Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[TheFindus]

Narration of the game has always existed, but limitations are good too, instead of reskinning something beyond what was intended. If something doesn't work then Rule 0 it. That hasn't changed in any edition. 3e provided a firmer framework on how things, in the game world, should act. 4e went in the opposite direction, in favour of balanced mechanic, saying that you get to make up whatever you want. They go so far as to say DM's CAN allow paper to burn in that fiery burst spell, not saying that paper does burn but that DM's can choose to allow it. Either way, the DM can say if it does but I don't understand why a logical explanation in the form of a rule is so feared in this regard.

The 3.5 rules for the spell fireball describe explicitely what kind of sound the fireball creates, that it creates no pressure, what the hand movement of the wizard looks like, that it starts out as a pea-sized bead and then stretches out, etc., that you have to make a touch attack in certain situations and on and on.
Oh, and it says that unattended objects will burn. If an attended object is concerned, I guess we have to look up a different rule in a different book.

Do you really think all of this is neccessary, that a rule like that for a spell is somehow better than the 4E version, which states the raw numbers and then presents us with a flavor text as a basic guideline?
Why not let the players (or the GM, which I think is the default) narrate what the smell, the sound, the gestures are? And fall back on a basic guideline for all powers when a specific question pops up, such as: does the fireball burn the paper in the room?
As somebody else upthread has already mentioned, 4E requires less books at the table because it was designed that way. Less talk about rules, even less time spent searching for a specific rule.

No, that's not really what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say the rules should cover how an effect works, then when people have differing tastes they can feel free to use them and ignore or follow the rules as much as they want. I think my game should give me all the tools, as well as the rationale of how they got there, for the situation. I think that 3e excelled at this and 4e is ignores it entirely.

Using the word "excelled" makes it sound so positive when in my experience it was certainly not. Because what a rule like the 3.5 fireball spell does is take away room for an individual narrative because it sets a more in depth default line from which it is harder to part. Want a louder version than a "low roar"? Want more pressure? Want a different hand movement? In 3e you cannot just "reflavour", because all these things are set into a rule that is part of the crunch of the spell description. And then you might end up with more talk at the table, because you just cannot change the crunch, can you? It is hard for some people to change that because it is crunch. In 4E on the other hand, it is flavor to begin with, and that is easy to change.
The basic setup of 4E is that there are general rules, which are overruled by specific rules that you find in the power description. And a lot of times the rules say: you decide on how to play this in the situation when this comes up. Page 42 sets a clear example for this: basic, but very enjoyable and playable rules that can apply to a certain narrative. I do not recall something like this in 3e. THIS is what 4E excels at.

I think they are similar in the fact they are produced by the same company. I think they are similar in the way they are both games with clear design goals as far as construction of said rules.

I think it is a good thing that you can have the powers on cards (like Magic), because that makes the game at my table easier for everybody. You know, read what is on the card and then discard it after you used the power. It makes the game easier. I like the fact that there are general rules in one rules compendium and specific rules for individual powers on these cards (like Magic). Other than that, two seperate games.

In 4e I wouldn't have minded seeing a modular system with a solid CORE ruleset and several optional subset expansions. The problem is that this is nowhere near what we ended up with. We got 16 different books with 16 mildly different (reflavoured?) things in them, which provide a balanced approach to combat.

What does balance have to do with this? The question of how much narrative is prescribed in a rule text is not about balance. A more narrative game can just be as unbalanced as 3e was and still is.
But to leave those things out that obviously can be subject to different narratives for different people in different groups, even in small ways, and to focus on what is really important for a power to work in which way, which is numbers and keywords and a basic description, empowers the players to fit the power to what kind of narrative they like to play with.

 

[Derren]

The 3.5 rules for the spell fireball describe explicitely what kind of sound the fireball creates, that it creates no pressure, what the hand movement of the wizard looks like, that it starts out as a pea-sized bead and then stretches out, etc., that you have to make a touch attack in certain situations and on and on.
Oh, and it says that unattended objects will burn. If an attended object is concerned, I guess we have to look up a different rule in a different book.

Do you really think all of this is neccessary, that a rule like that for a spell is somehow better than the 4E version, which states the raw numbers and then presents us with a flavor text as a basic guideline?

