Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[JamesonCourage]

Seeing as I'm on a posting-tear in this thread... I thought I dredge up a few things I missed while on a holiday break from ENWorld...

Did anyone other than people trying to misconstrue my point say that?

I'm not purposefully misconstruing your point. That's the leap being put forth. See below.

Equally obviously, it means the fictional space defined by [FIGHTERS] includes mythic figures. Which, to me, says something.

This is that exact jump. Hercules is a Fighter. Not all Fighters are Hercules. You said:

A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a fighter.

Make of that what you will .

I said, "not all Fighters are Hercules" meaning "nowhere is it implied that Fighters can divert two rivers in a single day." And that's true. That form of mythic feat is by no means implied by the comparison of a Fighter to Hercules within the context of a Fighter's actual abilities.

You definitely made that leap, in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[Mark CMG]

Yes.

Can I insult it to death?

 

[Mallus]

I'm not purposefully misconstruing your point.

OK. Then you're misunderstanding something.

I brought AD&D 2e rules text offering several examples of fighters, ranging from Hercules to Alexander the Great and Eric the Red.

At no point did I suggest all fighter were Hercules. Neither I suggest they all should be Eric the Red. That syllogism is on you, pal .

Why I did suggest was that the text I paraphrased indicated D&D supported a wide variety of campaign tones, which includes "mythic" (and to bring this around to the interminable 4e discussions, in a more mythic campaign, things like martial healing become far less problematic).

This is that exact jump. Hercules is a Fighter. Not all Fighters are Hercules.

Not to belabor --pun intended!-- the point, but here goes nothing.

A core rule book suggests modeling a fighter PC on mythic fighters. How do you interpret that?

If the game didn't support a mythic mode of play, why use those examples?

I think the least logical things to conclude, in the face of those comparisons, is i) D&D doesn't support mythic play and ii) the fighter class is strictly mundane.

I said, "not all Fighters are Hercules" meaning "nowhere is it implied that Fighters can divert two rivers in a single day."

Note that I was responding to a poster claiming Hercules *was* just a mundane, high level fighter, empowered by no more than bad-assery, a Hellenic Mr. T.

I brought up the Augean Stables to disprove that.

 

[Tovec]

Assuming that by "heat" you mean energy, how much water are we talking, and how much paper? If by "heal level" you mean "temperature", then what form is the heat source in? A gas flame? A burning liquid? A detonation front in a well mixed gas-air cocktail?

Ignoring Darren's question for a moment. Fireball, as per the spell, has the "fire" keyword - that's what's important right 4e people? Doesn't the fire keyword mean it is "fire" and not "heat"? Just asking.

Why is a world where magic works likely to work in the same way as the real world in any respect? The reason magic does not work as it does in D&D in the real world is because the laws of real world physics preclude it. If they did not, there would most certainly be people doing it! The laws of physics in a world where such magic exists cannot possibly be the same as those of the real world. It is wise for world designers to make some of their outcomes broadly recognisable to inhabitants of this universe - but they simply cannot be identical.

Why is a world where magic works likely to be so different from the real world in any respect? The reason magic does work as it does in D&D is because the laws of the DnD world allow it. In Tolkien, as with other games, variations, alternate histories, etc. It is set ON EARTH and assumed to have the same basic principles of the real world, except magic works. As DnD is supposely based on these settings, or at least drawing inspiration from them, why is it such a leap to assume magic can work with more plausible and realistic** game mechanics?

OK; to my mind, 4E does this well. It explains the effects in system terms, which seem a little strange, but I take these terms to be the terms of "4E universe physics" - and they are certainly no more strange than the terms of Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics...

Okay, I said that I wanted a game that explains the mechanics, including minor bits that aren't as likely to come up very often. You bring up "4E universe physics" as though with that term I'm supposed to suddenly realize that I shouldn't want those things? I guess my point, which you missed so I'll say again, was that I want the game to resemble the world. Or more accurately I want a game where physics aren't "4e universe" but instead "our universe"-adjacent including magic.

Vicious Mockery Bard Attack 1

You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic to send the creature into a blind rage.

At-Will * Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Ranged 10

Target: One creature

Attack: Charisma vs. Will

Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Level 21: 2d6 + Charisma modifier damage.

Ah, thank you. Yes I do prefer the other version. Gave me more to work with and more of a justification on why it works that way. Am I satisfied with the explainable of how the other version can harm skeletons? No, but it gives me more to think about on the subject.

Those are just explanations of how the characters think the power works in sundry game worlds. In 4E, the facts (verifiable by experiment) are that Vicious Mockery does what it says in the power description. Theories about why it might do this are left to the characters (and the players) to come up with.

Right, okay, but lets assume that the DM bought the system expecting 4e to actually adjudicate information, not just to give them ability blocks to distribute like crackers. Next let's assume that player 1 thinks that the ability shouldn't hit skeletons, and player 2 disagrees. As with any version of DnD, they turn to the DM. The DM scratches their head and realize they don't have an logical explanation either way and turns to the book. The book doesn't know either. How perplexing, darned book should have had the answer. DM makes a call and one player is angry. Both players decide to play in other games. In other games the DM (a new one or different one) comes up with a completely different interpretation and the game continues. Now I'm not saying that the DMs are wrong in either case, nor am I saying that they shouldn't come up with answers, NOR am I saying they should be bound by the rules. I AM saying that the rules should be there to give clarification and answers so that the DM doesn't have to come up with things all on their own every single time. (By clarification I mean more info than "Say Yes".)

My main issue with many of the assumptions of those on your side Balesir is that you are saying 4e works very different then (i) it actually does and (ii) 3e.

