Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Imaro]

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?

This would have been so much more transparent and IMO is exactly how it should have been done... but, IMO, then they would have to take a definite stand on exactly what playstyle 4e was designed to support.

 

[Greg K]

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?

As pointed out on several message boards during the 3e era, house rules and fiat are perfectly fine at individual tables. However, when discussing rules, "rules as written" is the common basis we all have to work when discussing the game (House rules are fine when discussing how to fix an issue or otherwise tailor the game). (Edit: It is also a common basis for tournament play as pointed out by Mark and for players moving between groups unless house rules state otherwise).

Along with the above comes the Oberoni Fallacy: Because you fixed a problem with a house rule or fiat does not mean that the problem does not still exist as RAW.

 

[LostSoul]

I think there's an interesting question of how to design "realism" in the game.

One way: Robust mechanical models of fictional elements. eg. The description of Fireball lists which materials it will set on fire, those it will melt, and those that will not be affected.

Another way: You give fictional positioning mechanical weight and assign the responsibility for adjudicating that weight in some way around the table. (DM judgement calls, a metagame bidding process, FATE points, etc.)

 

[D'karr]

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?

If you want every power to be much longer, with possible side explanations of every nuance of its use that might work. The problem is that the rules are finite, the imagination not so much. What happens when a player wants to do something the power doesn't explicitly cover?

The more restrictive that the rules become the smaller the box to play with, because any interaction of the imagination cannot be covered by the rules. Since this is not a CRPG, I guess the designers decided that what happens at the table is best handled by the people at the table.

I think the designers figured that DMs and players don't need to check their common sense, and a sense of fair play at the door when making rules adjudications or playing the game. But I can't speak for the designers intent except as it's spelled in the books. And the DMG is pretty explicit with that intent, make the game fun at the table.

 

[LurkAway]

If you want every power to be much longer, with possible side explanations of every nuance of its use that might work.

But I never suggested side explanations of every nuance of its use.

What happens when a player wants to do something the power doesn't explicitly cover?

Whatever solution you use now in 4E when a player wants to do something the power doesn't explicitly cover.

The more restrictive that the rules become the smaller the box to play with, because any interaction of the imagination cannot be covered by the rules. Since this is not a CRPG, I guess the designers decided that what happens at the table is best handled by the people at the table.

But my suggestion empowers DMs and players to use their imagination to handle it. You don't agree that it's good to word the rules to empower the group to feel that this is true?

 

[D'karr]

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).

I could not even begin to come up with numbers but it seems to me like conventions, gamedays, encounters, Organized Play, might be a lot of players, but still a much smaller group than all those that play at home with out ever a thought of "tournament play."

Since DM adjudication is still a part of the "standard" rules then it is incorporated into the thought that it would be used at "tournament play."

 

[Mark CMG]

I could not even begin to come up with numbers but it seems to me like conventions, gamedays, encounters, Organized Play, might be a lot of players, but still a much smaller group than all those that play at home with out ever a thought of "tournament play."

Since DM adjudication is still a part of the "standard" rules then it is incorporated into the thought that it would be used at "tournament play."

You're confusing the difference between what the standard rules are and what the rules allow individual DMs to do in addition to the standard.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

I could get behind an idea like this, but I would want to see it broken down by keyword, and moved into a section of the general rules, rather than listed by every specific power or ability. Specific powers or abilities could list exceptions to the general rule.

I would also want to see a bit more clarification of how that is intended to be used, as you suggest, with more ample DM advice.

 

[D'karr]

As pointed out on several message boards during the 3e era, house rules and fiat are perfectly fine at individual tables. However, when discussing rules, "rules as written" is the common basis we all have to work when discussing the game (House rules are fine when discussing how to fix an issue).

Along with the above comes the Oberoni Fallacy: Because you fixed a problem with a house rule or fiat does not mean that the problem does not still exist as RAW.

Yeah, and in these discussions it is so very easy to discard the RAW that gives moderator/adjudication control to the DM.

It's an interesting argument given the Monte Cook quotes on your signature.

"The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook

" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook

"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook

 

[TheFindus]

By narrative approach you mean 'make up whatever you want when it doesn't make sense'?

No, I do not. What makes sense to me in a game and a narrative might not make sense to you. And the other way around. Why not let a ruleset leave some way to let the players and the Dm decide narratively what they assume to be a plausible way of how a power might work?
You see: you will play the game in a different way than I do, and it is ok if the rules accommodate to that? 4E, in my opinion, leaves more room for that than other edition. It is, again in my opinion, one of the main reasons why some people are so opposed to playing it. As I said upthread: 4E has basically left the simulationist train and gave more power to interpret the rules through a narrative approach by the the GM and, more importantly, the players.

Right, those rules didn't exist. But for years in between what you are talking about and 4e, the rules DID, and they worked fine. I don't understand why progress like that needed to be thrown out in favour of "maybe or maybe not" the papers get ignited.

Really? I have spent the last one and a half years in a group that took too much time to read through pages and pages of 3e spells to find out what a spell did, what special rules in which book governed which situation, etc. That took a lot of time and in the end bored me to death because we did not tell a story. We just read books.
Now, I understand that this is a problem in one very specific group. But I have not encountered this problem in 4E games because the rules give a lot of power to the players to narrate the game.

Yes, but somehow it is good to get rid of through and effort that people have put into a rules set? The goodness comes from the fact you now have to make it up as you go, hurrah!

What you are trying to say is (I guess) that the rules should cover all situations and cater to all tastes of simulation for everybody. Well, as this thread makes clear, tastes differ and sometimes differ a lot.
So I prefer a ruleset that allows for some narrative to fill in the blanks and actually leave that power to the players and the GM.

I'd argue you don't HAVE TO narrate that too. In 3e for example, rules on swimming were fairly clear. Now, however you have to narrate what happens and invent a rule, or take something you feel is close and reflavour, to deal with the issue. I guess 4e does excel in making people step away from the familiar and force them to narrate, if only so that the DM can guess at a rule to cover it.

You are exaggerating to make a point, I see. There are swimming rules in 4E and they work just fine. But powers can be used in all different kind of situations. Sometimes they are not easy to handle. And as I have said before, putting the narrative first helps a lot. I feel that 4 E allows for ths more than 3e or any other edition before.

Don't forget, when you make the argument that it can target non-creatures that this is a ruleset given to us by the same people who produce Magic (MtG) and that when they stated "creatures" I'm sure they meant just that. They are very clear in their other game title of what an effect targets but in DnD they apparently miss out and have to include it in a section for DM fiat if they happen to think about it or want a non-standard result.

That is because Magic the Gathering is a different game. It is nor a RPG. It works differently. I do know why you are bringing this up, though. At least I think I know. Do you really think that 4E and MtG are similar?