If all that matters in your game is that fireball does X damage to creatures in Y damage then this is enough.
But what when the "flavor" of the spell, that it creates no pressure or ignites unattended objects does become important, maybe because of creative spell usage outside of combat (yes, I know, a strange idea) or because you really don't want to set the room aflame?

In prvious editions this was just another layer of challenge for the players. In 4E all this gets handwaved away as the player can simply say that it happens.

 

[Tovec]

The 3.5 rules for the spell fireball describe explicitely what kind of sound the fireball creates, that it creates no pressure, what the hand movement of the wizard looks like, that it starts out as a pea-sized bead and then stretches out, etc., that you have to make a touch attack in certain situations and on and on.
Oh, and it says that unattended objects will burn. If an attended object is concerned, I guess we have to look up a different rule in a different book.

I put the SRD's description of 3.5 fireball at the bottom, just to help you out.
No references to sound but in that way I guess it could be soundless.
It does reference "almost no pressure" but I assume that has more to do with the fact that it doesn't shift you in any feet in a given direction (we're supposed to call them squares now?)
Where does it show the gestures? How would it show the gestures. As part of the casting requirements it does say somatic gestures are required but it doesn't give what they look like.
It also says "pea-sized" in order to give you a greater idea of what it looks like when it is cast.
As far as the "an attended object" isn't another book. It's the same one and has to do with the nature of reflex saves.
Also, no touch attack required. But I don't see how many of these things are different in 4e rules text.

Indeed, the description could just give the most basic information and then said "make it up" but, as I have said, it isn't what rules should do. The RULE should give information on how the mechanic is designed to work. If the "pea-sized" aspect doesn't work for you then change it. Rule 0.

Do you really think all of this is neccessary, that a rule like that for a spell is somehow better than the 4E version, which states the raw numbers and then presents us with a flavor text as a basic guideline?
Why not let the players (or the GM, which I think is the default) narrate what the smell, the sound, the gestures are? And fall back on a basic guideline for all powers when a specific question pops up, such as: does the fireball burn the paper in the room?
As somebody else upthread has already mentioned, 4E requires less books at the table because it was designed that way. Less talk about rules, even less time spent searching for a specific rule.

I guess it depends on your definition of necessary.
Do I think its necessary that the rules provide us with the structure so questions have answers? Yes.
Do I think its necessary that we be bound by the text? No.
I DO think that a basic guideline isn't enough.
Why not let players (or the GM) narrate what the smell, sound, gestures are? Who's saying they can't? I'm not. I'm saying that if they have no idea what would be a good idea on what it ... well not smells, sounds or gestures but those other things should be, then it's good if the game tells you these things - even if you disagree and change it.
3e only requires more books when you are adding on a rare/mysterious/unique/hard to remember/misc. class/race/ability/feat/misc. to a character. It isn't required when you need to know if fire from a fireball burns paper.
Besides the phenomenon of "adding on a rare/mysterious/unique/hard to remember/misc. class/race/ability/feat/misc. to a character" isn't unique to 3e, 4e does it too.
My entire career of DMing 3.5 - I only ever owned the core 3 and that was because I was the DM and needed more info than the party.

Using the word "excelled" makes it sound so positive when in my experience it was certainly not. Because what a rule like the 3.5 fireball spell does is take away room for an individual narrative because it sets a more in depth default line from which it is harder to part. Want a louder version than a "low roar"? Want more pressure? Want a different hand movement? In 3e you cannot just "reflavour", because all these things are set into a rule that is part of the crunch of the spell description. And then you might end up with more talk at the table, because you just cannot change the crunch, can you? It is hard for some people to change that because it is crunch. In 4E on the other hand, it is flavor to begin with, and that is easy to change.

You can actually, they're called houserules and they don't change every time the spell appears based on DM's whim. They mean that if the fireball doesn't set paper on fire this time then logically it shouldn't next time. (To be fair, I consider flavour and rules to be the same thing, as they are both included in the same core rule book and both give information on how the rules apply to the spell.)

