Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Derren]

How is this different from ANY other edition?

Fireball - range 100 yards + 10 yards per level, AoE 20' radius, everything in radius takes 1d6 damage per level (max 10d6), save for half.

The difference is that in previous editions the rules at least tried to work hand in hand with flavor like with fire immunity or the impotence of certain characters vs. undead. And they also didn't flat out say that the flavor is less important than rules like 4E does.

And this design attitude, that flavor is inherently less important than rules is what irks people when they talk about 4E lacking realism or that 4E is like a video game.
It goes through the entire design of 4E and it is clearly visible in such situation that 4E at is core is a mathematical construct to balance combat and that all the flavor, all what many of us associate with D&D or PnP in general is just an addon to this mathematical construct.

 

[Mallus]

Not really - if it was meant to represent the ideal of what a fighter could possibly be after a long campaign worth of successful adventures.

So you accept a fighter can enter the realms of the mythic, while still maintaining fidelity to his or her class... so we are, in essence, in agreement!

 

[D'karr]

No, its just the logical extention of "Flavor is mallable".
Why do you say that when the flavor and rules conflict to change the flavor?

That is actually not a logical extension because what I said in essence needed no extension.

What you are saying with your extension is that you are willing to purposely ruin your own immersion in the game world as well as the enjoyment of others that are playing with you by extending the "flavor text" into ridiculous territory, or to non-existence. Both of which are extremes.

Thankfully the game is usually played in the "middle of the road" not in the extremes that you seem to want to believe it is played.

Your answer to "Insulting a skeletton doesn't make sense" is "Well change the flavor then". Why not change the rules instead?

What benefit would changing the rules provide? Then we'd be back to a place where I would need a rule change for every corner case that ever existed. There is a reason that D&D is played with a DM. So that those type of corner cases can be adjudicated if necessary.

By refusing to do that, or even accept it as possible solution, you are saying that flavor are less important, matter less, than rules.

Never did I say that, and once again you're operating in the extremes. Why would having malleable flavor text imply that it is less important than rules?

The fact that "flavor text" is malleable is what makes it important. Because it provides a starting point for the narration that can make sense at the table, but because of its malleability I can extend it to cover those corner cases that rules seem too inadequate to handle.

If someone at my table wanted to operate on the ludicrous fringes of narration they would be able to do so with or without flavor text, or rules. The fact that there is a DM and other players at the table is what limits that kind of behavior, not more rules for the game.

 

[Mallus]

In other words I think you are confusing the issue of Hercules being a demi-god and son of Zeus... with him being a fighter.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a fighter.

Make of that what you will .

 

[Balesir]

I don't see how you could obfuscate any harder. The above has noting to do with what I asked you about.

OK, maybe I have no idea what you were asking about...

This doesn't prove anything about whether powers are rotes or principles. (Without house rules) Their effects never change, their procedures never changes... that sounds like a rote to me. All you did was write out a long paragraph that boiled down to... "a powers appearance is malleable in 4e" that speaks to nothing about whether the designers and developers viewed the powers as rotes or principles.

What? There is a serious disconnect in what we mean, here, I think.

The rules are not the game. There is much more to the game than the rules. The rules procedures and effects are fixed, yes. What these effects mean in the game world are absolutely not fixed.

The power "Vicious Mockery" is a principle, a modus operandi in the skillset of the Bard. It's a bit like knowledge of fluid mechanics as it relates to streamlining for an engineer. Like the engineer, the Bard can use this technique in various ways to affect various entities to various ends. An engineer who tries to use fluid mechanics by rote is going to be a really poor engineer; you understand the principles, and apply them according to your best judgement to the situation before you. Same for the Bard. They have a set of principles for magically affecting emotions such that they distract and cause anguish/damage to target creatures. They don't do this the same way every time - and sometimes the way that they select does not create the desired effect (they "miss"). But when they successfully apply the technique, the game-mechanical effects on the environment are similar (as decided by the dice, representing unknown variables).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The difference is that in previous editions the rules at least tried to work hand in hand with flavor like with fire immunity or the impotence of certain characters vs. undead.

Fire immunity and resistance still exists, and still matters. Undead are immune to some attacks still (poison, disease), and heavily resist necrotic effects.

And they also didn't flat out say that the flavor is less important than rules like 4E does.

Nowhere in the book does it say that. That is you making a judgement. And really, the degree to which flavour is important is and has always been up to players and DMs to decide for themselves.

And this design attitude, that flavor is inherently less important than rules is what irks people when they talk about 4E lacking realism or that 4E is like a video game.

Again, that is you passing judgement, not something that is written in stone. I have played 4e since it was released, and haven't noticed it being any more or less realistic compared to 3.x or AD&D. My campaign world still soldiers on like it always has. It's not video gamey at all.

It goes through the entire design of 4E and it is clearly visible in such situation that 4E at is core is a mathematical construct to balance combat and that all the flavor, all what many of us associate with D&D or PnP in general is just an addon to this mathematical construct.

Again, your judgement, your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but clearly it isn't universally held.

 

[Derren]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a fighter.

No, a man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is the mortal son of a god.

A man who can't cast any spells, throw lightning or heal people and instead relies on his great strength to bash peoples heads is a fighter.

Nowhere in the book does it say that. That is you making a judgement.

Read post 282 by Balesir.
The rules say exactly that.

The rest is all flavour, or colour text. This, as stated on p.55 of the PHB, can be modified to suit how the player of the bard, the group at the table and/or whoever wish to envision the power's use on this particular occasion.

 

[Imaro]

How is this different from ANY other edition?

Fireball - range 100 yards + 10 yards per level, AoE 20' radius, everything in radius takes 1d6 damage per level (max 10d6), save for half.

Here's an example... in PF, outside of the above, Fireball also sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area... it can even melt metals. Thus if a player wants to set an object on fire or melt metal with it he can and using it can also have unforseen consequences (this, IMO, is what flavor that actually ties into the gameworld does).

Taking Fireball in 4e... it only affects creatures in the burst... that's it by the rules and flavor.

 

[LurkAway]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a fighter.

A man who can kill with a plasma rifle is a fighter. See how I can compare apples to oranges? Unless you've played D&D like a greek myth, you're mixing up 2 different mediums.

 

[D'karr]

Strawman...

You always like to use that word. I just chose to ignore the connotation because it is simply designed to be a conversation ender. You don't have to respond to any of my posts, or you can put me on your ignore list if you don't want conversation from me.

Reading the game rules for a power, and it's associated flavor text and then saying, "that is the ONLY way that a power will ever function" totally dismisses the function of a DM in the game.

If you like that type of interaction in the game then be my guest, knock yourself out. I won't say you are wrong, but that is not what I prefer when it comes to a game of imagination.

What I have explained is why the flavor text of a power works in the game to bridge the gap between rules and narration.