Realism when applied to RPG's means that things happen according to preset rules and remain consistent with those rules, unless acted upon by an unknown factor.
That is one way to apply "realism" to an RPG. Another way is to ask "Is the fiction verisimilitudinous and/or genre appropriate?" This can be achived other than via mechanicall modelling of ingame causal processes. It can be achieved by the participants at the table making sure they don't break genre/verisimilitude in their narration.
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.
What are the gameworld physics of a HeroQuest Revised game? The action resolution mechanics don't tell you. It is up to the participants (especially the GM) to supply them, keeping in mind constraints of genre and credibility. 4e is, in my view, similar - this is the logic of "say yes" and page 42. Unlike HeroQuest, however, 4e has keywords as important anchors between mechanics and fiction.
Despite rationalizations to the contrary, I am certain that WoTC will get more market share if they're more proactive about making updates to the game that at least tries to incorporate both schools of thought, rather than just defending one school of thought (the 'Dear Mike & Monte' thread is pertinent here). I have tried to conclude my posts with progressive suggestions as they come to me.
I'm sure that WotC will get more share if they change their game from it's current design approach to a more 3E-ish approach. For at a year or so it has been increasingly apparent that WotC was wrong in following Ron Edwards idea that there was a market for less-simulationist games that would rely more heavily on the participants to fill in the details of the fiction in the pursuit of other goals of play (thematic, or Balesir-style "light gamist).
But (in my view) this has nothing to do with realism. A fortune-in-the-middle game can be as realistic as you like, if the participants adhere to realism in interjecting their narration. And this is the point that (as I posted back on the first page of this thread) I believe that Monte Cook's column appears not to acknowledge.
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.
"Dying" is not an ingame state. It is a metagame state.
I can well imagine and be immersed in the idea of the swordplay, and find it compelling, even if the words spoken at the table are only "I swing", etc.
But not in a duel of wits, even if the words spoken at the table are only "I sneer at her", "I rebut", etc?
I'm beginning to think this "is the fiction important" thing comes down to what one means by "important".
If "importance" is taken purely in the sense of "will the flavour/colour description change the mechanical outcome of an action", then the situation in 4E is that it will have no "importance". And, FWIW, I say "halleluja" to that.
If, on the other hand, the "importance" of the colour/flavour elements is taken to be allowing each player present to have a coherent picture of the fictional events - to have a model that makes sense for them of what has occurred in the fictional space - then I would submit that (a) the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of doing this and (b) it is very important in that it allows a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character.
I would want to add to this: depending on what sort of game is being run, events in the fiction can be quite significant to the development of an ongoing situation, or the nature/theme/content of future situations.
A bard who uses Vicious Mockery to attack skeletons by ridiculing the creator of those skeletons, for example, might later be visited by the hostile ghost of that creator.
All my points on the subject were how little sense it made for vicious mockery to hurt the (shadow) magic which binds the skeleton, its dead creator, or the god who has the portfolio associated with the spell.
I didn't suggest you hurt the magic or the creator or the god. I suggested that by mocking those things you might hurt the skeleton or the ooze.
Here are the rules for Twisted Space...
<snip>
What exactly did you have to use page 42 for?
The rules you quoted say nothing about whether or not Twist of Space can be used to rescue the victim of a magic trapping mirror. But they do indicate that the spell has the
teleport keyword.
Resolving a non-standard use of a power and/or skill is a page 42 matter. As [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] put it, this is 4e's default action resolution system.
My problem is mainly the lack of consistency concerning the 4e approach.
Neither the player nor the DM should suddenly change their mind without redefining the actual rule involved.
<snip>
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.
I don't understand why it is a problem that different tables handle it diferent ways. And I don't understand why a GM (or a group) is likely to be inconsistent in adjudication; or, if this is a problem, how more rules detail will help.
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.
<snip>
Saying "A chicken comes from an egg, therefore all eggs are chickens." is equally wrong.
Others, besides Mallus also referenced other fighters, not just Hercules. So this is just totally flawed
The Moldvay Basic rulebook mentions only one example fighter - Hercules - and only one example magic-user - Merlin.
This is nothing to do with fallacies of generalisation. It is about illustrations. If the writer chooses to illustrate his/her classes by giving Hercules and Merlin as examples, I assume that s/he is inviting me to focus on more than just Hercules club or Merlin's staff, or the fact that both a pre-modern figures, or even just that Hercules uses brawn and Merlin magic.
Why does the writer use Hercules, and not (for example) Eric the Red as an example? For me, at least, the example of Hercules invokes a figure not just who uses brawn, but who uses brawn to achieve fantastic feats.
