Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Argyle King]

One of the issues I have with page 42 is that it does not address the problem of a class's powers still -a vast majority of the time- being a better choice than trying 'something cool.' I like the ideas behind why page 42 is there; I just don't think it works very well when attached to the rest of D&D.

On the other side of the coin, if you do make an action comparable to using a power, there will be players (and I'm one of them) who are going to think "if I can do the same damage with [page 42 idea] without burning up one of my limited supply of powers, I'm going to try doing [page 42 idea] all the time." It's logical to me that someone living in a world which functions that way would think the same thing. "I can do this every 5 minutes and get effect X" versus "I can do this whenever I want and get effect X."

I've seen this addressed by a GM saying no or changing how a particular idea works. However, from the player's side of the table, that comes across as weird to me. Assuming the same conditions - why am I unable to swing on the chandelier and kick the orc last week, but not this week? Why is it that my chandelier kick did X last week, but this week it does X-1?

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

I agree, especially as pertains to page 42. The problem arises when the rules have a predetermined style focus that is hard to adapt to other styles. I can adapt it, but it's just waaaay too much work...

That's why with 5E, I'm hoping for a solid chasis of a system that can be easily tweaked, with rules or instructions on how to do that, not just through varying levels of complexity, but through varying degrees of style focus (simulationist, narrativist, and gamism).

I have no idea how to do that (not the complexity part, the style part), but then again, I'm not a professional game designer...

 

[Stormonu]

Y'know, listening to all this, I kind of wish they would simply dump all the various power write-ups and just use p42 (with an expansion listing what might be appropriate for conditions and area/targets) and let the DM fiat the rest.

Wizard Player: I'm gonna fireball the goblin horde; something with a bit of oomph that'll fry them in one shot.
DM: Okay, so you're 5th level now, how about as a daily power - that ought to do 5d6 damage to all the goblins in a burst 5. Beat their Reflex by 5, and we'll say the catch on fire and take 3 points of continuing damage.
Wizard Player: That's my only daily slot, but cool, if it'll cook 'em that's what I want to do.
Fighter: Okay, after he's blasted the goblins, I want to flying tackle the Orc captain
DM: Sure, he'll only probably have his guard down once this fight, so we'll say that's an encounter power. That'll do 3d6 damage plus your weapon attack, and if you succeed, you'll both be prone. Beat his AC by 5, and you'll keep your feet.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly Stormy, (was it this thread or the other one that this was suggested - I've had a bit too much New Year's sake to go back and check), I think that's probably one of the absolute best suggestions for a rules light D&D that you could fit into a basic beginners box. 4 classes with 99% role play based ideas and themes, and combat is limited to one page with a couple of pages of suggestions on what effects would be appropriate for a given level.

Fantastic game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Yes. This is what I was trying to get across earlier, especially the "gut reaction" part. What people think of as "real" is all over the place--especially when they just want something in the ballpark, and are not paying enough attention most of the time to need more than that:

Fantastically impossible thing #1, "Well, alright."
#2, "Cool!"
#3, "What idiot makes up this nonsense!"

When I was talking earlier about using keywords more heavily to square this circle, I didn't mean it this detailed, but you can use "dials" for more than "complexity". You could also have "realism dials"--as long as they are fine grained enough to not drive people crazy with side effects, but broad and few enough to be worth messing with. For example, you might have one with weapons and armor that had settings something like this:

1. Realistic - "gonzo" weapons banned, "superior" weapons rare and expensive, "fitted" armor custom made to the person, no spikes on armor, arrows break, encumbrance used.

2. Standard - "gonzo" weapons banned, no spikes on armor, assumed restocking of arrows within reasonable means, encumbrance used loosely for main weapons and armor.

3. Gonzo - use the full set of armor and weapons, no encumbrance other than the "eyeball" test, no ammo tracking at all.

Now, is that perfect for every player? Absolutely not. But if you've got the appropriate keywords built in, it becomes very easy to communicate. If you want a game that is "standard, but no encumbrance used", that becomes very clear. If you want an otherwise "realistic" game but spikes on armor and double-bladed swords don't bother you, go ahead. For me, worrying about the encumbrance of a double-bladed sword but not how it gets used effectively in combat is far more implausible than any power in 4E, but hey, the point is that you can set the nods where you want them.

Where this kind of system can fail is to make the categories overly narrow or broad. You don't want to fill out a three page form in small print to set every little thing off the standard. But you don't want one single such "realism dial" for all spell casting, with everything lumped together, either. The dials should get people in the vicinity of where they want to be, and it should be explained that if a setting isn't quite where you want it, you are free to raid the other settings on that dial for particular tweaks.

 

[Hussar]

Really CJ, I think you're right. Hopefully the 5e DMG will have a large section on this sort of thing. You could likely detail the basics in about five-six pages in the DMG. Even if you didn't specify keywords on every power and item, you could outline the broad strokes of the different "realism settings" (to be differentiated from setting - the place) on the dial and give enough advice to the DM so that he could present it to his players as a package deal. "Okay, guys, we're going to play Forgotten Realms on Setting 1 - here's what that means in general terms. Everyone on board?"

It's a very good idea. I'm not sure you need to specifically call it out, but, then again, maybe that's a good idea to do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, listening to all this, I kind of wish they would simply dump all the various power write-ups and just use p42 (with an expansion listing what might be appropriate for conditions and area/targets) and let the DM fiat the rest.

