Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Derren]

Flavor Text, is used exactly for what it says - flavor. It is not rules text.

D&D is at its core a game of imagination. The flavor for the powers is there to help in stimulating that imaginative play. It is not meant to restrict it. Except of course in the most cynical and extreme of views.

This is a game, not a legal dissertation. Flavor is meant to be malleable to whatever the player, and DM want to accomplish.

If the purpose of flavor text was to restrict the player to ONLY the action described by the text then the game would be rather bland. Playing that way would be as boring, to me, as playing with constant "gamespeak."

And yet by saying "Flavor doesn't matter" you are reducing the game to exactly this. All what is left now is "gamespeak" that you can do X damage each round with the keyword "psychic".

And then you get exactly this kind of problems that the "gamespeak" allows you to do something which, according to the flavor of the current situation, doesn't make sense and it also makes it harder to use the power creatively as the gamespeak, the only thing you have for this power, only covers combat but no other situations.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ok. I agree with you about what's best, but I don't think you're reading Dasuul correctly. I read: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." to mean that the rules exist to assist the game, but not to reflect, define or communicate to the players how the world works. In other words, I read Dasuul as saying that the rules describe the game, not the game world.

So, maybe we're all in vigorous agreement?

I see that there is a fictional game world in our heads. Then there are the fictional characters interacting with that world. The game rules are a model that structures how we as players interact with those characters and the world. Like all models, in places it does its job very well, and in others, not nearly so well. Part of the job of the DM is to navigate the rougher patches in the model. Depending upon the group, the players may also be expected to help somewhat with this--if only to go along with certain conventions.

To give the model primacy over reflecting the game world, you must first determine if you will do so with processes or results. You cannot do both. And in either case, if you completely ignore its functions in interacting with the people, it still won't fully work.

Saying that one aspect should receive should primacy is akin to saying that the structure of a building should only focus on stability or human interactions. I don't know about anyone else, but I want my house to remain standing under reasonable conditions, and I also want it to have things in places that are convenient for me.

 

[LurkAway]

Mechanically speaking, it seems like the complaint is with the skeleton, in that it's a mindless creature that has no resistance / immunity to charms or psychic damage. Personally, it doesn't bother me that mindless creatures can be affected by mind-influencing magic. After all, it's not like they have any resistance, and a cracked or exploding skull seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.

So you allow bards to use vicious mockery on chairs? After all, the chairs are mindless and have no resistance/immunity to charms or psychic damage, and a cracked or exploding chair seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.

Really, how far are players willing to go to justify the mechanics of a power? Will there be a new 4e-inspired Star Wars novel where Jedis use Mind Trick on chairs? Will there be a new D&D book about Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged bard who goes around insulting the universe, destroying skeletons and oozes and chairs with his mindless-shattering insults?

Will I ever see the day when a player stands up and says "Enough!" and admits the madness has gone too far and voluntarily refrains from using Vicious Mockery on skeletons and oozes and chairs because, maybe, just maybe, it's better to NOT use a power in that way?

 

[Imaro]

Flavor Text, is used exactly for what it says - flavor. It is not rules text.

D&D is at its core a game of imagination. The flavor for the powers is there to help in stimulating that imaginative play. It is not meant to restrict it. Except of course in the most cynical and extreme of views.

This is a game, not a legal dissertation. Flavor is meant to be malleable to whatever the player, and DM want to accomplish.

If the purpose of flavor text was to restrict the player to ONLY the action described by the text then the game would be rather bland. Playing that way would be as boring, to me, as playing with constant "gamespeak."

How the player and DM want to describe the effects of powers is entirely open to each game table. Some might decide to use "gamespeak" exclusively (roll - That is a 26 vs. AC - a hit), some may decide to go in the other direction (roll - I swing my sword under his defenses, slashing at the ghoul's hip), and some might have use a hybrid of some form.

Saying that the flavor text says X, and that it must mean X and X only, is a sure way to make an issue out of nothing. It is also quite restrictive for a game of imagination.

This sounds like it would be great... for a game of Toon. On the other hand I feel like both flavor and mechanics should be consistent (maybe even supportive of each other) within a game or else you have no comon ground for the PC's and DM to draw on. I definitely think that neither mechanics nor flavor, within the context of the default game, should outright contradict themselves or each other.

 

[Balesir]

Where in the description of the animus is sentience even mentioned?

the body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death.

I see muscle movement and emotions but no type of mental sentience or ability to reason and understand on a higher level where it would even begin to understand a bard's insult or jibe much less it's purpose. It seems to me that in your explanation above you're ignoring the "insults" part of the fact that these are magical insults.

First off there's this bit:

"Most undead, even those that seem intelligent, are this sort of creature - driven to inhuman behaviour by lack of governance of a soul and a hunger for life that can't be sated. Nearly mindless undead have been infused with just enough impetus to give the remains mobility but little else."

From which I take it that they have some degree of "mind". Add to that that, in order to follow commands, discriminate intruders from rats or masters or fellow guardians (or whatever) and in order to fight with any facility at all, they must have some degree of basic understanding and instinct. Add, also, that they have the "hunger" referred to, and I see plenty for an arcane "lampoon" to work with.

