Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[darjr]

Given that magic missile lacks the poison keyword, I don't think that is a permissible reflavouring.

That kinda proves my point. The flavor means next to nothing, the rules text is everything.

Is this really true when the core rulebook actively encourages it?

Each revlavoring is a house rule, yes I think it's true.

 

[D'karr]

Explain to me how the treatment of colour/flavor in 4e does this, as opposed to the players around the table (which of course they can do with any roleplaying game if they want to and try hard enough)? similarly how does ever-malleable flavor allow a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character? In both instances the game isn't doing anything to facilitate this, the players are.

It's interesting that this might even be a point of argument. In 4e, the flavor text for powers gives the players a starting point for additional, or increased narration if they want to use it. At worse, it gives them a default baseline if they choose to do no additional narration.

In previous editions of the game if you were a non-spell casting class (fighter, or thief/rogue, etc.) you got nothing to describe at all. There was no flavor text in the least. So the players had even less than they have in 4e. Many where the games where the only description/narration at the table was, " I rolled a 20, I hit; 5 points of damage." Any flavor at those times was entirely initiated by the players/DMs as there was nothing in the game that provided even a smidgeon of flavor text for those classes.

With 4e, at the bare minimum, they have some default flavor that they are completely empowered to change to suit their needs.

 

[Balesir]

And I would say this is where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, players stay more engaged, when the fiction of their actions actually has an effect in the game... otherwise what's the point? If the description has no effect, then all you really need is to be able to recite the formula on the power card.

The "fiction of the character's actions" does have an effect - via the stipulations on the power card. The description is there to build the visual model that the characters see in the (imaginary) "game world".

Explain to me how the treatment of colour/flavor in 4e does this, as opposed to the players around the table (which of course they can do with any roleplaying game if they want to and try hard enough)? similarly how does ever-malleable flavor allow a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character? In both instances the game isn't doing anything to facilitate this, the players are.

A poor word choice on my part - I should have said "the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of allowing this". This is, of course, also possible with other RPGs (with prescriptive flavour elements and without). But making the colour/flavour non-prescriptive in the power descriptions means that the actual game mechanics can be made explicit and clear, which in turn allows all the players to have a clear view of how the game world "physics" really works without reliance on DM judgement*, and thus gives far more agency to the players when we want impartial "challenge based" or collective "story driving" gaming.

Given the pre-existing features of D&D as a system, I think this was the correct design focus to choose; the alternative is a drive to support "simulationist" priorities, which have, when pushed, never really worked well with D&D's core mechanics/assumptions.

*: FWIW I don't subscribe to the "fireball burns objects at DM's whim" argument. My "default" reading of the rule is that it normally does not, but if the player asks for it to the DM may agree to it (well, duh...).

 

[LostSoul]

IMO, I like 3e better because it takes a stand with a concrete default and then says, but hey...if you don't want it to do that then make it so. It doesn't put me in the position of being a douche because I want some reality in my fireballs, but my players want the advantage of it being a totally safe fire that they don't have to worry where they sling it. It tells the player's upfront what the default is so we're all on the same page when they pick that spell... 4e doesn't, it tells them that I'll be arbitrarely deciding what the default is each time they cast it.

Catching on Fire via the 3.5 SRD:

Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.​

I wouldn't call those realistic.

Fireball says "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." Since there are rules for catching on fire, we should use those. When we look up those rules, it leaves out objects catching on fire - except "clothes or equipment". It doesn't say that unattended objects catch on fire, so by RAW, they don't. (Though they can take fire damage and be destroyed, as per the rules governing damaging objects.)

Objects that don't burn - an ironwood staff, for example - catch on fire if you fail the DC 15 Reflex save. Since its hardness means it's impervious to flame, and unattended objects always fail saves, if you drop that burning ironwood staff it will burn forever.

If you want something to catch on fire - putting a log in a fire, for example - you must make a DC 15 Reflex save. Good luck starting a camp fire, high-level Rogues! ("Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result." No mention of effects that aren't spells.)

*

Or, you know, you could have the DM make a judgement call.

 

[Imaro]

It's interesting that this might even be a point of argument. In 4e, the flavor text for powers gives the players a starting point for additional, or increased narration if they want to use it. At worse, it gives them a default baseline if they choose to do no additional narration.

In previous editions of the game if you were a non-spell casting class (fighter, or thief/rogue, etc.) you got nothing to describe at all. There was no flavor text in the least. So the players had even less than they have in 4e. Many where the games where the only description/narration at the table was, " I rolled a 20, I hit; 5 points of damage." Any flavor at those times was entirely initiated by the players/DMs as there was nothing in the game that provided even a smidgeon of flavor text for those classes.

