from at the table.

"I use Rainbow Blades."
"Okay, but what are you actually doing?"
"Using Rainbow Blades."
"But what are you actually doing?"
"Somehow using my Charisma to swing my sword better."

I suppose it makes sense if you're entirely focused on playing the mechanics-as-mechanics or improvising-in-the-vague-vicinity-of-the-mechanics instead of playing a roleplaying game. Of course, that's the heart of the problem in a nutshell.

I am also primarily a GM, and I have zero problem with it, and I don't think of it as mechanics-as-mechanics. I have read, and used all kinds of justification for using non-physical stats to attack, and to me they make sense.

I've also acknowledged that to others those definitions don't make sense, and I'm okay with that too. I take exception when it gets chalked up to purely gamist reasons though, or with those who try to paint anyone in my boat with that overly broad brush. It'd be great if we could all just agree to let others play in the style they prefer without telling them that they're wrong for doing so, or not even playing a roleplaying game.

 

[Stormonu]

Maybe it's just that I'm primarily a GM, but this kind of mechanics-only focus is part of the problem. I'd find it disruptive no matter where it's coming from at the table.

"I use Rainbow Blades."
"Okay, but what are you actually doing?"
"Using Rainbow Blades."
"But what are you actually doing?"
"Somehow using my Charisma to swing my sword better."

I suppose it makes sense if you're entirely focused on playing the mechanics-as-mechanics or improvising-in-the-vague-vicinity-of-the-mechanics instead of playing a roleplaying game. Of course, that's the heart of the problem in a nutshell.

Or when my wife's psion used Mind Thrust on a skeleton and *bloodied* it. That completely ruined her immersion in the game thereafter.

 

[Rogue Agent]

It'd be great if we could all just agree to let others play in the style they prefer without telling them that they're wrong for doing so, or not even playing a roleplaying game.

You're free to play however you like at your own table. But you made an assertion about what other people do and don't find disruptive at their tables which was false. And you got called on it. Sorry if that upsets you.

Or when my wife's psion used Mind Thrust on a skeleton and *bloodied* it. That completely ruined her immersion in the game thereafter.

Good example. That's the kind of thing that even improvising-in-the-vague-vicinity-of-the-mechanics will struggle with (assuming they don't just ignore the power they're using entirely, of course).