Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Dausuul]

Depends on your definition. In previous editions spellcasters had lots of ways to effectively reshape reality via their magic. Case in point, there was a 1e Illusionist spell called "Alter Reality". Was 1e D&D Discworld?

We're talking about narrative control here. Narrative control is about being able to write part of "the story," which entails knowing that a story is being told. If your character knows she's in a story and that story-rules apply, then you're playing in Discworld, or Order of the Stick. OotS is hilarious, but it's not how most people run their games.

Narrative control is a player-level thing, not a character-level thing. The extent to which players should have narrative control is a question worth debating. What I was challenging was this:

As in my post above, I don't see it as giving narrative control cards to the player. It's giving them to the character and uses a character's actions to achieve an effect not directly related to any cause the character could effect.

Billd91 is saying "Come and Get It" gives narrative control to the character rather than the player, which assertion I consider utterly bizarre.

 

[LurkAway]

Here's my shot at recapping the recent issues, using a video game analogy (because you can never have enough analogies

I've always played RPGs like a 1st person shooter. I imagine the rules as a HUD interface (with a health bar, etc.) between me as a player and the POV of the character.

In classic D&D, the HUD is obvious around the periphery but it doesn't have to be immersion-wrecking -- because players can choose to reference the in-game world instead of the HUD.

After all, in a conversation with an ally NPC, I could choose "I'm exhausted and bleeding, we need a defensible or safe place to rest and bandage our wounds" instead of "my health bar is low, we need a safe zone with no monsters on the mini-map". Honestly, I'm frequently lazy and say "I'm low on health, we need to rest" -- which isn't entirely in-character but not entirely immersion-breaking either. Once near full hit points, I can say "I feel perfectly fine now, let's head out!" instead of "My health bar is 100%, I'm ready now!".

So I know how to fluff an abstraction like hit points, and I know how to reference it in-character as a double entendre, and this helps to maintain immersion.

Then comes 4E, and two things happen...

Firstly, gameplay changed from 1st person perspective to a bird's eye view or 3/4 perspective and someone forgot to tell me! It wasn't until a few years ago I suppose that I learned about non-Actor stance on Enworld. Maybe other people were always playing with a 3/4 perspective pre-4E and I was clueless otherwise. Why this focus on narrativist playstyle wasn't even mentioned in the 4E preview I have no idea.

Secondly, abstractions like bloodied appear on the HUD. What does the specificity and timing of the occurence of a 50% full health bar mean, in the fiction? IMO absolutely nothing. There's nothing that can be said in-character that conveys the phenomenon of bloodied for PCs and monsters and all the in-game expectations and various associated triggers and effects. Unlike referencing hit points and other "pretend" simulationist mechanics in which you have a choice to use in-character or out-of-character language, trying to reference a condition like bloodied almost always has the player speaking in metagame and out-of-character. Pile on too many pure metagame interfaces like this and the HUD feels more referential and more important (and IMO too obtrusive) vs the character POV.

I guess I should have a conclusion now. I guess the importance of a "nod to realism" depends on your value on immersion. I guess that your value on immersion at least partially depends on whether you're roleplaying 1st person perspective or 3/4 perspective or top-down view. I suppose that "realism" attached to cause-and-effect and narrativist mechanics also depends on your perspective (pun intended).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

LurkAway, nice analogy.

For me, 3E is still sticking to the HUD style, with the clear window in the middle. But the HUD takes up so much of the real-estate, that the window is fairly small, and I keep getting distracted by the HUD. Plus, there are some parts of the HUD that seem rather tacked on, though you can see how "push X" leads to "get Y".

Whereas, 4E is a much bigger window with mostly transparent overlays for control. It is true that the overlay is sometimes in the way, and moving around all over the screen with the action can be distracting--but I can still see what is behind it, easily. Actually, to be fair, 4E is a relatively early version of said technology, where the missteps are all the more glaring for being a new way.

(And then 2E is an ornate but relatively small HUD stylishly decorated with dragon buttons and wizard sliders and such, which would be great if the controls that you pressed had anything much to do with the action in the window. And just when I think they might, oh look, a cut scene. )

 

[Plane Sailing]

Time for me to use Come and Get It!!!