With 4e, at the bare minimum, they have some default flavor that they are completely empowered to change to suit their needs.

Seriously??

Well one of the differences between 4e and 3.x was that many of 3.X's maneuvers for martial characters were analogous to real things. I mean who needs flavor text for trip, disarm, feint... while for others like overrun, bull rush, sunder, etc. there are descriptions of them in the sections explaining them. Maybe you should go back and read the PHB as opposed to the SRD.

 

[Imaro]

Catching on Fire via the 3.5 SRD:

Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
​

I wouldn't call those realistic.

Hmm, interesting. I would say they are more realistic then 4e... IMO, of course. In fact, does 4e even have rules for a character catching fire... or is it just silent on the matter?

Fireball says "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." Since there are rules for catching on fire, we should use those. When we look up those rules, it leaves out objects catching on fire - except "clothes or equipment". It doesn't say that unattended objects catch on fire, so by RAW, they don't. (Though they can take fire damage and be destroyed, as per the rules governing damaging objects.)

Waitaminute... you just quoted the spell description saying that they catch on fire... not that there is a check to see if they catch on fire or that they may or may not catch on fire. You're also using the rules for characters not objects... and you know this already, so really what is the point of this? The spell also lists the damage taken and so on. Now if you as a DM feel this is a better way to handle it fine, but that's not what the descritption says.

Objects that don't burn - an ironwood staff, for example - catch on fire if you fail the DC 15 Reflex save. Since its hardness means it's impervious to flame, and unattended objects always fail saves, if you drop that burning ironwood staff it will burn forever.

Read the spell... don't use the rules for characters catching on fire...

If you want something to catch on fire - putting a log in a fire, for example - you must make a DC 15 Reflex save. Good luck starting a camp fire, high-level Rogues! ("Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result." No mention of effects that aren't spells.)

*

Or, you know, you could have the DM make a judgement call.

Wow, really LS? You're purposefully citing rules for characters catching on fire in reference to a discussion about objects caught in a spell that clearly states what happens when an object is caught in it's fire ball... in an effort to... what exactly? What were you trying to prove here by purposefully ignoring what the spell stated happened and deciding to use inappropriate rules for the situation? I'm really at a loss as to what was suppose to be gleaned from this example?

Is it that any DM who wants to make things more complicated purposefully can do it? If so then yes, you've definitely proven that... but then I think we already knew that.

 

[Tovec]

pemerton, I'm only replying to the bits where you quote me, if you want my thoughts on anything else please let me know as I find you quite wrong on a variety of points - many of which are being addressed by others.

I don't have it either, but I trust [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]'s quote: it mentions Hercules as an exmaple of a fighter. This seems to me to be intended to indicate that players of fighters, in AD&D, can expect their fighter to resemble Hercules in salient ways.

Or it intends to point out that if you need an example of a fighter, Hercules is one. Not, as I said, that all fighters can become Hercules in terms of power. They CAN expect to have armor proficiency, weapon proficiency and whatever other class abilities granted to fighters. They don't suddenly however gain god blood and the ability to reroute rivers.

As Imaro previously pointed out here:

Did Hercules use spells empowered by arcane knowledge or a divine being... no.

Was Hercules able to pick locks, climb walls, etc? No.

So he wasn't a wizard and he wasn't a cleric and he wasn't a rogue...

Was he able to fight and kill things with weapons and his physical prowess? Yup. However being a fighter had no bearing on the fact that he was a demi-god though being a demi-god did make him an extraordinary fighter.

EDIT: 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.

Did he use spells? No, then he wasn't a wizard or a cleric.
Did he pick locks, climb walls? No, then the strong-man wasn't a rogue.
Was he able to fight and kill things with weapons? YES, therefore good ol' Herc was a fighter.

Page B30 of Moldvay Basic says "Great heroes such as Hercules were fighters" and also that "Merlin the Magician was a famous magic-user." Again, I take this as an indication that a player of a fighter can expect his/her PC to resemble Hercules, just as the player or a magic-user might expect his/her PC to resemble Merlin. There's no implication that a high-level wizard will be weaker than Merlin because Merlin is not a mortal, and there's no indication that a high-level fighter will be weaker than Hercles because Hercules is not a mortal.

Once again, it is saying, like Merlin, a wizard can perform spells. Not that he will have a grand, important place as the advisor to King Arthur. It is saying that these famous characters from history and legend are X class, not that all X class can perform the feats of that character.