I think this is perfect for a lot of groups.

HOWEVER!, there is one big caveat. For many groups, you're going to want some specificity about your character's abilities beyond "whatever the DM deems appropriate." For me, for example, I would want a Fireball spell that had a specific effect ("creates a ball of fire") and a standard baseline costing/potency (say, it's a Daily), rather than a broadly defined "U DO MAJIK! DM SAYS WHAT HAPPENS" effect.

That requires more rules, which I, personally, am OK with. I'd rather have rules than be forced to make a hundred judgement calls in a night. Not every group falls into that camp, of course, which is why I'd still love for this to be an option.

I could see that "Page 42 Is The Answer To Life, The Universe, And Everything" working as the simplest, least complex version of the D&D rules that exist.

It won't be perfect for everyone, which is why you should be able to turn your complexity dial up a notch. Or ten. Or even down a notch or two. But as the core mechanic of a hypothetical 5e, you could do a lot worse than that.

 

[BryonD]

I could see that "Page 42 Is The Answer To Life, The Universe, And Everything" working as the simplest, least complex version of the D&D rules that exist.

I agree that this could be the basis for an outstanding entry level game.

However, if you design a game and want it to shine as an industry leader then being outstanding for entry level is a good thing, but being outstanding for experienced play is mandatory.

I know from experience that a solid base line of balance reference points is needed. So pg. 42 is a great foundation. But I also know from experience that games can reach a point where the idea that you can capture everything in one page is a promise of an underwhelming system. You need both ends of the spectrum. "You" not meaning "every gaming group out that". Clearly that need is entirely absent from many groups that have a ton of fun. But "you" means that person or group who wants their game to be that industry leader.

The same duality applies to GM fiat. You can have a ton of fun in a freeform game loaded with fiat. But, again, if you want to be the industry leader and appeal to a wide range of games your system needs to be robust. But robust does NOT mean have an answer for everything. What it means is have an answer for 85% of the things that are reasonably likely to come up and also be able to withstand DM fiat not only for the remaining 15% but for any other portion of the 85% whenever a good DM decides to make a change for the better.

It is funny to me that I see debates about pg 42 and debates about fiat. And I know that I hate the idea of page 42 trying to be "everything". But I also hate the idea of not having a solid reference.

I don't remotely hate fiat. I love fiat. But at the same time I know that if I'm going to go fiat heavy I may as well not spend any money at all. I know I can run a good fun game just making up every bit of it on the fly. But I also know that having a good reliable system makes the experience better.

So to me the fiat/rules and pg42/lots of pages debates are like "less filling / tastes great". Rather than being a debate they should be in balance with both in needed measure. And if either side ever wins out *at the expense of the other side* then the game will be worse off for it. Again that isn't to say it is true for any specific group out there. But for an industry leader that big tent of support is needed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is funny to me that I see debates about pg 42 and debates about fiat. And I know that I hate the idea of page 42 trying to be "everything". But I also hate the idea of not having a solid reference.

Page 42 is probably a step or two up in complexity and rules from "just make stuff up."

I think it's comparable to how the core d20 mechanic (d20 + mods vs. DC) is a step or two up in complexity and rules from "flip a coin."

Like that d20 mechanic shows, you can take that simple mechanic and flip it in a lot of different ways. That d20 can be a magical spell, or a defense against dragon breath, or the swing of a sword, or a witty phrase, or a stirring magnum opus, or a keen eye, or your willpower to resist the charms of a succubus, or a nigh-infinite variety of other things. And you can add rules like class and race and defenses and attacks and powers and skills on top of that d20 roll, or not.

But (and this plays into one of my problems with skill challenges) D&D has typically been a dual-axis game. There is "Do I succeed in this attempt?" and "How MUCH do I succeed in this attempt?" The first is the d20 roll (the attack roll, the skill check, etc.). The second is the d4-d12 roll (the "damage" roll).

So we need a lot of variety for those funny-shaped dice, too, to add detail and granularity to the world.

Well, NEED might be strong. But a lot of folks certainly WANT it.

 

[Stormonu]

I think this is perfect for a lot of groups.

HOWEVER!, there is one big caveat. For many groups, you're going to want some specificity about your character's abilities beyond "whatever the DM deems appropriate." For me, for example, I would want a Fireball spell that had a specific effect ("creates a ball of fire") and a standard baseline costing/potency (say, it's a Daily), rather than a broadly defined "U DO MAJIK! DM SAYS WHAT HAPPENS" effect.

That requires more rules, which I, personally, am OK with. I'd rather have rules than be forced to make a hundred judgement calls in a night. Not every group falls into that camp, of course, which is why I'd still love for this to be an option.

Definitely. I've been doing some work on my own game system that pretty much uses the page 42 model, and I found myself writing up "packages" of abilities - which is especially helpful for monster design and as "examples" of what the players can do.

I certainly believe it would be in the player's interests to have a couple "standard" abilities they could fall back on, such as the Fireball you mentioned, but keep the vast majority of tricks/abilities devised by falling back on page 42. I'm talking on the order of one or two trademark tricks for the character, tops - probably the high-end abilities; those things you don't want to be wasting time deciding the mechanics in the middle of a combat.

However, I'd rather keep away from the gobs of powers 4E has created. It not only creates option paralysis when building characters, but I've also seen it stifle spur-of-the-moment action, with the players just falling back fumbling through their cards to see what can do, as if it's the only thing they're allowed to do.