Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[BenBrown]

If you think the fighter is not moving, then you seem to be assuming that the action economy, and turn-by-turn initiative, as depicted on the battlemap, really do correspond to a stop-motion world.

Exactly. If you're going to treat the battlemat as representational, you're better off not using it at all. (and presumably, therefore, not playing WotC era D&D)

 

[Hussar]

Personally, probably because 3.X says (Ex) abilities can break the laws of physics, and thus are not necessarily entirely mundane. The Warlord seems to be defended as mundanely inspiring people. If he was literally breaking the laws of physics to heal actual injuries, I think there'd be less objections (though there'd definitely be some objections to that style of healer).

Just my thoughts. I think that's the reasoning widely used, in all likelihood. In 3.X, (Ex) doesn't mean mundane, it means non-magical. Although, certain (Ex) abilities definitely beg to be questioned, such as Evasion or Hide in Plain Sight (as you noted).

3.X also did things like make a barbarian rage a certain number of times per day with no association to the game world (for some reason). That kinda warrants an explanation beyond "game balance" too, in my mind.

At any rate, I feel like I'm mostly agreeing with you. I understand why people draw that line, because 3.X kinda covered itself with (Ex) abilities by saying, "if it doesn't make sense, it's because it doesn't need to be entirely mundane, since it can break physics." In 4e, the Warlord is defended as a mundane healer, using just inspiring words to bring allies to their feet. This gets questioned because, from what I've heard, the Warlord is rarely defended as "it doesn't have to follow the laws of physics." If that were the case, that disconnect would probably dry up.

Just my thoughts. I might be way off, though. As always, play what you like

Arrgh, quit agreeing with me.

I'm not sure that's entirely true though. I certainly don't defend warlords as being a purely "mundane" healer. No character in 4e is purely mundane. Every character has, to use the 3e terminology, Ex abilities and Su abilities.

If they tacked on Su onto the Warlord's healing powers everyone would be groovy? Really? That's the long and the short of the disagreement that's been beaten to death for the past several years?

For me, it was pretty apparent going into 4e that they'd taken Ex and Su powers, wrapped them up into one and then parcelled them out to the different power sources. Martial Power isn't limited to Ex powers and purely mundane abilities. What would be the point of that? We'd be right back to the problems that some people had with 3e vis a vis caster vs non-caster.

In order to bring the martial types in line with the other power sources, some allowances had to be made. Otherwise it just wouldn't work. Monks could heal without divine magic in 3e. It was an Su power. Granted, still supernatural, but that's because in core 3e, anything that affects other people isn't an Ex power.

I'm thinking that this is one molehill that has really, really been blown way out of proportion. After all, it's a pretty easy thing to fix. There are ((IIRC)) some 30 classes in the DDI, including half a dozen leader classes. If non-spell healing bothers you that much, the game hardly breaks if you don't include warlords. Seems a pretty easy fix to me.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The original D&D game was not designed for such a goal. The biggest challenge for the designers is to decide if the game is going to be about roleplaying adventurers exploring a fantasy world or an exercise in collaborative storytelling.

Put me down for option 1. Option 2 is a natural by-product, anyway.

 

[Stalker0]

I good example of the "realism" argument came today as I was at a bookstore and happened to be looking at one of the Pathfinder books, and the alchemist class in particular.

It mentioned that the alchemist mixed his potions, but could only have some many on hand each day. My first question was....why? If he's just making potions, why can't he have as many as he has components for?

As I kept reading, it mentioned that the Alchemist had to put a little bit of his own personal essence into each one in order to get the desired effect.

With that one little sentence, I was completely satisfied with the flavor. Was it the perfect all encompassing answer? Nope, but it gave me enough to work with in my own mind.

I don't desire or require huge explanations on why things work in dnd. But there are those cases where the rules don't work the way my intuition would expect (and again this is partially based on my experience with past Dnd that shapes my view). In those cases, a little flavor assistance can go a long way towards making certains things acceptable to my imagination.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Arrgh, quit agreeing with me.

