Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[LostSoul]

I think a lot of this is fairly easily achieved without having to drift very far (and not at all on action resolution, I don't think). It's all in encounter building and treasure awards.

I agree. As I said before, the fact that players know what sorts of challenges they will face - in terms of in-game difficulty - allows players to make choices that can address Forge-defined "Premise," instead of worrying if their source of agency will evaporate - that is, if they take the wrong action their PC will die.

(I expected that "XP from Quests only" would be the most common house rule in 4E; I was wrong.)

I feel that 4E can be used as a Story Now game without any drifting; the problem I have with defining the game as such is that I don't think that people who aren't already familiar with those techniques will stumble upon that sort of play.

When you play My Life With Master, it's hard to ignore "Premise." I don't think that's the case with 4E. That's why I think it's a stretch to define 4E as a Story Now game; I think the default play suggested by the game is Balesir's "light gamism", which I'd call exploration-light Step On Up play. That is more or less what happened during my first campaign of 4E - even though I wanted it to be exploration-heavy Step on Up play.

 

[Rechan]

I want a toolbox, which opens up a world of new uses. I want to know what X is so that I can improvise its effects around it (even if some of those effects are horribly "unbalanced").

The other way around makes little sense to me. If I have to define X in terms of what it already does, that makes the reality of the numbers more important than the reality of the narrative. It's no longer me describing an event and extrapolating effects, it is now me describing an endpoint and working backwards from it. It's hard to be surprised, delighted, or excited by justifying or explaining. It's much easier to enjoy yourself when you don't know exactly where you're going.

I don't buy that.

The poster child for "Here's the numbers, you define it" is the HERO system. The HERO system pretty much can interpret anything, because it is only numbers. It's very complicated, but it permits the creation of anything by having codified systems. Its most common or default use is creating superheroes - any power, any character, can be developed.

And to say those characters, those games, aren't narratively driven? Because the sky is the limit, that means that the narrative can fit the image of the character, not the few options the system presents.

 

[Incenjucar]

In all the 4th edition playing that I did (2 different campaigns with 2 completely different groups, several months of LFR, and a few mini campaigns) I don't think that I EVER saw these rules invoked.

Probably because the "do something cool" option was always LESS effective than just spamming ones At Will powers.

Contrast that with my 3rd edition and Pathfinder (and many other non D&D games) experience where just about EVERY session somebody would do something wild and wacky and let the GM adjudicate things.

Obviously its just one persons experience but it does make me think that limiting the effectiveness combined with putting the rule in a book that Players don't generally read may not have been the best approach.

While I have personally not encountered this situation, I have certainly seen it mentioned often enough. I do believe that it has a great deal to do with presentation (bad communication being the heart of so many ills). Partly, though, I think it also stems from a bad assumption: That people would not only read, but internalize, the books. The DMG especially seems to have been neglected, possibly because so much of it is advice, which many won't feel they NEED to begin with.

As such, I think it would be fair to say that Page 42 needs to be revisited, expanded on, waved around, and possibly rolled up and used to bap people on the nose. The same issue exists with skill challenges and rituals to various extents. The rules are, more or less, fine, (for rituals this is more controversial...) but a significant portion of the audience doesn't get them yet, so further instructions and explanations are needed.

--

General Request:
For those in this thread who do not already do so, please seriously consider getting a little creative in your next adventure and set an example for anyone else in your group who may not even realize that creativity is an option. Kick a chair out from under someone. Start a fire. Throw some water on the floor to reveal an invisible foe. Tear open a sack of flour for a smoke screen. Use a chandelier to charge a flying creature. Use your AOE attacks as fireworks to impress the locals. Use Magic Missile to kill a bed bug infestation. Drop a building on someone you hate.

 

[LurkAway]

Scalzi's reaction is priceless:

“To which I said: ‘So you can accept a snowman eating hot soup, but not flying?’ Because, you know, if you can accept the former (not to mention the entire initial premise of a snowman coming to life), I’m not sure how the snowman flying became qualitatively more ridiculous.

The comments under that article include counterpoints like "The reason it makes sense for the other things to be given a pass and not the lava is that the those other things are intended to be fantastical. The lava is supposed to merely be lava, or maybe especially hot lava".

I mentioned upthread about reference points. The more "realistic" the campaign, the more common reference points the group can share.

However, as reference points fall away in high fantasy, how do you know which reference points to hold onto and which to let go? How do you know to treat that as "realistic" lava or "fantasy" lava? Do you hold onto some reference points -- at the risk of people poking fun at you for "overthinking" or criticizing you for being arbitrary -- or do you let go of almost ALL reference points -- at the risk of losing immersion and suspension of disbelief?

(It's probably why games like Call of Cthulhu are so immersive, everyone can more or less fall naturally into a 1920's "realism" and focus on being in the game.)

Not that the viscous lava thing ever occured to me as a problem, but it's not one of my subjectively important reference points. That a snowman should have difficulty eating hot soup probably wouldn't occur to me until I saw in a movie the hot steaming soup contact snow lips.

Now that it's conscious to me, I think it would interesting to have a story about a snowman that can't eat hot food -- converting a potential implausibility into a compelling story element. Which leads to this thought...