Come and Get it a great power and anyone who disagrees simply lacks the imagination to make it work!!!!

Rarrr! I'm enraged and feel an unquenchable urge to run up and stab you with a puny dagger! Rarr!

 

[Stalker0]

This is one discussion I am particularly apt to have, since I think it came up in 4th edition a fair amount.


First of all, I think everyone recognizes that a gaming system at some level has to be less than 100% simulationist. Else you spend some much time with mechanics that you never play the game. This is a weakness of PNP games that we can never get away from....and so a compromise will be made somewhere along the road.

I think its also important to note that Dnd stems from a common culture that drives our sense of immersion or reality. In other words, the community is already more willing to accept certain mechanics over others, regardless of good flavor.

Take this simple example. What is every fighter power was an encounter power, and every wizard power was at-will?

This can actually be explained with flavor pretty easily. Magic is an endless power of power that can be channeled by a person. Since its not their energy they expend, fatigue doesn't factor in. Meanwhile, a fighter grows tired as he fights, so only has so many powers before he is exhausted and forced to rely on basic attacks.

In some worlds and gaming systems, this might be perfectly acceptable, but it clashes greatly with the years of culture built by DND, and probably wouldn't be generally acceptable. I'm noting this because when people are debating how one gamist mechanic is acceptable and another is not....this culture is also there at the heart of the discussion.


With that in mind, I want to review two 4e game mechanic and why I think one has been generally accepted and the other has not.


Diagonal Movement same as regular movement: This change caused a lot of fuss when it was first announced. People said they would never use such an unrealistic and "gamey" concept. Yet years later it isn't really talked about much. Why?

I think it stems from two answers. The first is that because 4e greatly reduced the range of combat compared to 3e, the cases were the fantasy and reality most greatly clash don't come up that often. Most of the time the difference in rules is just a few feet of distance, and since we already use the 5 foot square to streamline movement, its really not that much more of a stretch.

The second reason is because its universal. PCs use it, monsters use it, everyone uses the same mechanic. Further, other areas of the system use it consistently. For example, forced movement and regular movement respect the diagonal rule consistently. This helps promote consistency which helps immersion.


Fighter Daily Powers: On the other hand, years later I still see complains about this one. Why?

First of all, Dnd culture has known for years that one primary difference between Wizards and fighters is that wizards have limited spells, and a fighter can fight all day long. That convention has been around a long time, and still affects our expectations.

But even with that people are generally comfortable with encounter powers for fighters. So the idea that the fighter isn't at full strength every moment has been generally accepted. So why encounter powers and not dailies?

Again, I think its steam from two points. Again, encounter powers work on a narrow focus, a single fight. As such, our immersion isn't pushed too hard. Because its a single fight, I can use things like fatigue to explain the idea in flavor. A fighter has some big moves that tire him out, but he rests for a bit and then can use them again. Ok, I can buy that.

But with dailies that same flavor doesn't work. Ok I use a big move that fatigues me. I rest for a bit and....I still can't use it?

Well....maybe its REALLY fatiguing, so much so that it takes a full night sleep to recover. Ok....I could buy that, but the problem here is the rest of the system doesn't support that.

We have a number of mechanics that simulate fatigue, HP, healing surges are the two most prominent. So why is it that using a daily is so incredibly fatiguing....but doesn't effect my hp or my surges?

If it did, I bet people would accept fighter dailies much more readily.


The second aspect is that fighter dailies are not consistent with the rest of the world. If all fighters had dailies that would be one thing. But NPC fighters often don't have dailies. They have encounter powers....or even powers that recharge! So....why does my fighter only uses his guns once a day, but that fighter over there can use his big guns every few rounds!

This further strains credibility, and I think in this case pushed it far enough where it has become a flavor issue for many.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think what you're saying here speaks to the dichotomy inherent to the two game design philosophies that came together to create D&D in the first place. It's fairly evident that both Gygax and Arneson brought different ideas and priorities to D&D, but also, I think, in equal measure.

