Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[D'karr]

If all you wanted to prove was that 4e has printed five different ways to say "I knock him prone"... then you win. Sorry I missed your point earlier.

Way to be dismissive, while still not answering the question.

I talked about how 4e provided baseline descriptions for all players so they could have a starting point from which to expand. I mentioned that they did this for all classes including non-spellcasting classes.

You said that 3.x provided some descriptive baseline, and then mentioned things that were non-descriptive.

I talked about how 4e had even made those non-descriptive things into descriptive powers, and offered a few examples.

You said that I focused on the non-descriptive things you had mentioned. So, I asked you to provide examples of these descriptive things that 3.x had and you were alluding too.

You still haven't provided any examples, and are just being dismissive. So does 3.x have these non-spellcaster class descriptive things that you speak of?

 

[talok55]

I think more of a nod toward realism would help D&D. Obviously I am speaking from personal preference. I am aware 'realism' is not a concern for many groups.

I've gotten to a point where I can now enjoy 4E, but it requires me to turn certain parts of my brain off and/or view my character as a game piece first and a rpg character second - which I am capable of doing, but that's not my preferred style of play.



While not completely outside the realm of possibility, I generally do not expect a character to fall several hundred feet and walk away unharmed... or at the very least I generally do not expect that to be so common that it is normal in a world. I expect grappling to be more effective than to simply apply the immobilized condition. To some extent, I expect Pelor to be annoyed when my paladin multiclasses into warlock and sells his soul to Vecna. (Yes, there may be good storyline reasons for how that works, but... as a general rule.)

I do temper my expectations. I openly admit that I enjoy far more than a simple passing nod to realism, but I do have a tolerance for unrealistic stuff, and I fully understand choosing playability over realism. Still, even with me tempering my expectations and being tolerant of unrealistic elements, there are still times when 4E steps beyond the ballpark I want my rpg experience to exist in.

I'd like to add a few things to that list. I expect that a PC will not go from dying to being just fine because someone who calls himself a warlord with no supernatural ability to heal tells them to walk it off. I expect that a healing potion will heal someone who drinks it even if they have no "healing surges" left. I expect you cannot go from nearly dead to being completely healthy just by resting for 6 hours. I also expect that a paladin or his deity will not "punish" a creature for attacking someone besides said paladin with holy laser beams.

 

[D'karr]

Holy Laser Beams are da' bomb!

 

[Tovec]

I'm running AD&D right now, and in some ways, it's not so different. It's up to the DM to decide to what extent a fireball damages objects/ignites them. Sure, there's an item saving throw table, if the DM chooses to use it, for some or all objects caught in the area of effect. There might be rules for room combustibility, AD&D having a lot of rules , but most are really more like suggestions.

Okay, first of all, AD&D is what? 30 years old. There have been a number of changes (I would normally say improvements but I doubt we could agree on that term.) since then. Saying ....

A lack of consistency we have always had with us.

Isn't really true. It was a lack of consistency (AD&D), then it became more consistent (3e) then it became less again (4e). A change that purposefully went from more information to less - as D'karr's prefers.

Let's assume the player has control for now...

If you're talking about 4e, they don't. The DM does.

What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it?
Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball have to behave like an incendiary grenade?

Because it isn't the wizard deciding these things, it is the DM. And it is the DM 's choice even when previously they ruled a different way and this time they change their mind.

Why, exactly, should a fireball spell function like an incendiary grenade or mortal shell? Other than it kinda used to in early editions?

Mortal shell? Not familiar with that term.
Why should it? Well should might be a strong term, but it should because from a design standpoint they have to come up with a rule one way or another? Beyond that, as far as I know, there is no strong reason as to why it should behave like a grenade or any other type of explosion.

Why shouldn't the magician have control over what burns and/or ignites inside the area of effect. Or even if it does lethal or non-lethal damage?

