Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[D'karr]

I didn't find the previous reference to a torch, but think it really depends on the wording of the rule.

1) Torches = 1d4 fire damage to 1 creature
2) Torches = 1d4 fire damage

Why must the fireball specify x damage to all creatures in a burst, instead of x damage in a burst? I suppose it seems to be a purposeful way of avoiding ick messy questions of fictional positioning. But so many groups seem to take the RAW so seriously, it seems to be becomes the de facto standard to ignore fictional positioning.

And that's where I think that the disconnect happens. Should a measure of common sense (this is a fantasy RPG after all) be set aside by the DM because a "rule" says one specific thing, and it can't really do anything else?

If the torch rule says 1d4 damage 1 creature, and the rules already specify that the DM is responsible for the "environment". What is it that prevents the DM from saying that the creature now catches on fire and takes 5 points of ongoing damage, or that a nearby curtain also catches on fire as the torch hits the creature?

It seems like some want to look at the rules as the be-all, end-all for the parameters of the game. If it's not written, it can never happen. In a game of imagination that is highly restricting, because no matter how many rules designers provide, they will always miss something. Either the players want to get creative, or the DM does, and when that happens the rules are insufficient.

The best moderator(s) of the rules, and their interaction within the game and the game world are the DM and players actually playing the game.

The 4e DMG has a lot of good advice for DMs (new and old) about how to run the game. Everytime I see these parsing of rules arguments it makes me really sad.

When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?

 

[Mark CMG]

When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?

(Strikethrough = mine) That's the very definition of standard and it's the default for how tournament play needs to be handled. It's also how most people will play the game except in cases where they disagree with how the rules are written, which is more rare than regular, hence the definition of standard.

 

[Imaro]

When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?

I think this is hyperbole... you know like you called me on earlier

However, with 4e I'm probably not paying for fluff, since it's totally maleable... so in a game like 4e really, all I am paying for is the rules. I think playing in a "rules as written only" way isn't necessarily the best... but I don't ascribe to "just make it all up" as the answer to everything either, otherwise what am I paying for?

 

[LurkAway]

When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?

I don't know, but it seems to be a common playstyle. If D&D was a game for hippies and revolutionaries, I am sure it wouldn't be so common. But D&D seems to be a game where many groups play by the RAW and take the metagame very seriously as well. I think part of that has to do with a general tendency to take game rules (whether sports or board games) seriously in order to maintain a fair playing field (and the assumption that the game will break if the group goes beyond the province of the rules). I think another part of it is the 4E being very specific that the default rule is independant of fictional positioning. And I think another part of it is that many players (of any D&D edition) don't care about whether papers are burning up in a fireball.. they don't think about it because they don't want a nod to realism, they have other goals for D&D.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Edit: It's really starting to become apparent to me that it is the gamist design of 4e that I don't like. I play narrative games and I play simulationist games but I have never been a fan of more gamist systems. I guess this is also why I have such a problem when people claim 4e is narrative... it just doesn't strike those same chords for me as a game like Legends of Anglerre does, without me overlaying narrative conventions onto it. Very little in it's mechanics remind me of the narrative games I am familiar with but it's mechanics almost always scream gamist to me. This is all IMO and all that...

Yeah, I can see how you arrived at this conclusion, and it's good that you recognize what you like, instead of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Here is the funny part though - for my group (and I may or may not speak for all of them - I don't know), the gamist elements of 4e only appear sometimes, and for the rest, the narrative just takes over and mechanics take a back seat to the RP and story, just like, for us, they always have.

I think part of what makes this appealing for us, is that we like some variety in our experience. Sometimes, we want to sit down and have a tactical skirmish. Other times, we want to spend a whole session without rolling any dice. Other times we enjoy adding in houseruled things like Do Something Cool, ad-hoc Action Points, and other such. And we do even like to add elements of realism to the game - I've houseruled in things for drinking contests, forced marches, (slightly) more realistic healing, and a way to smooth over the mental issues some people had with Martial Daily powers (I use a recharge mechanic that allows characters to spend surges to regain powers - it is costly and it works for any character/power source).

I'm glad that we seem to have finally arrived at understanding, if not agreement, on our respective points of view. I don't want to force everyone to see things my way (i.e. One True Way), but I do try to dispel as many misconceptions as possible (Many True Ways, pick what works for you).

 

[D'karr]

(Strikethrough = mine) That's the very definition of standard and it's the default for how tournament play needs to be handled. It's also how most people will play the game except in cases where they disagree with how the rules are written, which is more rare than regular, hence the definition of standard.

