Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Incenjucar]

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]

It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.

Also, "bloodied" just means "half hit points." "Half hit points" just sounds lame and gamey.

 

[Dausuul]

It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.

Since presentation and choice of words are a large part of what sets D&D apart from a mediocre board game, I think they are quite legitimate grounds for criticism.

 

[FireLance]

It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.

Also, "bloodied" just means "half hit points." "Half hit points" just sounds lame and gamey.

I think it's reflective of the "intuitiveness" issue that was raised earlier in the thread. In many cases, terminology was retained and it generally works, but in the (usually new) cases where it does not, it becomes non-intuitive and jarring.

"Healing" is a good example. Prior to 4E, "healing" usually only occurs through time or magic. Hence, "healing" as a term works perfectly fine when the healer is a cleric, paladin, druid, shaman, bard or ardent. Supernatural forces are at work, and whatever wounds the target might have had close instantly.

Exactly the same game effect (hit point recovery) occurs when a warlord uses inspiring word, or a character uses his second wind, or a character spends healing surges during a short rest. However, the use of the same term, "healing", becomes jarring in these cases because the imagery that has historically been associated with "healing" - the immediate closure of physical wounds - can no longer apply.

Hence, this can result in extra work for players who care about "realism" in this sense - a new in-game rationale has to be developed for how non-magical "healing" works (e.g. restoration of vigor or fighting spirit) and narration of hit point loss has to be more carefully monitored to ensure that it does not include the description of "wounds" that would impair the character in ways that could not be realistically reversed or mitigated by non-magical "healing".

 

[LurkAway]

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.

This really intrigues me...

On one hand, there have been suggestions that if it suspends belief to use a power a certain way (ie., using CaGI to 'mind control' the Planesailing Wizard to go Rarr!!! and attack with a puny dagger), then don't use it.

OTOH, as per your example above, the rules status quo seems to be: It's just a game, just use the power because you can, because the rules say so.

What if there was an Official Rule on Page 42 that states: If the power doesn't seem to make sense, don't use it. Or: the rules describe what can happen, not what must happen.

I know this goes completely contrary to the philosophy of Say Yes/Just Make It Work, but that's exactly part of the "realism" problem for many people. (Plus you're missing out on all the strategy and tension of the conflict between striving to do something vs a reactive contrary environment, and the drama of failure or the glory of success because of fictional positioning and not just a stupid random die roll)

So if you don't want skeletons to be poisoned and mind thrusted or immobilized foes to be CaGi'ed, then offer official Believability Override rules, which can be tweaked and toggled according to group preferences.

Maybe you have a 'plausibility+' supplement of rules that overlays over the core rules, and gives poison and mind control resistance to all undead, and bloodied has a different trigger than exactly half hit points. Maybe you have a group voting mechanism as suggested in another thread. For me, it's not as good as rules built with simulationist leanings from the bottom up, but it's a compromise to 4E's oblivousness to fictional positioning.

I love complaining as much as anyone else, but sometimes it's nice to talk about solutions too

 

[Someone]

I found the article confusing. I couldn't tell if that "realism" he was talking about was the ability to simulate everyday reality, the ability to simulate a fictional reality, the ability to simulate story conventions and tropes, or just having a lot of detail.

 

[vagabundo]

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.

We used to change the term for odd creatures that were "blooded". That skeleton would have been Deboned..

Same with the powers, we would alter the in game fiction to suit the situation, if needed. So mind blast would interfere with what ever magical control mechanism, animated the skeleton. It's not hard to imagine that characters would alter their powers and abilities to combat different creatures.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, on the subject of skeletons, it seems that 4E skeletons are not mindless. The skeletons that I looked up while performing a quick sampling check on DDI all had an Intelligence of at least 3.

Of course, I suppose "skeletons are not mindless" can be just as jarring for some players.

 

[Someone]

One of my players once insulted a skeleton so hard it died.

 

[LurkAway]

Actually, on the subject of skeletons, it seems that 4E skeletons are not mindless. The skeletons that I looked up while performing a quick sampling check on DDI all had an Intelligence of at least 3.

Of course, I suppose "skeletons are not mindless" can be just as jarring for some players.

Ignoring the mechanical number for a sec, I would presume that a skeleton has artificial intelligence. And that artificial minds have different strengths and weaknesses than natural minds (or Far Realm minds).

Then ignoring the "realism" of that one way or another, I prefer the strategy and tension of a scissors beats papers but not rocks, instead of setting your phaser to affect anything. So if a psychic blast hurts human minds and an EMG pulse destroys mech circuits, then a mind thrust hurts living creatures but not undead. It's not just more "realistic" to me, it also makes for more compelling exciting stories.

One of my players once insulted a skeleton so hard it died.

That would never happen in my game, the group would never buy it.

 

[avin]

Has this ever happened in your game? Or anyone else's?

In my game, a massively intelligent wizard has never decided to suddenly close with the fighter to attack. But the wizard (or archer, or ...) has found himself wrongfooted by the fighter, and in melee when he didn't want to be, or has tried to fall back but found no clear path and ended up next to the fighter, or . . .

It never happened on any 4E games I've seen because nobody cared about describing the scene. I would bet this is what happens in 90% of 4E games around the world.

Don't get me wrong, been there, had a lot of fun with 4E, still think it's a damn solid ruleset... it's just a metagame paradise with dissociated mechanics as 3.5 was munchkkin paradise

The wizard was moving north. Then he's south. I don't know if I understood what you mean by "wrongfooted" (english's not my native language) but I can't see how that'd happen. He's moving on a straight line, no trees, no rock, he didn't want to fall back... how that happened?

Errata made it less horrible, still, CAGI it's an immersion breaker.

As any daily or encounter martial powers.

It works nicely on mechanical therms. It sux for immersion and "realism" IMO

But, as I've said dozen times, most people here started with D&D, I've started with GURPS so I'm biased and realism is a damn big part of roleplaying experience...