The basic setup of 4E is that there are general rules, which are overruled by specific rules that you find in the power description. And a lot of times the rules say: you decide on how to play this in the situation when this comes up. Page 42 sets a clear example for this: basic, but very enjoyable and playable rules that can apply to a certain narrative. I do not recall something like this in 3e. THIS is what 4E excels at.

I think it is a good thing that you can have the powers on cards (like Magic), because that makes the game at my table easier for everybody. You know, read what is on the card and then discard it after you used the power. It makes the game easier. I like the fact that there are general rules in one rules compendium and specific rules for individual powers on these cards (like Magic). Other than that, two seperate games.

Uh-huh... I'm not saying they're the same game. I'm saying they are similar in some ways and that this might be due to the fact they are produced by the same company. Like when Hanna Barbera animates something that the characters are going to look similar with similar technology, not that the characters, story or shows will be the same.

What does balance have to do with this? The question of how much narrative is prescribed in a rule text is not about balance. A more narrative game can just be as unbalanced as 3e was and still is.

4e was built with balance in mind, that was my only point. I'm not saying that a game can't be unbalanced.

Oh and \/ fireball \/

Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Material Component
A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

If all that matters in your game is that fireball does X damage to creatures in Y damage then this is enough.
But what when the "flavor" of the spell, that it creates no pressure or ignites unattended objects does become important, maybe because of creative spell usage outside of combat (yes, I know, a strange idea) or because you really don't want to set the room aflame?

In prvious editions this was just another layer of challenge for the players. In 4E all this gets handwaved away as the player can simply say that it happens.

Can't XP you anymore. But this.

 

[Hussar]

Tovec - Open up your 3.5 PHB to see what is missing from the SRD description. The SRD, by it's nature, does not include any flavour text. However, the SRD is not the PHB and the PHB always trumps the SRD.

If all that matters in your game is that fireball does X damage to creatures in Y damage then this is enough.
But what when the "flavor" of the spell, that it creates no pressure or ignites unattended objects does become important, maybe because of creative spell usage outside of combat (yes, I know, a strange idea) or because you really don't want to set the room aflame?

In prvious editions this was just another layer of challenge for the players. In 4E all this gets handwaved away as the player can simply say that it happens.

Again, this is why I said upthread about actually reading the rules because this is flat out wrong. The player doesn't "simply say it happens". The DM can, at his discretion, allow it to happen or not. The rules specifically tell him to make this adjudication.

In earlier editions, the adjudication was taken out of his hands and wrapped up in the rules. Yes, the rules say that the DM can deviate through Rule 0, but, the baseline is that the rules stand unless the DM says otherwise.

In 4e, the baseline is the DM. The DM determines whether the paper in the room burn or not. Not the player. The player could probably try to target objects in the area of affect, and then make attacks. Most DM's would likely allow that without any difficulty I think. But, again, specifically empowered by the rules, the DM can also determine that all objects in the area are also targeted.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that I'm arguing in favour of DM empowerment against people. It's blowing my mind. For YEARS people bitched about how 3e took all the authority away from the DM. Here we have a very clear cut case of the rules taking all the authority and dumping it straight into the DM's lap, 100% lock, stock and barrel. And people are still bitching about it.

I really don't get it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes. That is what page 42 is for. Diplomacy in lieu of Healing, but the DC would have to be higher, and perhaps also some adverse consequence like granting CA until the start of your next turn as you stop fighting to talk to your comrade.

Why?

Why shouldn't it just be the Heal skill? Why all of the restrictions?

Is it because that would make the Warlord too worthless of a healer, or is it because it would make everyone else too powerful?

The problem with nonsensical rationales is that they tend to hoist one by their own petard when logic is applied to them.

And the "well, that's the way it is" rationale is just as bad.

 

[Imaro]

In earlier editions, the adjudication was taken out of his hands and wrapped up in the rules. Yes, the rules say that the DM can deviate through Rule 0, but, the baseline is that the rules stand unless the DM says otherwise.

Adjudication was not taken out of his hands, the rules had a different baseline but the DM was free to adjudicate just as much as he can in 4e. And the baseline is always that the rules stand unless the DM says otherwise... even in 4e.