Tournament play? What tournament is that? I didn't know the players were in some kind of competition.

The "standard" specifically allows for the DM to make judgement calls, as a matter of fact the DMG specifically encourages the DM to make judgement calls that will make the game more fun for those at the table.

So the "standard" is heavily influenced by what the DM and the players view as the most fun for them. That is the "standard", make it fun for those at the table.

If a player is going to use a fire effect and I, as the DM, know that he will set the room on fire, then I inform him of it, so he can make an informed decision. The DMG encourages the DM to do that. It doesn't encourage the DM to get into a "gotcha" game with the players. Obviously that usually leads to less fun. That is also part of the "standard" keep your players informed.

 

[LurkAway]

If a player is going to use a fire effect and I, as the DM, know that he will set the room on fire, then I inform him of it, so he can make an informed decision. The DMG encourages the DM to do that.

Why doesn't the game encourage the DM *more* to do that, by listing fireball as causing x damage in a burst (with no mention of creatures). Then maybe a separate "fire" entry which states that "For game balance purposes, we suggest fire causes damage to creatures only, but may affect objects and catch fire as per DM discretion". If you do that, you're compromising between both schools of thought. What exactly do you think is the problem with the above suggestion, and why do you think that 4E didn't do it that way from the beginning?

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I can see how you arrived at this conclusion, and it's good that you recognize what you like, instead of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Here is the funny part though - for my group (and I may or may not speak for all of them - I don't know), the gamist elements of 4e only appear sometimes, and for the rest, the narrative just takes over and mechanics take a back seat to the RP and story, just like, for us, they always have.

I think part of what makes this appealing for us, is that we like some variety in our experience. Sometimes, we want to sit down and have a tactical skirmish. Other times, we want to spend a whole session without rolling any dice. Other times we enjoy adding in houseruled things like Do Something Cool, ad-hoc Action Points, and other such. And we do even like to add elements of realism to the game - I've houseruled in things for drinking contests, forced marches, (slightly) more realistic healing, and a way to smooth over the mental issues some people had with Martial Daily powers (I use a recharge mechanic that allows characters to spend surges to regain powers - it is costly and it works for any character/power source).

I'm glad that we seem to have finally arrived at understanding, if not agreement, on our respective points of view. I don't want to force everyone to see things my way (i.e. One True Way), but I do try to dispel as many misconceptions as possible (Many True Ways, pick what works for you).

Cool, and don't get me wrong I don't dislike 4e as a whole and am even running and playing in a game of it (along with a Pathfinder game) now. It's just some of it's gamist elements do rub me the wrong way and it's narrative mechanics, IMO, seem more like outliers or accidents than a true effort to make them game support a narrative style in play. All IMO, of course.

 

[Mark CMG]

Tournament play?

A broad term meant to encompass games at conventions, gamedays, Encounters, Organized Play, etc. The rules as written are the standard by which they are all adjudicated. (In many such instances, groups compete against one another to do better in a tourney adventure than other groups do.) A player going to such a game cannot expect that the organizers/judges/DMs/GMs will adopt the house rules of that player's home DM, any more than if the player goes from one home group to another. There are groups where several people DM and where those various DMs do not even use the same house rules. In all instances, the rules as written are the standard, sans DM house rules or additions (and despite some rulesets allowing DMs/GMs to overturn rules as written in the name of fun).

 

[D'karr]

I think this is hyperbole... you know like you called me on earlier

I don't think so, but opinions, etc...

However, with 4e I'm probably not paying for fluff, since it's totally maleable... so in a game like 4e really, all I am paying for is the rules. I think playing in a "rules as written only" way isn't necessarily the best... but I don't ascribe to "just make it all up" as the answer to everything either, otherwise what am I paying for?

But that's the other extreme, "make it all up", is just as extreme as "only what the book says."

Very few players ever game only at those two extremes. There is a whole lot of land in the middle of those two poles. Most games operate in that very workable middle ground.

When I bought the books I paid for both fluff, which the rules explicitly encourage to be malleable by the players and DM, and for rules, that are usually pretty well balanced and work well. When they don't, the rules also encourage the DM to adjudicate. The books even provide the DM a very solid framework for making those rules adjudications, as well as providing a very good framework for making ad-hoc rulings. So the books cover all these aspects.

What the books don't cover is how each table will end up using the materials provided, but even then the DMG gives a lot of good advice to a DM on how to do so.