Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[pauljathome]

But every power (excepting special cases, perhaps, with appropriate explanation - your "unknown factor") discriminating between objects and creatures in a systematic way is surely a feature of the game universe, not any sort of "inconsistency" except that it be "inconsistent with the way the real world works", no?

I'll admit that I used inconsistent to mean something like
"Inconsistent with the real world, any non game related fiction that I'm aware of, logic, and Occams Razor".

But you're wrong about 4th Edition being consistent, at least for all practical purposes. If neither the player NOR character can determine ahead of time whether or not a fireball will affect a desk (it will if it is animated and has a stat block, it doesn't if it isn't and doesn't) then the world is, for all practical purposes, inconsistent.

And the "Bag of rats" trick (Yes, this is changing the subject from fireball) SHOULD work. The fact is that it was ruled illegal precisely because it broke the game. But, if the universe was consistent then of course it would work.

 

[Tovec]

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.

But this isn't something supported by the rules, nor should it be. It is something tacked on. Also, in every example the creator was long dead. But the simple destruction of the skeleton and ransacking of the person's effects are as likely to bring about the same result. Why must a spell (or effect) without a power or description even approaching it be responsible for this result?

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.

What you are saying now is not what was said when I originally quoted and rebuffed that a bard could mock the dead creator, vecna or shadow magic. If this is all you are trying to say then fine, that is one interpretation of how the spell could work.

The real issue is that faulty description HAD TO be made up in order to explain the lacking information brought up by the spell.

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.

They are likely to be inconsistent because the game doesn't give them an expectation of what is supposed to happen. I think we can all agree that DMs throughout DnD have been able to make rulings as they see fit. It just feels like in 3e we went from having a solid and well explained design for fire into 4e where it is a "DM's judgement call" every single time.

I think it is entirely possible for DMs both young and old to decide that the fireball should burn the paper at the feet of the enemy this time but then realizes that it always should have but the rules never said so.
Inversely it is entirely possible that the DM had always decided that fire does spring forth from a fireball but this time it didn't because this time the paper was important.
Either way it leaves an inconsistent and frankly unrealistic flavour in my mouth that it should be solely up to DM's whim how fire works. Instead, I would prefer there to be a rule and that if it is inadequate or lacking then it be changed so everyone knows what to expect going in.

The Moldvay Basic rulebook mentions only one example fighter - Hercules - and only one example magic-user - Merlin.

Wasn't it you that said you didn't have the information and that Mallus did? Now that I went looking and quoted what Mallus said, you are giving other information that it is Hercules and Merlin only? Either way, my information didn't change. I based my statements solely on the information supplied here and based on Mallus' original quote he gave more than just Hercules. Either way.

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.

I said you were wrong, based on the quote I provided. It wasn't due to "fallacies of generalization" ?
Anyway, I DO agree that they gave Hercules as the example of brawn vs Merlin's magic. That isn't what was implied (if not outright said) earlier.

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.

All I can think is that many people can picture Hercules, given the number of movies, books and mythological tales he has been in, as opposed to Eric the Red - whom I barely know even as a nerd of history.
I do agree that using Hercules can set up an expectation that fighters may be capable of achieving fantastic feats (of strength). I do not agree that all fighters can be Hercules however but that they can expect to be mighty men.

 

[pemerton]

But this isn't something supported by the rules, nor should it be. It is something tacked on.

You may regard it as tacked on. As a GM, I regard consequences for actions performed - including mocking gods or dead wizards - as one important way in which the fiction matters to the game, and the game therefore plays differently from a boardgame. (Consider it a variant of the "reactive dungeon" approach of using the fiction to supplement the purely mechanical reasons for deciding whether or not to rest.)

What you are saying now is not what was said when I originally quoted and rebuffed that a bard could mock the dead creator, vecna or shadow magic.

At post 228 I said that if you want to use Vicious Mockery to fight a skeleton or ooze or other emotionless being you don't mock it, you mock its sustaining principle - its creator, the magic or demon prince that underlies it, etc. I am still saying that. But the mockery in question doesn't harm the creator, the magic, the demon prince etc. It harms the ooze or skeleton, perhaps by reducing its sense of self, or its will to act (in the form of psychic damage).

If this is all you are trying to say then fine, that is one interpretation of how the spell could work.

The real issue is that faulty description HAD TO be made up in order to explain the lacking information brought up by the spell.

That may be an issue (=problem) for you. It is an opportunity for others, to build their own narration around the oucomes and parameters dictated by the mechanics.