Once again, from a design standpoint, it would have to pick if it deals lethal or non-lethal damage. Neither the player nor the DM should suddenly change their mind without redefining the actual rule involved. In specific however, the reason they have no control over what burns this time vs what burns next time has to do with the nature of the spell, the fact that those objects are in the path and that they should be consistent one way or another. Also because it isn't the players choice, it is the DMs's.

I'm not sure you actually are characterizing your tastes correctly. What you want is the game designers to tell you how the simulation works.

Agreed, let us continue.

The designers say that when Action A occurs, it will be resolved in this manner every single time.

Not that it will, but that it is supposed to - in favour of being consistent, yes. It would certainly suck if I kicked someone in the shin that this time they hurt their leg and next time they spontaneously ignite.

When you try to pick a lock, for example, in 3.5, you will use some sort of tool (taking penalties if the tools are jury rigged), it will take a certain amount of time, and you can retry as long as you want (thus taking 20, presuming you have time).

Right. Assuming you have plenty of time to do it, and the lock doesn't have a failsafe if you were to fail. Then sure I see no problem in taking 20 to open a lock.

And this is how Open Locks works every single time. Now, how about a puzzle lock, like a Chinese Puzzle Box? What skill do I roll to open that? Open Lock or Disable Device? I can see an argument for either way.

This is where you start to lose me. A puzzle box =/= a lock. But depending on circumstance either Open Lock or Disable Device may be appropriate.
In fact, if you found a chinese (they would not call it chinese) puzzle box in a (3e) DnD manual then it likely tells you what the DC is and which check should be used. 4e certainly wouldn't.

Now, in 4e, it's left up to the DM's discretion. You can open a lock in any manner that the DM accepts.

It was in 3e.

If you Fonzie Bump the lock, and the DM is happy, then groovy, you're just opened the lock. The rules expect you to make some effort towards doing just that. There's no compelling reason why you even have to use Thievery to open a lock, although that would be the baseline assumption. I could easily see a Wizard using Cantrip in conjunction with Arcana to open a lock as well.

Are you under the impression locks can't be destroyed in 3e?
What we are talking about is that the rule is use open lock to unlock the lock, DC 25 (for example). If you have Open Lock as a skill and roll (or take 20) then fine it is done. If you don't have Open Lock you can still destory it with any number of spells or weapons - probably.
What NEITHER rules support is the player "Fonzie Bump"-ing it. BOTH rules assume you have to actually try and unlock/disable the lock before it is opened.

Other DM's might not. And that's groovy. There's nothing saying that the DM must always say yes, although, again, that tends to be the baseline advice. But, there's certainly nothing stopping the DM from saying no. I could see a Martial Only campaign, doing a nice Sword and Sorcery 4e game, where that sort of thing just would not fly at all.

And here is the issue with the 4e ruling exactly. Some DM's may allow one effect, other DM's may allow another. Neither ruling is entirely supported by the game outside of "let the DM decide" on page 42. The problem arises when the DM allows the effect to do something one time and then changes it another time. Once again, this is perfectly allowed by the rules and is a major concern about realism and consistency. In 3e, when a fireball does (or doesn't) set paper aflame one time then everyone at the table can expect it do the same thing the next time it comes up. No DM fiat/judgement/ruling/interpretation/argument/opinion/best guess required. Similarly, if it is changed next time, then there is a reason and should be considered to work under those circumstances in the future.

In other words, because the mechanics are not lockstep tied to the flavor, you can apply different mechanics to an action without having to start jumping through all sorts of hoops. Yes, you could do the same thing in 3e, but, it was never encouraged to the degree that it is in 4e. If you want to do X, in 3e, you have to do Y. That's the formula. Departing from the formula is certainly not verbotten, of course, but, it's also not encouraged very much either.

This only matters, in either edition, if people at the game are 100% bound by the rules as written in the book. 4e doesn't solve that problem anymore than 3e did except it gave them less explanation on how effects logically occur. I feel it is poor design choice to give me less, especially on magical effects which so distort the usual understanding of cause and effect. Of course 4e opens it up to having more problems in this regard, as all effects are magical effects in 4e.