Usually for me, always saying "Yes" can be less interesting to the story than saying "no" via nodding to realism. Saying that bards can't insult skeletons to death is more interesting than saying they can. Lots of drama and tension and good stories (in real life as well as fantasy) is between what the character ideally wants to do vs a contrarion environment.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Which one is more fun for you?

Whereas I find the first option horribly restrictive. Mostly because the rules can't possible cover all the "Here's how you can change it" options. My issue with 3e (well, one of my issues, my primary issue simply being time investment- 3e expects too much homework for the DM for me) is that 3e tries to pre-define virtually every aspect of any event in the game. I don't need that. I'm perfectly capable of coming up with my own definitions and I'll think you'll agree that there are a number of players that are in the same boat.

I want the rules to tell me the mechanical stuff that happens - this power hurts this much, and then get out of my way. From experience, the difference between the two approaches isn't all that large most of the time - the baseline assumptions are baseline for a reason: They work most of the time. But, having to shoehorn my game into what the game designers think my game should look like isn't my cup of tea and hasn't been for a really long time.

There's a reason I got out of 1e D&D when I did. I jumped ship as soon as 2e came out because 2e was more open ended than how I interpreted 1e which I saw as primarily being about dungeon crawling and kill'n'loot ((Note, that was how I interpreted the game, not necessarily how the game actually was)). 3e was huge breath of fresh air because it gave me mechanics that actually worked out of the box. Unfortunately that came with the cost of hours and hours of prep work outside of the game to try to keep my campaign alive. 4e has solved that problem by being WAY easier to prep.

Heck, how many times have you hit someone with a bench in 3e? In nearly ten years of playing 3e, I never, ever saw an improvised weapon used. In 4e? Easy peasy.

To me, that's cool. The mechanics direct the story, but don't provide the script. In 3e, the mechanics provide the script and that's not what I want anymore.

The comments under that article include counterpoints like "The reason it makes sense for the other things to be given a pass and not the lava is that the those other things are intended to be fantastical. The lava is supposed to merely be lava, or maybe especially hot lava".

I mentioned upthread about reference points. The more "realistic" the campaign, the more common reference points the group can share.

However, as reference points fall away in high fantasy, how do you know which reference points to hold onto and which to let go? How do you know to treat that as "realistic" lava or "fantasy" lava? Do you hold onto some reference points -- at the risk of people poking fun at you for "overthinking" or criticizing you for being arbitrary -- or do you let go of almost ALL reference points -- at the risk of losing immersion and suspension of disbelief?

(It's probably why games like Call of Cthulhu are so immersive, everyone can more or less fall naturally into a 1920's "realism" and focus on being in the game.)

Not that the viscous lava thing ever occured to me as a problem, but it's not one of my subjectively important reference points. That a snowman should have difficulty eating hot soup probably wouldn't occur to me until I saw in a movie the hot steaming soup contact snow lips.

Now that it's conscious to me, I think it would interesting to have a story about a snowman that can't eat hot food -- converting a potential implausibility into a compelling story element. Which leads to this thought...

Usually for me, always saying "Yes" can be less interesting to the story than saying "no" via nodding to realism. Saying that bards can't insult skeletons to death is more interesting than saying they can. Lots of drama and tension and good stories (in real life as well as fantasy) is between what the character ideally wants to do vs a contrarion environment.

But, I think that's the whole point. It never occured to me to question the viscousity of lava. I really, really don't care. It's a cool scene and that's good enough for me. The problem with saying "no" via nodding to realism, as this thread has well shown, is that the line that people draw is very much not grounded in anything remotely resembling actual facts, but in gut reaction.

Again, how do you set mechanics that are so subjective? People want fireballs to be hot enough to melt gold, but, not burn the victim naked every single time (which it most certainly should). They want 6 impossible things before breakfast but reserve the right to quibble over the 7th. And nobody agrees what the 7th one actually is.

The designers really are damned either way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The poster child for "Here's the numbers, you define it" is the HERO system. The HERO system pretty much can interpret anything, because it is only numbers. It's very complicated, but it permits the creation of anything by having codified systems. Its most common or default use is creating superheroes - any power, any character, can be developed.

And to say those characters, those games, aren't narratively driven? Because the sky is the limit, that means that the narrative can fit the image of the character, not the few options the system presents.

Ah, they aren't driven by narrative, though, they are driven by the stats.

Because the game is played with the stats. The stats are what overcome challenges. The stats are what provide conflict and excitement. The stats are the game experience.

And, if the narrative doesn't affect the stats, the game leaves ONLY the stats, without context or meaning.

Oh, it's easy to re-fluff, sure. But that's because those fluffy elements are essentially meaningless. They have no bearing on gameplay. Call a rabbit a smeerp if you want, but unless it is different, it's not interesting.

horribly restrictive. Mostly because the rules can't possible cover all the "Here's how you can change it" options.

Here, I'd agree with a a lot of folks who see that the DM needs to be more of a judge, and less of a CPU. This spell creates a ball of fire. Heres' the typical effects. Want something more? Go for it, using the DM advice that has trained you to be able to take a game element and run with it, with confidence.