They are likely to be inconsistent because the game doesn't give them an expectation of what is supposed to happen.

I think it does, though. Look at the art. Look at the example fiction in the *Power books. Read Tolkein. Read Doctor Strange. I think most players of D&D have a pretty good expectation of what will happen in fansastic fictional situations. The game mechanics assume that those expectations will be drawn upon to shape the fiction around the possibilities that the mechanics permit.

Either way it leaves an inconsistent and frankly unrealistic flavour in my mouth that it should be solely up to DM's whim how fire works.

Whereas I don't see why it matters that different tables - eg mine compared to Mallus's - might do this differently. At my table, a burst that targets all creatures also hits objects. I'm sure if Mallus were to join my group any initial confusion would be quickly allayed or negotiated away. And likewise if it were vice versa.

Wasn't it you that said you didn't have the information and that Mallus did?

I don't have the 2nd ed PHB. I do have Moldvay Basic, which I referred to. (I've reshelved it, but I think the page was B10. I'll also take this opportunity to mention that, according to the Moldvay rules, Fireball targets creatures in the burst, yet in playing Basic D&D over 25 years ago we were able to come up with the idea of using fireball to set fire to wooden structures.)

Now that I went looking and quoted what Mallus said, you are giving other information that it is Hercules and Merlin only?

Again, this is in Moldvay Basic. From what Mallus says, 2nd ed PHB has a longer list that includes at least Hercules.

I do agree that using Hercules can set up an expectation that fighters may be capable of achieving fantastic feats (of strength). I do not agree that all fighters can be Hercules however but that they can expect to be mighty men.

Which suggests to me that the capabilities of actually strong humans shouldn't be used as the benchmark for "realism"/verisimilitude/genre-aptness.

 

[Tovec]

You may regard it as tacked on. As a GM, I regard consequences for actions performed - including mocking gods or dead wizards - as one important way in which the fiction matters to the game, and the game therefore plays differently from a boardgame. (Consider it a variant of the "reactive dungeon" approach of using the fiction to supplement the purely mechanical reasons for deciding whether or not to rest.)

At post 228 I said that if you want to use Vicious Mockery to fight a skeleton or ooze or other emotionless being you don't mock it, you mock its sustaining principle - its creator, the magic or demon prince that underlies it, etc. I am still saying that. But the mockery in question doesn't harm the creator, the magic, the demon prince etc. It harms the ooze or skeleton, perhaps by reducing its sense of self, or its will to act (in the form of psychic damage).

That may be an issue (=problem) for you. It is an opportunity for others, to build their own narration around the oucomes and parameters dictated by the mechanics.

I think it does, though. Look at the art. Look at the example fiction in the *Power books. Read Tolkein. Read Doctor Strange. I think most players of D&D have a pretty good expectation of what will happen in fansastic fictional situations. The game mechanics assume that those expectations will be drawn upon to shape the fiction around the possibilities that the mechanics permit.

Whereas I don't see why it matters that different tables - eg mine compared to Mallus's - might do this differently. At my table, a burst that targets all creatures also hits objects. I'm sure if Mallus were to join my group any initial confusion would be quickly allayed or negotiated away. And likewise if it were vice versa.

I don't have the 2nd ed PHB. I do have Moldvay Basic, which I referred to. (I've reshelved it, but I think the page was B10. I'll also take this opportunity to mention that, according to the Moldvay rules, Fireball targets creatures in the burst, yet in playing Basic D&D over 25 years ago we were able to come up with the idea of using fireball to set fire to wooden structures.)

Again, this is in Moldvay Basic. From what Mallus says, 2nd ed PHB has a longer list that includes at least Hercules.

Which suggests to me that the capabilities of actually strong humans shouldn't be used as the benchmark for "realism"/verisimilitude/genre-aptness.

It is really starting to bother me when you only quote one line of a paragraph from everything I say.

But I'll move on. "Moldvay Basic", Oh I see, I don't know what that is nor do I care to learn though. The point I made still stands, beyond the nitpick of what you took from it. The point is that Hercules is a fighter, not that all fighters are Hercules. I can agree this sets up a bit of an unrealistic standard but then I would point out that the powers presented in that 2e book (possibly the Moldvay Basic too) don't make the player into Hercules. That was my entire point, one which you have either missed or chosen to overlook in favour of reiterating the "verisimilitude" and "realism" arguments. Have fun.

Also, just to nitpick a bit myself..

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.