Also, about the emphasis mine; it is a formula for both - as many on both sides have pointed out.

 

[Balesir]

*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.

Doesn't serve what purpose? You describe the purpose very well when you say it allows those at the table "to imagine it in whatever way will make it consistent for them". That is precisely the purpose I am talking about - what other purposes do you consider to be indispensible?

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.

For the most part, they do have a clear view. If, for some corner cases such as (important) objects getting destroyed by fireballs, there is more than one interpretation I don't see that as a big deal. As LostSoul has pointed out, it was never clear in earlier editions, either; I think it was 2-3 years into us playing that I even considered the possibility of flammable items getting burnt by fireballs - which would be after running AD&D for a while, at least.

Characters being set on fire in 4E is known as "ongoing fire damage", by the way. Fireballs don't cause it.

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?

I didn't say "without reliance on a DM", I said "allows all the players to have a clear view of how the game world "physics" really works without reliance on DM judgement". Where there is ambiguity over the precise interpretation of the rules this clearly does not apply, but that is not really that widespread in 4E - generally the players are able to know what effect their powers will have without asking the DM for confirmation, ruling or interpretation. That exact way in which the power achieves those results may be open to interpretation, but the rules as written are usually quite clear. This clarity on the part of the players allows modes of play that are not easily achievable with older editions, or with most other systems I have played with over the years. I regard this as a positive attribute of D&D 4E - something it does that is a unique selling proposition, for me.

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.

I'm sure WotC would be very happy to have something that is popular amongst players of D&D. I would prefer them to produce something that positively supports a mode or modes of play without house rules and endless judgement calls. It's no biggie - if they go for popularity at the expense of functionality I'll just stick with what I've got. In that sense they may be well advised to do exactly this, since those who prefer whatever it was that they found to do with older editions seem unable or unwilling to do just this.

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

Sure, but as long as everyone at the table is clear on what variant is being used, I don't really see the harm.

 

[Mallus]

Two words: Reference point. Like cold and lava and everything else, it's easier by default to assume that fire produced by magic is still fire and acts like fire (because it's the default reference point for everyone, because nobody has a reference point for what is the behavior of magical fire -- a good author/storyteller will 'sell' you on a vision of how and why magical fire should be different than normal fire, but it is a challenge to persuade from the default reference point)

What is the proper reference point(s) for magical fire?

Wouldn't it be various depictions of magical fire in fiction, mythology, and film? Can't be the real world, right?

Now in fiction, magical fire can burn hot, cold, with pretty audiovisual effects but without deviating significantly from the ambient temperature, etc. It can incinerate bad guys, such as Nazi's, without damaging so much as a fiber of their clothing. It can, in short, do quite a lot of things that deviate from real fire and a strict accordance with the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.

In fact, a case can be made for these rather common depictions of imaginary, magical fire in works of fiction should set the baseline assumptions as to how imaginary, magical fire should behave in the fictional settings D&D campaigns take place in.

Not everyone expects a supernatural world designed by 3rd year engineering students. Not that there's anything wrong with expecting or wanting that...

... but at least concede it that most people who play D&D absolutely do have reference points for things like magic fire. They're found in the books and movies they enjoy.

 

[Mallus]

Okay, first of all, AD&D is what? 30 years old.

About that, yes. It's fresh in my mind as I'm running it currently. It's also handy to place these discussions in a.... hmmm... historical context.

It was a lack of consistency (AD&D), then it became more consistent (3e) then it became less again (4e).

3e's consistency includes things like fireballs sometimes working under water. But not always...

Is that more consistent than the inconsistent application of item saving throws that I brought up? (they seem similar to me)

If you're talking about 4e, they don't. The DM does.

I was positing a bit of thought experiment. That's why I started off with "assume"...