It's getting quite old. I apologize

I'm not sure that's entirely true though. I certainly don't defend warlords as being a purely "mundane" healer. No character in 4e is purely mundane. Every character has, to use the 3e terminology, Ex abilities and Su abilities.

See, this argument doesn't normally come up, but I did leave room for it in my post.

If they tacked on Su onto the Warlord's healing powers everyone would be groovy? Really? That's the long and the short of the disagreement that's been beaten to death for the past several years?

I think if it was made consistently, then it'd less of a problem, yes. Look at the Truenamer in 3.X. A ton of people love the fluff (but dislike the mechanics). Using words of power to affect reality seems to be well-received. It'd definitely change the Warlord flavor, but I think that the problem is the commonly perceived flavor as-is.

For me, it was pretty apparent going into 4e that they'd taken Ex and Su powers, wrapped them up into one and then parcelled them out to the different power sources. Martial Power isn't limited to Ex powers and purely mundane abilities. What would be the point of that? We'd be right back to the problems that some people had with 3e vis a vis caster vs non-caster.

Oh, I have no problem with them lumping the equivalent of (Ex) and (Su) abilities in the same power source. It's groovy with me. I literally have no objection.

In order to bring the martial types in line with the other power sources, some allowances had to be made. Otherwise it just wouldn't work. Monks could heal without divine magic in 3e. It was an Su power. Granted, still supernatural, but that's because in core 3e, anything that affects other people isn't an Ex power.

Monks only healed themselves. Paladins could heal others without spells, but they were a divine class. But, really, I'm not disagreeing with your point. Just pointlessly nitpicking, I suppose.

I'm thinking that this is one molehill that has really, really been blown way out of proportion. After all, it's a pretty easy thing to fix. There are ((IIRC)) some 30 classes in the DDI, including half a dozen leader classes. If non-spell healing bothers you that much, the game hardly breaks if you don't include warlords. Seems a pretty easy fix to me.

Oh, I agree. I wish it hadn't been in the core PHB I, honestly. That seemed to greatly give the impression of changing healing flavor pretty drastically (which is probably the impression they wanted to give... "Look what 4e can do!"). I can understand why they did that, and I have no problem with reflavoring personally, but when 4e is released, you didn't have much of an option when it came to alternative healers. If you're going to introduce new things, that's awesome; I just wish that the leader choices hadn't been so limited on release if you ignored this brand new approach.

Just my thoughts, as always. I do agree, it's presented as a bigger problem than it probably is. As always, play what you like

 

[LurkAway]

But this isn't what Vicious Mockery has to be. If you read some traditional myths or fairy tales, Vicious Mockery - denouncing a person, or their lineage, or their honour, or their existence - and this having a real effect, is more verisimilitudinous than fireball or magic missile.

Firstly, I don't find traditional myths with their dream-like quality to be all that verisimilitudinous, ie., Thor lifting a cat disguised as the Midgard Serpent. Supposedly, Jörmungandr encircles Midgard and the world will end if it lets go. Yet a mere giant king manages to translocate Jörmungandr into a cat. The dream logic that Jörmungandr can be in two places at once (encircling the world until Ragnarok, and polymorphed by a mere giant into a cat that Thor lifts) is part of the mythic verisimilitude. Somehow it make sense in myths. Somehow it makes sense in dreams. But it doesn't make sense to me in traditional RPGs (although it could be cool if Epic tier took a crack at that, and "realism" as we know it goes out the window when PCs travel to the Astral plane and beyond).

Secondly, from my personal expectations based on the genre conventions, animated skeletons are "mindless" in one sense but not another. They have no brain. If they were real-life mindless they would be an inert object. Yet they clearly have enough intelligence to understand commands, follow commands, have excellent pattern recognition (to differentiate their creator from a tree from a mouse from an intruder) and enough intelligence to fight without any combat training. But they don't have the sentience to do anything else. There is a word for this: robots, or artificial intelligence. AIs exhibit intelligent behavior without any sentience. They have no self-esteem, no sense of self-worth. They would be immune to mockery because they have no self-awareness worth mocking.