4E certainly works very differently to 3.X and earlier editions. How I am saying that 4E works differently to how it actually does you will need to explain to me; I'm baffled.

For i) I'm saying that most arguments about reskinning/recolouring/reflavouring seems to assume that the rules just outright allow it. Where as most of these interpretations aren't supported by the actual text given in the actual spell.
For ii) Saying things like "4e allows people to make stuff up" seems to give people the impression that 3e (and earlier) editions didn't allow people to make stuff up or have judgement calls.

I'm not saying 4e doesn't work differently, I'm saying that aspects of that 4e works differently "because X" are often a little wrong/short sighted.

On the other hand, there is [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s point that the game distinguishes between creatures and objects.

I guess my issue is WHY does the game distinguish? I get that the DnD world isn't our world. But YES I expect it to have similar rules. I never had to consider it an alien world in 3e but suddenly in 4e I am expected to throw all my expectations of how the world works out the window?

Maybe. Binary thinking = fail.

Nice little snide jab though.

 

[D'karr]

I guess my issue is WHY does the game distinguish? I get that the DnD world isn't our world. But YES I expect it to have similar rules. I never had to consider it an alien world in 3e but suddenly in 4e I am expected to throw all my expectations of how the world works out the window?

The game distinguishes for the same reason that a rogue character in any version does not have "proficiency" with a greatsword, or certain prestige classes have some feat or skill rank prerequisites, or a phantom steed used to appear for 1 hour/level.

It is an arbitrary setup to provide a desired effect. Rogues can't "backstab" with a greatsword, you can't enter a class, and a spell provides a specific effect. This is the way the designers decided to give you an effect in the world.

The only reason you are thinking it's an alien world is because you are trying to use your standard for realism, and apply it to an unrealistic world. And note that your standard can be different than the standard for everyone else. The game in all editions, provided its own internal standard of "realism" that is not the real world.

The game mechanics are there to have a consistent result/effect, not to describe how the effect is produced. How you want to describe it, how the designers chose to describe it, and how everybody else might want to describe it is entirely irrelevant. The effect is consistent for the players and DM at that table, and that is what is important about the game mechanics.

In our real world a plane "flies" because of complex physical "laws". Every vehicle or creature that flies has in some way to conform to those physical laws. In a game world the effect is to fly, how it happens is irrelevant in a comparison to our world. A dragon flies even though in our physical world it seems like that would be impossible. Is it because it's a magical creature, or because its musculature is such that it can do it physically? The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter. The only importance is that it flies because the fiction "requires" it. At table one they might choose to describe that as magical flight, at another it might be musculature, and at another it might be because dragons are lighter than air. I don't want the designers to tell me why or how a dragon flies, I want them to provide me a consistent mechanic which provides the "fly" effect.

 

[talok55]

You are just avoiding the actual issue. 4E is not consistent in such borderline cases.



And now explain why this is the case without resorting to either gameist terms or "Its magic".

You can't. Many things in 4E clearly exist for purely gamist reasons. The only reason 4E fireballs only affect creatures is because the designers wanted it so. There is no logical or credible reason. I wish they had thought more about making things make at least some sense instead of existing simply to make x class a better y, or make x spell simpler because they don't want DM's and players to deal with flammable things catching fire.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

First of all, everything I said about "going forward" refers explicitly to things that will happen in the future; it was not some kind of implication that 4e is somehow objectively "better" than what has come before it. It is a nonsense term borrowed from marketing, not from science.

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.

By that rationale, AD&D and 3.x already exist too, so there is no real reason to revisit either of them, and yet, that is what many folks want to see. Just as many do not, I'm sure.

Your comparison to the fashion industry is accurate in at least that way. Do we really need to revisit the 60s, 70, and 80s ad nauseam?

 

[D'karr]

You can't. Many things in 4E clearly exist for purely gamist reasons. The only reason 4E fireballs only affect creatures is because the designers wanted it so. There is no logical or credible reason. I wish they had thought more about making things make at least some sense instead of existing simply to make x class a better y, or make x spell simpler because they don't want DM's and players to deal with flammable things catching fire.

Why did the designers of 3.x decide that a fireball that can melt metal will not set the characters on fire? Isn't that just as unrealistic?

See, the designers make decisions for game rules based on the effects that they want to occur. So a 3.x fireball may melt gold but not set the characters on fire. A 4e fireball affects creatures in the area and, if the DM and players want, it can target objects.

There is nothing there dealing with realism, it is dealing with what the designers envisioned the effect would do, and what mechanics they provided to get that effect.

 

[Imaro]

And on a tangentially, but still relevant, note... Rich Baker comments about the gamist (not narrativist) nature of 4e as compared to the simulationist nature of other editions of D&D on his blog here...

Atomic Dragon Battleship


Funny how the people that were the most closely involved in the game have come down, for the most part, squarely in the gamist camp when it comes to 4e... yet even as evidence continues to mount...are routinely dismissed, ignored or accused of not understanding their own work by those who want 4e to have been designed to be a narrativist game.

 

[pauljathome]

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.

You're overstating the case.

While there are very clearly "fashions" in art and in rpgs and while there are very clearly tradeoffs that have to be made there are also very clearly "advances" as well.

"advances" that a huge portion (well over 90% of the target market) would agree are improvements.

In art, it is hard to argue that the use of perspective didn't make art "better".

In RPGs, we've learned that having characters die in character creation really isn't the best approach.

I think that few would disagree with the proposition that in RPGs we've also learned that people want a much greater variety in character types than early D&D allowed.

Now, there are all sorts of things in both art and RPGs where opinion is nowhere near as unanimous. But that fact doesn't hide the fact that improvements in technique DO occur and DO matter.