Mortal shell? Not familiar with that term.

Oops. Typo. Meant "mortar shell".

Beyond that, as far as I know, there is no strong reason as to why it should behave like a grenade or any other type of explosion.

Good. Then you agree there's nothing wrong, in principle, with a selective-damage fireball.

Once again, from a design standpoint, it would have to pick if it deals lethal or non-lethal damage.

Why? "From a design standpoint" means nothing in this context.

Why can't you design a spell that does lethal or non-lethal damage, caster's choice?

If you object for aesthetic reasons, that's fine. But there no logic at work here... it's merely taste.

 

[pauljathome]

I

What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it?
Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball have to behave like an incendiary grenade?

Being able to select targets and effects != inconsistent.

Doesn't fireball target all creatures in the area of effect?

I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects". Especially when you have things in world like constructs so that one piece of paper (the animated object) is affected and a different piece isn't (or is, depending on somebody or others decision)

Therfore, I personally find it insanely inconsistent that a wizard can choose whether or not the fireball sets papers on fire but can NOT choose whether or not it hurts his friend Bob. And it doesn't matter at all if the Player or GM made things insansely inconsistent.

In my mind, there are essentially 2 consistent conditions for a fireball
1) It affects everything in the area (incendiary go boom)
2) It affects what the wizard wants to affect (Directed bolts of flame)

Up to 4th edition we had the first. In 4th edition we may get the first or we may get some absurd combination where the creatures burn but the papers don't

 

[LostSoul]

My understanding of Fireball in 3.5 was that it would cause objects to burn or catch on fire, in addition to doing damage. In other words, I think you can start a forest fire or ignite an underground vein of coal with Fireball, not just destroy the tinder.

See LS, I think you're missing the bigger picture. The fact of the mattter is that whether you like or don't like the way fireball in 3.5 interacts with objects... it's accounted for, made apparent to the player when he chooses fireball, and consistent in the rules.

Perhaps.

My point of view is that rules that attempt to model and define all the interactions between elements of the fiction will not provide "realism" (meaning that use of the system will provide acceptable, if unexpected, results to those playing) without the application of DM judgement calls. I believe that providing certain principles from which players can apply their own judgement will result in a more realistic game.

Thus the example of Catching on Fire from the SRD - without judgement calls it produces strange results within the fiction.

The interaction of a fireball with objects in 4e, on the other hand, isn't consistent, isn't accounted for in the rules, and even whether it's up to the DM or up to the player's requesting it from the DM is in the air between people who play the game.

I agree, more or less. The question is: can this method provide a more realistic result than other approaches? My answer is a qualified "yes", assuming that authority and responsibility is well-defined within the text.

 

[Balesir]

I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?

I think "simulationism" is getting used for both of its common meanings in a somewhat confused way, here.

In general, I think what you seem to be seeking is not "simulationism" in any clear game agenda sense, but "realism". In other words, you want to be able to use the game systems to model a world that, apart from certain specific departures (commonly identified as "magic"), behaves in ways that conform to the ways you believe the real word to behave in.

The second meaning you seem to be using is that you like the rules system to describe how the game world works in terms of principle, as opposed to describing it in terms of the capabilities of the characters and creatures in the game.

To see the difference in this second meaning, adopting more of this approach might see the power "Vicious Mockery" described as follows:

Vicious Mockery is the Arcane skill of using Charm magic to manipulate and magnify an enemy's emotions to the point that he or she takes damage from them, and becomes distracted such that they have a reduced chance to succeed at tasks that require coordination or dexterity (including striking with attacks or using skills). Any creature with a mind and any discernible driving needs or feelings may be targetted with this power, but some will be harder to affect than others (based on their Will defence). Vicious Mockery will typically inflict 1d6 + the Bard's Charisma modifier of psychic damage and impose a -2 penalty to actions that require coordination or dexterity for one round.

Would that suit your sensibilities better?