In 4e, the baseline is the DM. The DM determines whether the paper in the room burn or not. Not the player. The player could probably try to target objects in the area of affect, and then make attacks. Most DM's would likely allow that without any difficulty I think. But, again, specifically empowered by the rules, the DM can also determine that all objects in the area are also targeted.

The DM isn't the baseline though, the description of the power is. It still has restrictions and rules... but beause of the interactions of powers, effects and targets it is necessary (from a balance and consistency PoV) not to have a general rule or even a specific one of powers auto-targeting objects... again to avoid the "bag of rats" problem... where you can attack a chair and trigger the effects of powers.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that I'm arguing in favour of DM empowerment against people. It's blowing my mind. For YEARS people bitched about how 3e took all the authority away from the DM. Here we have a very clear cut case of the rules taking all the authority and dumping it straight into the DM's lap, 100% lock, stock and barrel. And people are still bitching about it.

I really don't get it.

You don't get it because in alot of people's opinion you're not arguing for DM empowerment because it was never missing, it's been there in every edition, supported by the text and up to each individual DM as far as how much, when , etc. to adjudicate things. All 4e did was, therough the way it was designed, force adjudication to perserve balance in certain instances where for previous editions a common sense rule sufficed for many DM's.

The problem is only some people had this problem, other people had no problem rule zeroing in earlier editions and thus always had DM empowerment. The problem with many of your arguments, IMO, is you assume particular things that don't hold true for many if not the majority of players and DM's. This argument reminds me of the new edition argument where the answer is always did the new edition invalidate your old books... Only now you're arguing that the corebooks of previous editions in some way brainwashed or forced DM's not to adjudicate, houserule, etc. You're blaming a failing of people to read or apply what they read in the text as opposed to placing the blame on the people who ignored or didn't use their power to adjudicate. I never had this problem running 3.5 and I don't have it running PF or 4e.

So honestly, I'm really not getting it as far as where you're coming from.

 

[Derren]

DM power in previous editions:
Fireball creates a ball of fire without blast and ignites burnable items. (The DM might rule otherwise)

DM power in 4E:
Fireball does X damage to enemies in area Y. Everything else is decided by the player unless the DM thinks otherwise.

 

[Greg K]

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that I'm arguing in favour of DM empowerment against people. It's blowing my mind. For YEARS people bitched about how 3e took all the authority away from the DM. Here we have a very clear cut case of the rules taking all the authority and dumping it straight into the DM's lap, 100% lock, stock and barrel. And people are still bitching about it.
I really don't get it.

People should have read the DMG. As pointed out several times on these boards -twice by myself with quotes- anyone that bitched that 3e took away all the authority from the DM was wrong(at least in 3.0 since I never owned the 3.5 DMG). Monte wrote in the DMG that it is the DM's game. The DM was in charge of how the game was played, the rules used and that they should change the rules if they or the group dislike them. He even provided numerous options or suggestions on how to tailor the game throughout the rules. In addition, DCs were not level based. The DM often made calls as to what they felt were appropriate by difficulty of the circumstances and/or could apply modifiers ranging from 2-20.

 

[Imaro]

If anything, from the line below found in the 4e RC (The most up to date source for rules) 4e is empowering the roll of the dice as to how the power (at least spells) are described... Wow these books can be confusing and contradictory when it comes to

Improvising with Arcana (Page 136)

-Change the visible or audio qualities of one's magical powers when using them (moderate DC)

Wow can these rules be confusing and contradictory when reading through 4e... I wonder why every other power source can reskin freely... but actual rules are given if you wish to reskin spells??

 

[LurkAway]

If you haven't done so already, please cast your vote on this poll.

Although the poll is flawed (I've admitted as much in the OP, and I'd like to reboot it in the future), it may suggest the possibility that a majority of 4E Enworld users prioritize metagame success over (their subjective interpretation of) in-game "realism". If that's true, any arguments against Vicious Mockery vs skeletons, Come and Get, fireballs not setting objects on fire, and other pleas for "nods to realism" are a moot point for a majority of 4E players. I doubt the numbers are statistically significant, but I've been checking daily, and the ratios have been approx the same day-to-day.

The stats for non-4E players are waaaay to small to be meaningful, so please cast your vote, thanks!