Saying "A chicken comes from an egg, therefore all eggs are chickens." is equally wrong.

The broader point: given that Hercules is the only example given of a fighter, there is no implication that a figther, as a PC, is purely mundane in ability in the way that a real-world soldier or martial artist must be.

Others, besides Mallus also referenced other fighters, not just Hercules. So this is just totally flawed, good try though.

The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.

Board rules put limits on this, but in the real world, where many people doubt the existence of magic or the endurance of the spirits of the dead, there is a diplomatic incident currently taking place between Turkey and France over what may or may not be permissibly said about the Armenian dead during WW1.

Most criminal codes make it an offence to desecrate the dead or their graves.

Right, and desecration in both real life and in DnD magic would be "resurrecting the dead" not "making fun of the dead" at least to my knowledge. People may not like you spitting on the grave of the dead but they usually don't consider it to be as bad as carving open their bodies, for example.

In a magical world in which the spirits of the dead and their magic do endure, the idea that a magician (like a bard) could weaken a skeleton by mocking the power of its dead creator is, to me, entirely verisimilitudinous.

Right, but once again, you replied without reading what I was asking. I was saying how does the act of the spell weaken the caster's power anymore than it could weaken his alarm spell or sigil left behind (after he was dead). As far as I can recall I've never said that the spell shouldn't harm the skeleton - thought I don't think it should be harmed, for the record. I'm not talking about the damage done to the skeleton, I am talking about, as you suggested, damage done to the SPELL that animates the skeleton.

In those latter cases, there is no creature to suffer psychic damage as a result, so it is less straightforward. But if the player of a bard in my game wanted to used Vicious Mockery (via page 42) as part of an attempt to weaken the lingering magic of a dead creator, I would be happy with that.

I notice you didn't address my 2B or 3.
I'm glad you would let them attempt to hurt the lingering magic of the dead creator, I'm saying that doing such is a pure and simple houserule. It is not supported by the rules, nor should it be in either of our arguments.

 

[Imaro]

The "fiction of the character's actions" does have an effect - via the stipulations on the power card. The description is there to build the visual model that the characters see in the (imaginary) "game world".

*Sigh* and yet because it's malleable and everyone's picture in their head is slightly different (I mean that's why we use battlemat's to keep positioning straight right??) You can easily just state the power you're using with and explanation of it's effect and a roll (which is exactly what I've seen at gamedays and encounters) and leave it up to the rest of the table to imagine it in whatever way will make it consistent for them. So again, no the description doesn't necessarily serve this purpose.

A poor word choice on my part - I should have said "the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of allowing this". This is, of course, also possible with other RPGs (with prescriptive flavour elements and without). But making the colour/flavour non-prescriptive in the power descriptions means that the actual game mechanics can be made explicit and clear, which in turn allows all the players to have a clear view of how the game world "physics" really works without reliance on DM judgement*, and thus gives far more agency to the players when we want impartial "challenge based" or collective "story driving" gaming.

The thing is, some/many/alot of people don't have a clear view of how the game world "physics" in 4e really work, as evidenced by numerous posts in this thread.

As to working without reliance on a DM... we've been discussing exactly that for the past couple of pages... According to most of the 4e fans in this thread, it's totaly DM judgement on whether combustible things catch fire or not with a player's powers... in fact it's also entirely DM fiat on whether they can even target an object or not... so how is this impartial or collective?

Given the pre-existing features of D&D as a system, I think this was the correct design focus to choose; the alternative is a drive to support "simulationist" priorities, which have, when pushed, never really worked well with D&D's core mechanics/assumptions.

Eh, you're entitled to your oppinion and I'm not going to argue against that it would just be silly... though I think the real question is which one is more generally acceptable and popular amongst players of D&D.

*: FWIW I don't subscribe to the "fireball burns objects at DM's whim" argument. My "default" reading of the rule is that it normally does not, but if the player asks for it to the DM may agree to it (well, duh...).

Yeah, that was my interpretation as well... but as seen on this thread, that's not everyone's interpretation by a long shot.

 

[LostSoul]

Hmm, interesting. I would say they are more realistic then 4e... IMO, of course. In fact, does 4e even have rules for a character catching fire... or is it just silent on the matter?

Not specifically. That would be covered by 4E's general resolution system, ie. page 42.

One DM might rule catching on fire in a different way than another DM. Is this a benefit or a drawback? In my opinion, if one is concerned about "realism", this is a benefit. There are other drawbacks concerning this method (eg. maintaining consistency over months of play), but eh. Costs will always exist.