(Or to put it mechanically, skeletons have a simulacrum of Int 3 for what they were raised to do, but Int 0 for everything else, including insults. Sentient undead like vampires, like AIs that have achieved Singularity, probably have self-awareness, but dim-witted animated skeletons don't fall into that category).

The above is not some sort of engineer rationalization that I go through to decide what is realistic for me. It's a long after-explanation for what comes intuitively to me (and clearly for others who struggle with the bard insulting the skeleton so hard that it died) from the genre movies and literature.

And I think the majority of an audience watching a D&D movie where a skeleton or ooze was insulted to death would have the same reaction -- they would laugh, because the scene is generally implausible.

Now if you saw a scene of a bard in a bar, who walks over to the bartender, asks for a glass of ale, then leans over to whisper something into the bartender's ear. We don't hear exactly what he says, but the bartender's eyes open wide, his mouth opens in shock. The bard stands back. The bartender keels over. THAT is more compelling to me.

But a bard shouting an insult in the middle of combat at an animated skeleton is waaaaay too video-game-y for me to be compelling.

Is this meant to mean that it's an objection to a fantasy RPG ruleset that it tends to produce fiction with a certain mythical dream quality?

My objection is to the lack of consistency when integrating mythical dream elements into D&D. (After all, many people define unrealistic as a lack of internal consistency). And I think that lack of consistency is based on people haphazardly picking-and-choosing mythic inspiration when it suits them on a momentary need (which for me, is a short-term short-sighted way of creating compelling fiction, and will rarely yield cohesiveness in world-building).

Personally that strikes me as very bizarre

What is bizarre about hoping for some level of cohesiveness in the game world? What is bizarre about not wanting mechanics to create fiction that is not compelling for me? What is bizarre about not liking mythic elements being translated poorly into videogame-y actions?

Just so that you don't get me wrong, I never liked the rogue who could completely dodge a fireball in a 10x10 room with no cover. Then again, anyone complaining about A doesn't mean they love everything about B.

 

[avin]

It's like playing Batman in a mutant game...except your group is Thor, the Hulk, Phoenix, and Superman.

Batman would figure out a way of winning them all. Except, maybe, for Phoenix... that is a tough one... and the Swamp Thing. Nobody can win the Swamp Thing.

 

[pemerton]

It mentioned that the alchemist mixed his potions, but could only have some many on hand each day. My first question was....why? If he's just making potions, why can't he have as many as he has components for?

As I kept reading, it mentioned that the Alchemist had to put a little bit of his own personal essence into each one in order to get the desired effect.

With that one little sentence, I was completely satisfied with the flavor.

This response isn't meant at all as an objection to your view of the PF alchemist class. It's just an illustration of how there can be a different view of the role of mechanics, which is important to some if not many of those who like 4e, and which Monte Cook seems to be utterly disregarding in his columns (whether deliberately or out of ignorance).

Almost no fantasy RPG let's a PC begin the game with an unlimited amount of money (eg as the first in line to a wealthy throne). There is no ingame rationale for this - no ingame rationale why an incredibly wealthy prince is never the protagonist. It's a metagame thing - to keep the power of PC's under control. And every fantasy RPG designed for ongoing campaign play tends to give advice of some form or other about the GM rationioning loot, even though such rationing is no part at all of the genre (eg Bilbo in The Hobbit).

This is all familiar, metagame driven stuff. An alchemist who is not allowed to have more than X potions per day, or at one time, or whatever, for me would be the same thing. In the fiction, there is no such constraint - it's just that, for whatever reason, it never comes about that the alchemist has a larger number of potions (maybe every time s/he gets up to make another one the crystal ball rings and a new adventure is on!), just as it never comes about that the first level rogue finds the Mithril Coat, Sting and the Arkenstone.

The general point is that, in some parts of character building, it is very common across a wide range of RPGs for their to be metagame limits that do not correspond to any ingame causal limit. 4e just extends this approach to other parts of the game, both character building and action resolutoin.

(A subsidiary point: in 3E, a caster earns back those "little pieces of personal essence" by winning fights. I personally don't feel the realism, or the immersion, there - it's obviously a metagame thing - and I don't mind metagame elsewhere in the mechanics.)