You don't mock the skeleton. You mock it's creator. Or Vecna (the god of undeath). Or the shadow magic that animates it and keeps it intact.

So would I. You don't kill an ooze by mocking it. You kill an ooze by mocking Juiblex.

 

[pemerton]

"Killing an ooze by mocking Juiblex" doesn't imply that you're harming Juiblex. It implies that you're harming the ooze.

 

[FireLance]

Frankly, I'm going to suggest that the bards in my campaigns make use of their extensive bardic knowledge to insult their enemies to death in obscure languages.

It's far more impressive when the bard mutters a string of complex, incomprehensible gibberish, and one of his enemies drops dead as a result.

It's almost like magic!

EDIT: As an experiment, I ran LurkAway's bardic insult duel through the Cheferizer.

Berd A: Yuoo soock! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd B: Nu, yuoo soock! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd A: Ideeut! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd B: Murun! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd A: Yuoor muzeer ves a hemster und yuoor fezeer smelt ooff ilderberreees!!! (keells ooppunent)
Berd B: Ooh, bun mut! I veesh I hed egreed tu a dooel ooff svurds, boot eles, yuoo hefe-a sleeen me-a veet vurds. Guud bye-a, crooel vurld, guud bye-a!​

See, so much better!

 

[LurkAway]

What I've learned in the past 40 pages:

I'm playing chess, and my opponent complains that knights don't move in L-shapes, that it's totally unrealistic. Do I say:
1) "This is an abstract game, I don't imagine a knight moving in L-shapes, because it's not a real or imaginary knight, it's a game piece"
2) "Obviously, the knight trots the horse forward a few paces and then pulls hard on the reins to turn the horse right or left"

I hope that if we can agree on anything, it's that #1 is essentially the correct answer for chess. Therefore, it is not well-intentioned to play devil's advocate, play with the other guy's mind, or waste time on trivial rationalizations. Nods to realism are irrelevant to chess.

Of course, D&D isn't like chess. The importance of the metagame abstractions or the "realness" of the fiction is what you make of it.

Still, if #1 is more in line with one's playstyle, then I don't want to argue with someone who has already staked their position on #1. I think it is the wrong angle to come from, and wastes each other's time and energy.

That's the easy way that I can agree to disagree with someone. But let's say that two boys are playing chess and both are imagining a duel. Boy A imagines a story that fit the rules -- L-obsessed knights and walking castles and queens who are faster and mobile than fat slow kings. Boy B sees that as kooky and bending over backwards, and wants rules (by default or by flexibility) that are consistent with more "realistic" stories.

To me, with bards insulting skeletons to death, I really thought I had finally found the 'Aha!' riposte to make my case once and for all. Nevertheless, others clearly enjoy the challenge of coloring inside the lines provided.

So what I've learned is that arguing about what is "realistic" in the fiction is to always be talking past each other. Decide first if D&D rules should nod to realism or D&D fiction must nod to the rules or a compromise of sorts. The rest will follow more naturally. (And I won't need any more analogies).

 

[rounser]

I participate (and also tell WotC what I think) because I have a vested interest in the design philosophies used in 4e continuing forward in future releases. I would really like to see them make allowances for as many playstyles and genres and philosophical views as possible, going forward, but if that isn't in the cards, I'd sooner see them keep going with what they're doing than re-do something they've already done.

The idea of "progression", "evolution", and "moving forward" with regard to art in general, and the artform of games design in particular, is a nonsense borrowed from science theory.

Art is more like the fashion industry, which recognizes that it's just cycles, not progression, and little that is objectively better. Right now "gamist game design theory" is in fashion. It's in no way objectively an advance on other theories, and is arguably less popular than former cycles in terms of RPGs (and we know where it leads - the pseudo-RPG abstractions of games like Talisman and M:tG, neither of which is a desirable destination for D&D and already exist) so best to nip this line of thought as 4E being somehow an objective "move forward", very much in the bud. IMO it's many great leaps backward, and just a symptom of thinking of a specific time.

 

[FireLance]

So what I've learned is that arguing about what is "realistic" in the fiction is to always be talking past each other.

It comes down to the basic premise/purpose of fantasy role-playing games. Fundamentally, it has less to do with realism, and more to do with what the players want or wish to be real.

 

[LurkAway]

It comes down to the basic premise/purpose of fantasy role-playing games. Fundamentally, it has less to do with realism, and more to do with what the players want or wish to be real.

Ya, that's why "realism" is in quotes, right? (see page 1)