I think, too, you place an inordinate stress on the word "Mockery". This is an arcane attack that works on a target's emotions - especially, but not limited to, anger. I find that 4E works poorly if you insist that the rules define the fluff that surrounds the basic principle of an attack or other power or ability. The attack form (or the form for any power or ability, in fact) is a principle in 4E, not a rote formula that is spammed out time after time. I find that this very concept makes for a far more believable scenario than a selection, however large, of rote moves that are repeated identically in every encounter.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

And yet by saying "Flavor doesn't matter" you are reducing the game to exactly this. All what is left now is "gamespeak" that you can do X damage each round with the keyword "psychic".

And then you get exactly this kind of problems that the "gamespeak" allows you to do something which, according to the flavor of the current situation, doesn't make sense and it also makes it harder to use the power creatively as the gamespeak, the only thing you have for this power, only covers combat but no other situations.

I think you're misreading the intent - it's not so much that 'flavour doesn't matter' as it is 'flavour is malleable - make it what you want/what works.'

I think, if I read him right (and if so, I feel this way too), you aren't, and shouldn't, be restricted to describing your powers with the flavour text provided - you can change it to whatever you want - but preferably something that matches, supports, or reinforces the fiction of the game world and its events.

Maybe your magic missile looks like a butterfly farting rainbows, but it is still an Arcane attack that does Force damage as an effect.

As an example of something I've used - I had a feylock cast Witchfire that reduced an enemy to 0hp, but wanted to take the opponent alive, so to flavour it in such a way that it would be easier to swallow than getting knocked unconscious by a fireball, I described it as my character conjuring a swarm of pixies from the feywild brandishing flaming torches, who then used those torches to beat my foe unconscious. Still an Arcane attack that does Fire damage. The spell technically isn't a conjuration, but for the purposes of interacting with the rules, and the world, at that moment, it didn't matter.

 

[LurkAway]

From which I take it that they have some degree of "mind". Add to that that, in order to follow commands, discriminate intruders from rats or masters or fellow guardians (or whatever) and in order to fight with any facility at all, they must have some degree of basic understanding and instinct.

See post 226. I think you are mistaking intelligence for sentience/self-awareness. They're not the same. Robots have intelligence but not self-awareness. You have to be self-aware to understand an insult.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't have a problem making sense of Vicious Mockery; my problem with it is that it doesn't matter if you have your PC spit a curse or not, you can just say "Vicious Mockery" and proceed on with the game. I think it would be more interesting if what you said had some kind of effect on the resolution of your action, similar to the pre-3E Command spell.

I think this makes an interesting case study for "realism." Let's take a look at a different version of Vicious Mockery:

Vicious Mockery
Arcane * blah blah blah
Requirement: The target must be insulted by your mocking words
Attack: Cha vs Will
Hit: The DM selects one of the following based on your insult:
* Shamed, 1d6+Cha mod psychic damage and -2 to attack
* Depressed, Cha mod psychic damage and the target is Dazed
* Enraged, 1d6+Cha mod psychic damage and the target is Pulled 2 + your Cha modifier squares

(Not that I think this is a good power, but as an example it'll work.)

With this version, the DM can apply his or her own sense of what the expected reaction to such an insult would be. What happens is as realistic as the DM is able to make it. I always found it stupid that skeletons and zombies were able to carry out very complex commands - like fighting - and yet were somehow unintelligent or mindless. Other people seem to have no problem with that. Leave it up to the DM and you have a rule that's realistic to multiple different groups, even if what's realistic to those groups is at odds.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

So you allow bards to use vicious mockery on chairs? After all, the chairs are mindless and have no resistance/immunity to charms or psychic damage, and a cracked or exploding chair seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.

Really, how far are players willing to go to justify the mechanics of a power? Will there be a new 4e-inspired Star Wars novel where Jedis use Mind Trick on chairs? Will there be a new D&D book about Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged bard who goes around insulting the universe, destroying skeletons and oozes and chairs with his mindless-shattering insults?

Will I ever see the day when a player stands up and says "Enough!" and admits the madness has gone too far and voluntarily refrains from using Vicious Mockery on skeletons and oozes and chairs because, maybe, just maybe, it's better to NOT use a power in that way?

Technically a chair is an object and most (if not all) objects are not subject to attacks that target Will, such as Vicious Mockery and Mind Thrust.

Also, I just did some looking, and it tuns out that many oozes and similar creatures are immune to charm, which means they cannot be insulted to death by Vicious Mockery either.

 

[Derren]

I think you're misreading the intent - it's not so much that 'flavour doesn't matter' as it is 'flavour is malleable - make it what you want/what works.'

Which translates into "Flavor doesn't matter".
What remains when you make flavor "mallable" (= not fixed) is "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"

Thats all what remains and bang you have a "gamespeak" boardgame.

"You meet a Level + 1 artillery monster".
"I use At Will Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls on it"
<Insert appropriate names for monster and ability, it doesn't really matter what they are>

And that is exactly why so many people have problems with 4Es "realism".
4E was designed for balanced combat first, like a boardgame. Everyone has X powers which all have to be balanced against each other. What those powers are does not matter. All the flavor text was just added after everything was decided and the game iteslf encouraged you to not pay much/any attention to it.
Why? Because having flavor text affect the effectiveness of powers would destroy the carefully constructed balanced combat, the foundation of 4E.

For this edition it is more important that the bard can do 1d6+Cha damage to every enemy he meets than that the flavor of the power makes sense in this situation.