The dream logic that Jörmungandr can be in two places at once (encircling the world until Ragnarok, and polymorphed by a mere giant into a cat that Thor lifts) is part of the mythic verisimilitude. Somehow it make sense in myths. Somehow it makes sense in dreams. But it doesn't make sense to me in traditional RPGs

I tend to find that simulationist mechanics have a hard time with this sort of thing, although Runequest tries. One thing I like about 4e is that, in my experience so far, it handles it with ease.

although it could be cool if Epic tier took a crack at that

In The Plane Above this idea is developed under the rubric "Journeying into Deep Myth", which is very similar to the idea from Glorantha-based games of Heroquesting. I'm hoping for this to be a part of my campaign once it reaches epic tier.

AIs exhibit intelligent behavior without any sentience. They have no self-esteem, no sense of self-worth. They would be immune to mockery because they have no self-awareness worth mocking.

You don't mock the skeleton. You mock it's creator. Or Vecna (the god of undeath). Or the shadow magic that animates it and keeps it intact.

And I think the majority of an audience watching a D&D movie where a skeleton or ooze was insulted to death would have the same reaction -- they would laugh, because the scene is generally implausible.

So would I. You don't kill an ooze by mocking it. You kill an ooze by mocking Juiblex.

My objection is to the lack of consistency when integrating mythical dream elements into D&D. (After all, many people define unrealistic as a lack of internal consistency). And I think that lack of consistency is based on people haphazardly picking-and-choosing mythic inspiration when it suits them on a momentary need

I generally include story elements in my game based on need, and haven't personally felt any consistency issues.

 

[LurkAway]

You don't mock the skeleton. You mock it's creator. Or Vecna (the god of undeath). Or the shadow magic that animates it and keeps it intact.

So would I. You don't kill an ooze by mocking it. You kill an ooze by mocking Juiblex.

Sorry, it doesn't fly with me whatsoever that the oozes have an existential connection to Juiblex. If Juiblex is killed or imprisoned, all the oozes of multiple worlds live on just fine. If a bard insults Juiblex, the demon lord isn't listening and the ooze doesn't care or understand. Animated skeletons live on long after their creator has passed, so their reality doesn't depend on their creator at all. And if bards are instead mocking shadow magic itself, I guess they can mock and dispel all magic of that level -- you know, to be consistent and coherent.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Almost no fantasy RPG let's a PC begin the game with an unlimited amount of money (eg as the first in line to a wealthy throne). There is no ingame rationale for this - no ingame rationale why an incredibly wealthy prince is never the protagonist. It's a metagame thing - to keep the power of PC's under control. And every fantasy RPG designed for ongoing campaign play tends to give advice of some form or other about the GM rationioning loot, even though such rationing is no part at all of the genre (eg Bilbo in The Hobbit).

This is all familiar, metagame driven stuff. An alchemist who is not allowed to have more than X potions per day, or at one time, or whatever, for me would be the same thing. In the fiction, there is no such constraint - it's just that, for whatever reason, it never comes about that the alchemist has a larger number of potions (maybe every time s/he gets up to make another one the crystal ball rings and a new adventure is on!), just as it never comes about that the first level rogue finds the Mithril Coat, Sting and the Arkenstone.

The general point is that, in some parts of character building, it is very common across a wide range of RPGs for their to be metagame limits that do not correspond to any ingame causal limit. 4e just extends this approach to other parts of the game, both character building and action resolutoin.

No surprise, but I'm mainly see this the way pemerton does. Possibly one slightly different angle in our views is that I see this kind of thing as very much prone to individual sensibility. It's a good example, because that particular justification for alchemy bugs the heck out of me. And that is the bad side of "nods to reality". They are just nods. So if you look at them close, you see them for what they are. So you can either accept them as "enough" justification and roll with it, or see them as a purely metagaming construct. But ever now and then, the justification is not good enough to satisfy your sensibility, but too in your face to completely file under metagaming construct and move on.

Again, this is what Monte was talking about with the game needs to support you providing some of your own nods and/or modifying the ones that are there.