Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[KarinsDad]

I don't see how it's stretching the fiction to say that a PC recovers because of an inspiring dream, or seeing something inspiring through half-closed eyes.

For me, it's because it's the martial power source. The martial power source should be martial. In a sense, non-magical.

The inspiring dream should be psionic or arcane or even divine.

If the "seeing something inspiring through half-closed eyes" is allowed in the game, then this non-magical inspiration should occur regardless of who above you is trying to inspire you (similar to Intimidate, anyone should be able to do it).

If Charisma can be used to fight good with a melee weapon, then it should be able to be used to encourage an ally to no longer be unconscious through "half closed eyes" by anyone.

In other words, if the narrative description is that the unconscious PC is being inspired, then any PC should be able to inspire that PC because it is not a magical or psionic dream.

Bottom line, the mechanics drive the narrative instead of the other way around. (Non-magical) healing by shouting does not make sense, so the narrative has to be changed so that it isn't actually healing so that the narrative can fit the mechanics. Otherwise, it doesn't.

And let me turn it around - how can a game like Runequest or even 3E replicate either of the scenes I mentioned - Aragorn recovering with a dream of Arwen, or a fallen fighter recovering from a wound/swoon as s/he first sees, and then hears, her leader calling upon her to get back up to her feet.

The first scene can be handled via magic easier than through non-magical descriptions, even in earlier versions of the game.

The second scene doesn't matter. It's not important. The only reason we are even talking about it is because of the illogic of non-magical healing in the game resulting in a plethora of narrative changes to what healing and hit points means.

I have never once played with a PC Warlord in the group where the narrative described "seeing through half closed eyes" was used. Instead, it was always hand-waved away. "You're healed".

I've also had a player (and separately, a DM) say "Warlord healing is magical" as part of the PC's narrative and background description, just because non-magical healing from across the room is so jarring to some people.

 

[Pour]

It's interesting that you think of this as being "tyrannized," where I see it as "supported." To me, one of the fundamental tasks of the mechanics is to inform the in-game.

I think there in lies our big difference. I believe the mechanics facilitate the game more than inform it. For that I rely on my setting expectations, my judgements in-game, and my players' actions and applications of powers and skills. I consider it a welcome freedom to be able to interpret how the mechanics affect in-game, though there are clear guides baked into any power or item.

As was mentioned above, fireballs will not be able to freeze water, however, they could ignite material, signal a distant army to attack, and perhaps coupled with an Arcana check sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon long enough to land safely (as part of a larger skill challenge).

From my experience, the mechanics themselves are not the beating heart of the game, rather their application, and 4e really allows my group and me the ultimate freedoms to play the kinds of games we enjoy most. I never saw the mechanics too vague or overly disassociated, rather a sound framework in order to apply our own logic to the game.

There's three other editions and many a setting and module and assumption of play that goes into those assumptions and logic, the mood and feel of what it is to play D&D, colored by video games, board games, books, movies, music, history, and all our other interests, but that comes from us, not the mechanics, not the tools we use to run the game. I've run my best campaign to date in 4e.

And I completely agree with your assessment of the strengths listed. And I love 4e for them.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm not presuming to tell your wife how to have fun, but just because of specific terminology like bloodied the immersion was ruined for her?

It was a double-blast of WTF that got her (and me a bit too).

1) She mind blasted a skeleton, which has no mind

2) The skeleton was bloodied, though it has no blood

It was actually the first part that irked her more than the second. I had to actually coax her to use the power, even though she kept arguing that it shouldn't have worked. I finally just had to tell her it was a game and to just go with. It left her unsatisfied, and she dropped out of the game shortly thereafter.

 

[KarinsDad]

As was mentioned above, fireballs will not be able to freeze water, however, they could ignite material, signal a distant army to attack, and perhaps coupled with an Arcana check sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon long enough to land safely (as part of a larger skill challenge).

This is the part of the issue that some people might be missing.

A Fireball doesn't ignite material in 4E.

It requires handwaving or house rules from the DM to allow an Arcana check to sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon. Arcana is a knowledge skill. It doesn't technically give the ability to modify spells unless the DM states that it can.

A given skill challenge might allow for it, but the power itself and the general skill rules do not.

The targets of a Fireball spell are the creatures in the area. Not paper in the area. Not a table.