No ruleset or person can see every ramification, but to me, that's incredibly liberating. It gives you a lot of ways to work with what the game gives you. This spell creates a ball of fire. Does it burn down the forest? Does it explode the doors off the hinges? Does it alert the nearby hobgoblins? Sure, maybe! If the DM allows that to happen. The DM is encouraged to think creatively based on what exists in the game, rather than about how to excuse a purely mechanical effect.

Heck, how many times have you hit someone with a bench in 3e? In nearly ten years of playing 3e, I never, ever saw an improvised weapon used. In 4e? Easy peasy.

To me, that's cool. The mechanics direct the story, but don't provide the script. In 3e, the mechanics provide the script and that's not what I want anymore.

Improvised weapons existed in all e's, and I saw plenty of bare-fisted brawls or odd tools. It's not hard to do for me, since the rules support me if I want to do that, and allow me to futz if I don't like what they are. 3e's tightly integrated system makes futzing tougher, but it I didn't feel the need to futz as much. It also happened in 2e, whenever a party member "chucked a rock at it." I've never needed tightly bound resolution mechanics to do that, but I have used solid existing rules or improvising guidelines.

I don't see descriptive rules elements as providing a script. I see them as providing PROPS. How you use them is up to you (and a judge is needed to make sure the uses are vaguely balanced and fair), but the game doesn't tell you what they're used for.

It's fun like the old Whose Line game "Props" is fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oViGsUZM6-U

The idea isn't to use the props in one and only one way. The fun comes from thinking of different ways to use the equipment you have. Narrowly defined effects are good for one and only one thing (the effect they provide). Broadly defined tools are useful in MANY different ways.

There's not just one thing Super Strength or Fireball can do. There's as many things they can do as your imagination can come up with (and your DM can allow. ).

aside: Personally, I feel that because D&D adventures consist of four major activities (combat, exploration, interaction, and discovery), most effects only need to be described mechanically in those broad terms. That's actually a pretty small continuum of mechanical needs. Fireball burns monsters, clears flammables, and is pretty useless at the other two things. Given that framework, I can improvise quite well within it, giving a wizard who wants to use it to, say, impress thee locals, a chance to do it if I feel it's warranted.

 

[LurkAway]

But, I think that's the whole point. It never occured to me to question the viscousity of lava. I really, really don't care. It's a cool scene and that's good enough for me. The problem with saying "no" via nodding to realism, as this thread has well shown, is that the line that people draw is very much not grounded in anything remotely resembling actual facts, but in gut reaction.

Ya, because people aren't technically interested in the "truth". They're interested in stories that deliver a certain experience. I agree with you that I couldn't care less about the viscosity of lava, because it's not an interesting question to me. Whether Gollum sinks into the lava or burns atop the lava -- it doesn't change the story much either way.

Again, how do you set mechanics that are so subjective? People want fireballs to be hot enough to melt gold, but, not burn the victim naked every single time (which it most certainly should).

I guess the designers start by recognizing that almost nobody is fundamentally interested in the scientific "truth" of what is a realistic fireball. Rather, they are interested in stories about fireballs that can cause collateral damage more than stories of fireballs that don't, because it's something they can relate to better and thus suspends disbelief, and also it creates interesting conflicts of interests and tactical choices.

They want 6 impossible things before breakfast but reserve the right to quibble over the 7th. And nobody agrees what the 7th one actually is.

The designers really are damned either way.

IMO I wouldn't be defeatist about it. Most people don't give up entirely on something just because they can't achieve perfection.

 

[Dausuul]

Who are these people who want fireballs to be hot enough to melt gold? I'm aware that's what it says in the pre-4E rulebooks, but that doesn't make it a good idea. In fact, it seems pretty silly and implausible to me, not to mention a pain in the neck from a game perspective. After every battle where a fireball was thrown, you want to list off the plunder and try to figure out which items were and were not melted?

 

[El Mahdi]

Who are these people who want fireballs to be hot enough to melt gold?

Well, I guess I'm one of them. Basically because, with a nod to realism, I don't mind that a fireball is that hot. Realistically speaking, something doesn't melt just because it's exposed to x temperature, it melts because it's exposed to x temperature for a y period of time (depending upon it's mass, shape, and other factors). So, a fireball can be hot enough to melt gold, without destroying the loot (because it happens too quickly).

However, paper and cloth (etc.) instantly immolate, and living creatures die from intense burns to skin and lungs (or flash steamed ala slimes, cytoplasmic wall integrity fatally compromised ala gelatinous cubes, bones cracked and structurally compromised ala zombies, etc.).

God! I Loooooove Realism!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, I guess I'm one of them.

Notably, I think that one of the advantages of treating rules elements as tools rather than as effects is that individual DMs can figure out the effects that best suit their party. Some DMs are going to care about melting gold. Others won't give a flying fudge. If the rules text and the flavor text are the same ("It creates a ball of fire"), then DMs can determine for their own group what effects it may have.

For this, we may have a chart like Page 42 that specifies the damage an X level spell might do, rather than a specific "this is how much damage fireball deals" effect.