They certainly did. That has nothing to do with storytelling or the mechanics used to facilitate that.

So to me, saying that roleplaying adventurers exploring a world and collaborative storytelling are mutually exclusive as design goals, sells the game short. There is nothing to say that it can't do both, and IMHO, it does both fairly well. Or, at least it can. The rest is largely dependent on the group and their preferred style of play, I suppose.

It is difficult to play a game about adventurers exploring a world with mechanics that constantly blather on about "the narrative" which has nothing to do with roleplaying whatsoever.

But here's the thing - CaGI, and powers like it, are basically like giving players 'narrative control cards' that they can invoke pretty much any time. They are not only free to, but more or less obligated to figure out how that interacts with the fiction of the game at any given time.

Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. A narrative control card, when used, switches the player perspective from adventurer to author. As an author, the player is engaging the game from outside the adventurer role.

While this is not badwrongfun it does change the nature and play of the game in a major way. A game's mechanics will either account for narrative constructs or it won't.

This is why, no matter what direction is chosen, about half of the D&D population won't like the basic assumptions used.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It is difficult to play a game about adventurers exploring a world with mechanics that constantly blather on about "the narrative" which has nothing to do with roleplaying whatsoever.

How's so? Why do you find it difficult?

And as for narrative, I find it has quite a bit to do with roleplaying. Acting in character has little meaning without a narrative provide context and to give a character's action meaning.

Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. A narrative control card, when used, switches the player perspective from adventurer to author. As an author, the player is engaging the game from outside the adventurer role.

Sometimes. Sometimes a group's DM will adjudicate what happens. In either case, using such an ability is the player saying how they'd like to see things unfold, but by shorthanding it into a power that is fairly specifically defined, is arguably less immersion breaking than, say, an open ended thing like Drama points, or whathaveyou.

While this is not badwrongfun it does change the nature and play of the game in a major way. A game's mechanics will either account for narrative constructs or it won't.

This is why, no matter what direction is chosen, about half of the D&D population won't like the basic assumptions used.

I don't think it's that simple. Binary thinking doesn't encompass the whole of the situation. Why can't a game's mechanics provide options to account for narrative constructs while leaving them optional for those who don't care to use them?

As it is, nothing stops a group (or even just the DM) from deciding these things for themselves, in any edition. Don't like x? Don't use x. It has always been that way. Conversely, if you want to add y - go for it. D&D has always, if nothing else, been an adaptable framework.

I see no need for polarizing arguments. There is no need to say, if it pleases one group then the other MUST be unhappy. I think it is possible to accomodate both, if not necessarily at the same time / table.

 

[KarinsDad]

But as soon as the Fighter uses CaGI, the NPC's intent changes to "I want to get up in that fighter's grill and smack him".

Ah. Mind Control without a roll (pre-errata). Another power that shouldn't be in the Martial Power source.

 

[pauljathome]

But here's the thing - CaGI, and powers like it, are basically like giving players 'narrative control cards' that they can invoke pretty much any time.

First off, they differ very significantly from narrative control cards in that they have to be played at a particular time by a particular character and cause that character to lose their standard action.

Secondly, I would not at all approve of a narrative control card that said "At one point you can force any enemy whatsoever to move towards the fighter regardless of whether or not it makes any sense for that enemy to move towards the fighter at that time"

CAGI works against creatures regardless of their size, will, intelligence (including non intelligent vermin), whether or not they can currently move voluntarily, etc

 

[pauljathome]

Diagonal Movement same as regular movement: This change caused a lot of fuss when it was first announced. People said they would never use such an unrealistic and "gamey" concept. Yet years later it isn't really talked about much. Why?.

This is actually the rule that I hate the most in 4th Ed. I especially hate the fact that 3rd edition had a perfectly elegant solution to the problem that was very easy to apply even for most innumerate types and close enough to reality for even a math geek like myself.

But I only rarely talk about it any more because it is obvious that the vast majority of players don't care about it. There really is nothing else to say about it that hasn't been said. It is an absurdly idiotic rule but people like it.

Yeah, I know, I just failed my will save and started talking about it. Sorry about that. But at least that is a rare event now.