In 3.5, a Fireball could ignite material.


4E has become very metagamey and rules driven and not narrative driven. It's more like a game of Monopoly than an RPG in some respects.


As a different example, there are elemental attack spells that only target enemies (e.g. Storm Pillar, Flames of Purity, Fires of Judgement, Flame Spiral, etc.). People have to narratively stretch that to say "Well, I'm summoning elemental creatures that do the damage against my enemies, that's why it doesn't target my allies", or "my god attacks only my enemies" (but that doesn't happen with other prayers), or whatever.

Say what?

The game mechanics of some elemental powers allow for them to attack only enemies, but fire and lightning and acid shouldn't have cognitive reasoning powers. They should just do elemental damage, especially at heroic levels. At Paragon and Epic levels, yeah maybe one could stretch it that the elemental powers are quasi-intelligent or totally within the control of the caster/user.

But at low level, powers should not be this precise. Blasts should be blasts that hit everyone in them. Bursts should be bursts that hit everyone in them. Especially elemental bursts and blasts.

Instead of some type of power capability based on level and based on keyword, level merely indicates how much damage something does and possibly the strength of a conditional effect. Instead of the elemental power affecting every object in the area, it only affects living creatures.

This is where the disconnect comes in for some players.

A Fireball is no longer fire. It's a multi-creature effect that doesn't really burn. Not really. Sure, fire resistance helps against it, but in a room of papers, it doesn't matter.

 

[Mark CMG]

This is where the disconnect comes in for some players.

A Fireball is no longer fire. It's a multi-creature effect that doesn't really burn. Not really. Sure, fire resistance helps against it, but in a room of papers, it doesn't matter.

That's more than just a disconnect for the players. It's a jumble of disconnects for the players, the rules, and for language.

 

[Pour]

A Fireball is no longer fire. It's a multi-creature effect that doesn't really burn. Not really. Sure, fire resistance helps against it, but in a room of papers, it doesn't matter.

In the case of poisoning a skeleton in 3.5e, it truly would be impossible. The rules clearly state it, so don't bother. In 4e, the marrow shrivels, the bones split, and the thing collapses. This harkens to the design goals, and 4e's underlying notion of "Yes, you can." That is not a style that fits everyone, nor is it a constant in my 4e games (for instance, in my games elementals are not injured by their element, period hehe), but I think the rules lean toward creative problem solving and are open to many judgements if the DM is willing to look beyond the RAW.

The game in its crudest form starts with a basic power block and the RAW, and for beginners and those who favor simplicity to the letter it functions well. If a DM and a group want to play a game where fireballs don't light things up, that's doable, but for many of us the RAW is taken further by the gamers: players (who use the powers) and DMs (who interpret the RAW and encourage said applications and resolutions beyond what's written, utilizing, among other things, his own logic and desire). Due to 4e's shyness toward mechanics directly correlating with the game world, this is possible in any degree we wish.

Am I fundamentally altering 4e beyond recognition? No way. I do think it is house ruling, but hasn't that been a practice as long lived as the book rules themselves? I don't see adapting the rules beyond the page as a weakness of a system. The rules are there when I need them, and open enough to allow me to change what I want to.

The fireball can indeed ignite a room of papers if the DM allows it, and I imagine a good deal of players detonating it within a library want that very thing to happen. I'm not relying on the rules to substitute for my logic, desired playstyle, setting assumptions, or player intentions. I'm using the rules solely to offer a balanced play experience, a fair resolution. They are a suite of tools I apply as I see fit to the game world- liberating, not limiting. That doesn't make the rules arbitrary, so long as the DM's rulings are consistent.

That said, I'm not arguing some people's desire for specific rules with specific affects detailed for them. Some people like, want, and need the details. There is plenty out there for them, too.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

This is the part of the issue that some people might be missing.

A Fireball doesn't ignite material in 4E.
<snip>
The targets of a Fireball spell are the creatures in the area. Not paper in the area. Not a table.

Actually, what the rules say, is for the DM to make a ruling (Rules Compendium, p.107). It specifically spells it out: powers that target creatures may also target objects in the area. That's not a houserule, it's a judgment call, and one the rules specifically tell the DM to make.

Find me a DM unreasonable enough to rule that a fireball won't damage a room full of paper and wooden tables.