I think developing general principles for the DM to use when he makes judgement calls is going to create more "realism" at the table during play than having a book full of specific rules meant to cover everything.

For instance, this is what I wrote for my 4E hack to cover such things:

[sblock]TERRAIN CHALLENGES
The world is a hostile place. The world has a will of its own, and that will works against characters. Mighty mountain peaks, raging rivers, desolate deserts, forlorn forests - all of these present challenges to characters.

When a character attempts to manipulate or overcome the terrain, the terrain fights back. Treat the terrain as a character. It can take actions that make sense - a river pushes and attempts to drown or freeze, an avalanche buries you under tons of snow - and even subtle, minor actions that may be called "bad luck" - the stone you're holding onto as you climb the wall or mountain crumbles beneath your hand. If the terrain is passive, if you can't think of a reasonable action for it to take, then there's no conflict and you don't need to make a roll.

Use the standard Skills in Play system to determine the results of such conflicts. Use the level of the hex to determine the terrain's modifiers (typically level +3); for constructions, you may choose to use the builder's level instead. Apply any other modifiers as normal. Consult the damage tables on page 42 of the DMG to determine damage done; use the limited damage expressions.[/sblock]

Waitaminute... you just quoted the spell description saying that they catch on fire... not that there is a check to see if they catch on fire or that they may or may not catch on fire. You're also using the rules for characters not objects... and you know this already, so really what is the point of this? The spell also lists the damage taken and so on. Now if you as a DM feel this is a better way to handle it fine, but that's not what the descritption says.

The only rules for catching on fire are those for characters and their equipment (including clothes). Otherwise there are no rules. Which means we're in a similar position as in 4E.

One could argue that objects catching on fire is just "fluff" that has no bearing on action resolution, since there are no rules that I'm aware of that cover it. If one were so inclined.

Read the spell... don't use the rules for characters catching on fire...

What rules should I use?

What were you trying to prove here by purposefully ignoring what the spell stated happened and deciding to use inappropriate rules for the situation? I'm really at a loss as to what was suppose to be gleaned from this example?

I'm showing that there isn't much difference between 4E and 3.5. Both rely on judgement calls from the DM. If one is going to argue that fireball doesn't set things on fire in 4E, I think one would also be of the mind that objects (save equipment and clothing) don't catch fire in 3.5.

Of course, I could be wrong; there might be some other rule governing objects catching fire in 3.5 that I can't find. Which is an issue in itself.

 

[D'karr]

Seriously??

Well one of the differences between 4e and 3.x was that many of 3.X's maneuvers for martial characters were analogous to real things. I mean who needs flavor text for trip, disarm, feint... while for others like overrun, bull rush, sunder, etc. there are descriptions of them in the sections explaining them. Maybe you should go back and read the PHB as opposed to the SRD.

Yes, seriously. It still seems interesting that you are even trying to use the PHB descriptions for any type of flavor text. I'll take a look at one for a simple comparison.

This is the description/flavor text of a Trip in 3.x
Trip - Flavor Text (possibly?) - You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack.
Rules - Everything else is rules text.
Effect - If successful target prone

This is the flavor text of powers that knock an opponent prone in 4e.
Shield Bash - Flavor Text - You knock your adversary off balance with your shield and follow up with a strike.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Driving Attack - Flavor Text - You drive back your adversary with a hail of blows.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Takedown Attack - Flavor Text - You bash your foe with a vicious attack and then drag the creature down to the ground.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Knockdown Assault - Flavor Text - You smash your weapon into your foe so hard that the enemy loses its footing.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

Spinning Sweep - Flavor Text - You spin beneath your enemy’s guard with a slashing strike, and then sweep your leg through your foe an instant later, knocking it to the ground.
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

I've only used 5 example out of one character class (fighter). There are at least 40 other powers for that class alone that can result in effect of knocking the target prone. So there are at least 45 ways that players can decide to use the default narrative, or expand it as desired, just for that class. In 3.x there is something that says you can attempt to trip.

BTW, the description in 3.x is not really flavor text, it is a simply a description whereas the 4e description is specifically designated as flavor text so the player can have a gameworld narrative of what his attack looks like.

So yeah, I was serious when I said that previous editions really had no flavor text for attacks for non-spellcasting classes. What flavor text did OD&D, BECMID&D or AD&D have? Possibly, the one invented by the players and DMs out of whole cloth. Like I said, in 4e at the least the player gets a base description from where they can start, and if they want to create the description from whole cloth they still can.