Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[talok55]

Which brings me back to the discussions in this thread. Fireball is ridiculous. You can accept the idea that it's hot enough to melt metal, but not burn hair, but, the idea of only targetting creatures breaks you? Really?


Exactly where in the description of fireball does it say it's hot enough to melt metal? Maybe it says or implies that in 1st or 2nd edition, but I know in later editions it just says it does fire damage. I personally think of it as a burst of fire that does damage. It should have a chance of catching flammable things on fire and probably scorches your hair off (although that can be mostly handwaved because all it will really do is make the person without hair look funny). I don't really see it as lasting long enough or being hot enough to melt metal. Maybe some do.

 

[LurkAway]

Exactly where in the description of fireball does it say it's hot enough to melt metal? Maybe it says or implies that in 1st or 2nd edition, but I know in later editions it just says it does fire damage.

Fireball :: d20srd.org
"It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze"

I don't really see it as lasting long enough or being hot enough to melt metal.

I think the simulationist "logic" is that fireball causes a great deal of damage, so it must burn hotter, to cause that extra damage in a single round (assuming fantasy logic that there is no oxygen deprivation and no smoke inhalation because no materials are burning)

 

[talok55]

I wasn't aware of that text. Seems a bit odd to me. Luckily it can be ignored since it's "fluff" and not "crunch". I'd definitely word fireball in a different way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Probably worth keeping in mind a "nod to realism" doesn't mean full blown simulationism. I think they just realize some players are bothered by mechanics which don't seem to represent something real in the setting or create some kind of logical inconsistency. You can have a nod to realism without making the game play like rolemaster or harnmaster. It just means each mechanic that does exist should keep believability in mind.

 

[LurkAway]

I was thinking that the easiest nod to realism for fireball is to increase its rarity in gameplay. I think fireball as a 3rd level spell and a wide area burst is a sacred cow that can be butchered IMO. I can't think of any or many fantasy stories or films that feature massive magical fiery explosions; they're usually smallish fireballs, arcs of fire, etc. that the protagonists can plausibly dodge or deflect with shields. Push aside fireball bursts into epic magic range and dragon fire and nobody needs to think too deeply about rogues with evasion that take 0 damage or 1/2 damage when a fireball fills an entire room with no "realistic" way of evading it.

 

[Jhaelen]

I wasn't aware of that text. Seems a bit odd to me. Luckily it can be ignored since it's "fluff" and not "crunch". I'd definitely word fireball in a different way.

It's definitely not fluff! Why do you think so? Because you don't agree with it?!

The text describes how a fireball spell interacts with objects. It's clearly rules text - there is no 'fluff' in the srd.

 

[Balesir]

I wasn't aware of that text. Seems a bit odd to me. Luckily it can be ignored since it's "fluff" and not "crunch". I'd definitely word fireball in a different way.

So, you actually have issues with the "realism" of several editions of D&D, but you're prepared to ignore them for all editions except the last one? Hmm - OK.

Probably worth keeping in mind a "nod to realism" doesn't mean full blown simulationism. I think they just realize some players are bothered by mechanics which don't seem to represent something real in the setting or create some kind of logical inconsistency.

I think we should keep those two considerations separate, really. Mechanics that done seem "real" in the setting is a definite Simulationist concern and assumes that the setting is "fixed" before the rules system is (a classic Sim approach). Logical inconsistency, on the other hand, is an issue for roleplaying of any sort- internal consistency is a key element of any roleplaying system. I see plenty of justifications for the first concern when looking at 4E - but not really for the second.

FWIW I think 4E does have one way to cope with the first concern somewhat - or at least it did in the 'old' offline Character Builder. The old CB allowed you to set up a "campaign file" in which sources and rules elements - down to each individual feat, power, class, item and so on - could be defined as "in" or "out". Game worlds where a particular power or such like "doesn't seem to represent something in the setting" could simply use a campaign file with those rules elements excluded. So far, I have not seen any need to exclude any elemets from the game I am runnung, but I can quite imagine that in future I might want to run a world where some specific powers, classes or whatever are disallowed.