I suspect that this clause is in the rules in order to prevent abuse, and to reinforce common sense, rather than fly in the face of it. As in, "no, you can't batter down this door with your Mind Thrust!"

 

[billd91]

But the decision to treat it as a PC resource and not a player resource is entirely in your hands. The action economy, likewise, including opportunity and immediate actions, is a player resource and not a PC resource - if you treat it the other way round, then immersion must be impossible, and verisimilitude lost, because you'd have to immerse yourself in an absurd stop-motion, turn-based world.

Deciding to treat it as a PC resource or player resource is not entirely in the player's hands. If it takes up a PC's turn, it's a PC resource, as is the action economy. Abstracting the actions a character can take into manageable operational bits doesn't take it away from a PC resource nor force viewing the world in stop-motion.

 

[Hussar]

For me, it's because it's the martial power source. The martial power source should be martial. In a sense, non-magical.

The inspiring dream should be psionic or arcane or even divine.

If the "seeing something inspiring through half-closed eyes" is allowed in the game, then this non-magical inspiration should occur regardless of who above you is trying to inspire you (similar to Intimidate, anyone should be able to do it).

If Charisma can be used to fight good with a melee weapon, then it should be able to be used to encourage an ally to no longer be unconscious through "half closed eyes" by anyone.

In other words, if the narrative description is that the unconscious PC is being inspired, then any PC should be able to inspire that PC because it is not a magical or psionic dream.

Bottom line, the mechanics drive the narrative instead of the other way around. (Non-magical) healing by shouting does not make sense, so the narrative has to be changed so that it isn't actually healing so that the narrative can fit the mechanics. Otherwise, it doesn't.



The first scene can be handled via magic easier than through non-magical descriptions, even in earlier versions of the game.

The second scene doesn't matter. It's not important. The only reason we are even talking about it is because of the illogic of non-magical healing in the game resulting in a plethora of narrative changes to what healing and hit points means.

I have never once played with a PC Warlord in the group where the narrative described "seeing through half closed eyes" was used. Instead, it was always hand-waved away. "You're healed".

I've also had a player (and separately, a DM) say "Warlord healing is magical" as part of the PC's narrative and background description, just because non-magical healing from across the room is so jarring to some people.

Did you have the same reaction in 3e with Extraordinary abilities? Because Ex abilities are exactly the same as Martial powers. They are not inherently magical (can't be dispelled, work in an anti-magic zone) but they are certainly not normal either.

I treat Martial powers in the same way. Ex abilities allowed my monk to effectively Feather Fall, dodge fireballs, be immune to diseases, and actually granted me spell resistance and speak to any living creature. Somehow my training as a monk, completely non magical, renders me immune to magic and allows me to automatically communicate with anything in the universe.

To me, there isn't a huge difference here between 3.5's Ex abilities and 4e's Martial powers.

And, let's be honest here, the Supernatural abilities were just a patch to allow certain types of casters to bypass spell resistance.

I've never really gotten why people have such a difficult time swallowing a fighter having powers and yet never, ever complained about, say, a monk, doing the exact same thing.

 

[Dausuul]

While I'm not fond of 4E's occasional dip into the narrativism pool, in fairness I should point out that things aren't as bad as people make them out to be. Otherwise I'd have quit 4E long ago. Come and Get It is an outlier; most powers can be narrated in the traditional way without trouble (and now even CaGI has been fixed). Pretty much all 4E undead have poison and disease immunity. As Nemesis Destiny has pointed out, fireballs can ignite objects at DM discretion. And Essentials has provided at least the option to have martial classes without the Vancian mechanic.

I do want to touch on Stormonu's point about terminology though. I think that's one area where 4E could be made a lot stronger with a relatively small amount of work. The words chosen to represent in-game concepts are hugely important. When they are well-chosen, they support the concept and help players grasp the underlying mechanic. When they are ill-chosen, they're a constant drag on immersion.

I honestly think the healing surge mechanic wouldn't have caused nearly as much of a ruckus if they had just called them "heroic surges" instead. "Healing surge" is an immersion-wrecker because it implies that the warlord yells at you and your wounds close. Likewise, "bloodied" could be replaced by "battered," perhaps*.

[size=-2]*Although I find myself intrigued by the idea that critters without blood could be immune to bloodying. That would both improve immersion and add a neat new mechanical ability for certain monsters.[/size]