There were some who considered that the "everything is core" of 4E meant "everything must be included". I have never seen it that way, and the existence of those campaign files in the OCB I saw as proof of intent. "Everything is core" just means "nothing is (intentionally) a broken and overpowered thing that we barely playtested and included just because it's cool and will sell stuff". "Everything is core" doesnt mean that you must use everything - it means that you can use everything (without inviting disaster).

You can have a nod to realism without making the game play like rolemaster or harnmaster. It just means each mechanic that does exist should keep believability in mind.

Understood - but the problem, as previously noted in this thread, is that "believability" is a movable feast...

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think we should keep those two considerations separate, really. Mechanics that done seem "real" in the setting is a definite Simulationist concern and assumes that the setting is "fixed" before the rules system is (a classic Sim approach). Logical inconsistency, on the other hand, is an issue for roleplaying of any sort- internal consistency is a key element of any roleplaying system. I see plenty of justifications for the first concern when looking at 4E - but not really for the second.

I think they actually should be paired together in this case but it may have to do with how I am using the phrase logical consistency and the term realism. I am not talking in GNS terms of simulation, but just the general expectation for there to be some basic plausibility and internal logic and consistency in a game. To me this isn't about old style simulationism (complete with weather charts, target locations, etc) but about the suspension of disbelief.

So to take 4E, the issue of consistency emerges (for some gamers) with healing surges. Obviously whether the issue should arise in their minds is debatable, but the endless threads on the subject demonstrate a number of players and GMs are experiencing an issue with keeping the description of wounds consistent under the healing surge rule.

Understood - but the problem, as previously noted in this thread, is that "believability" is a movable feast...

Everything in gaming is moveable because you are dealing with preferences. Players will all have varying cut-offs for what is believable, what is balanced, what is fun, what is a workable setting. That doesn't mean designers shouldn't strive for these things. Believability is a spectrum. There are going to be rules which are clearly on the end of straining it for a large number of gamers. Those are the rules that, IMO, should be revised or removed.

 

[Hussar]

Everything in gaming is moveable because you are dealing with preferences. Players will all have varying cut-offs for what is believable, what is balanced, what is fun, what is a workable setting. That doesn't mean designers shouldn't strive for these things. Believability is a spectrum. There are going to be rules which are clearly on the end of straining it for a large number of gamers. Those are the rules that, IMO, should be revised or removed.

But, therein lies the rub. I'd bet you'd have a difficult time showing that any rules are on the end of straining for a large number of gamers. And, now the next question is, what's a "large number"? Simple majority? 25%? 75%. And, lastly, how in the world are you actually going to collect that data? From online sources like EN World?

If I were to believe En World, the Gnomes are the most beloved race ever produced for an RPG.

Sure, we can ball park things. A fireball that targets creatures and possibly ignites objects if the DM or the players wants it to isn't that hard of a stretch. There's a fairly reasonable real world argument that it probably shouldn't ignite objects (if it did, then it should do a LOT more damage to people - fuel air explosives are very, very bad things).

Trying to cater to the players is a never ending rabbit hole. Better, IMO, by far to make stuff that works at the table first and then let the people playing come to some sort of consensus.

 

[BryonD]

Mechanics that done seem "real" in the setting is a definite Simulationist concern and assumes that the setting is "fixed" before the rules system is (a classic Sim approach).

I don't agree with this statement.

To me it is about cause leading to effect in a consistent and rational manner.
If the mechanics can handle that then you can define setting specific cases of how cause and effect differ from reality.

But in D20 I can easily define a hundred different settings, each with unique distinctions on how causes lead to differing effects.

That isn't to say that I can't happily run every single one of those settings use 4E. But it is to say that I'd find the quality of the simulationist value to be much higher when done under the 3E system.

And, more specific to the point, it is to say that the setting does not remotely need to be "fixed" first when working with a quality simulationist mechanic.

It WOULD be accurate to say that the specifications developed for the setting in question then in turn become part of the mechanics for that specific campaign or setting. They do need to be set before players get to that table.* But I don't consider that relevant to defining a quality core system aimed at mass market appeal.

* - Not to suggest that new things may not be discovered, even by the GM, on the fly. That is certainly a big part of the fun.