Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Argyle King]

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.

For me, the second concern is one of my biggest gripes toward 4E (unless -as said previously- I go into the game expecting it.)

This is no way means I feel you are wrong. I simply have a different view.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

I don't think that is difficult to show at all. People who didn't make the transition to 4E have explictly stated things like many of the per encounter powers that aren't based in magic or being tired strain belief for them. They've stated that healing surges when they aren't magic strain belief. Many of these things existed in the game before. D&D has never been a pure simulationist engine. The problem for lots of gamers is there was no real attempt to "nod to realism" in their view with 4E. Explanations seemed handwave, even if they became problematic under scrutiny. If you are dealing with a handful of class powers here and there no big deal, but 4E is built around the powers, so it just called attention to itself.

Mind you, I am not saying you are wrong if you find everything in 4E perfectly believable. Obviously there are ways to explain how the powers work and how healing surges work that produce consistent and believable results for many gamers. But I think it is pretty self evident that 4E ran into a believability problem with a large number of gamers.

I think throwing one's hands up in the air and not trying because it is challenging isn't the solution here. The answer is actually pretty simple: begin with common sense, ask why with every mechanic and see what playtesters have to say about the believability of the game.

Bottom line is this, ignoring or handwaving believability is going to lose you a large chunk of customers or potential customers. It is pretty obvious just perusing online forums like this, talking to gamers in real life, and just paying attention to my own group that believability is very important to lots of people. I don't know the precise number of people it matters to, but I am going to guess the range is something like 20-30% off hand.

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

The evidence goes way beyond en world alone. Look at virtually any forum and you will see endless debates about realism and believability in 4E. Look at the sales figures we've been seeing, statements from people who work at WOTC, etc. I very well could be wrong. But to me arguing that there isn't widespread concern about believability in 4E is like arguing that there wasn't widespread concern about balance in 3E.

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.

D&D is a product and players are the customers. You should always understand what your customers want. Now you can divide customers into groups and say "we don't need to worry about group X, let's focus on group Y". But clearly ignoring group X in this case wasn't wise. If the game is missing an essential ingredient for 20% of the customer base, no amount of consensus building at the table is going to convince them its a great product. You can consider more than one measure while developing a game. They can make sure the mechanics work in play and make sure they are believable. It isn't an either or thing here. It is possible to design with balance, flavor and believability as goals.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If logical consistency is to be the benchmark, then you can not assume that simulation by process is the be all and end all. If nothing else, simulation of result must be considered, even if you want to exclude other concerns. This is a basic modeling concern, and is certainly acknowledged in games that are far more interested in simulation than D&D has ever been or ever will be.

See for example how "size" is handled in various versions of RuneQuest. Yes, you can generally assume that big creatures will be harder to bring down, hit a bit harder in melee, and not be as sneaky. Up the size or lower it a bit, you'll have an effect. But pull back the veneer even a little, and you'll see all kinds of process simulation inconsistencies with Size versus the world. Those are in there to: A.) Keep the game playable, and B.) To keep the simulated results somewhat in the ballpark of what the game intends. And RQ need not (and does not) cater to other concerns (e.g. any definition of "gamist" that you care to use).

There is nothing whatsoever logically inconsistent about healing surges. Nothing. They are entirely internally consistent with what the intend to do. They produce results consistent with what they are meant to simulate (though not necessarily what everyone wants). It's true that the process of applying them strains belief to the breaking point and past it for some people. And it is also true that the whole set of healing mechanics (surges being a part of that) make no provision whatsoever for a "damaged for a long time" result, which certainly adds to the disconnect. (Though anyone remotely familiar with 4E rules can see how to house rule that issue away using the disease track in about five minutes of work. So much so that this should have been a sidebar example of a house rule.)

To equate "logical consistent" and "models a process" is to strain the meanings of those terms to the breaking point. If that is a fundamental principle of an argument against 4E, it is no wonder that some of us never agree. We might as well agree to disagree on this point and move on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If logical consistency is to be the benchmark, then you can not assume that simulation by process is the be all and end all. If nothing else, simulation of result must be considered, even if you want to exclude other concerns. This is a basic modeling concern, and is certainly acknowledged in games that are far more interested in simulation than D&D has ever been or ever will be.

I am not sure what you mean by process simulation. depending on how you are defining and applying it, it is possible we agree.

The benchmark is believability, and I would include logical consistency in there (for instance a mechanic that emulates gender relations by imposing a blanket -1 penalty to all social interactions between people of different sex is going to run into logical inconsistencies in specific situations, even if the broad concept of the mechanic simulates something that was a historical reality).

I think people are reading too much into what realism means here. We aren't talking about the hardcore simulationism you find in some of the more rules heavy games. We are talking about weighing believability anytime you introduce a mechanic (i.e. does this mechanic produce instances where suspension of disbelief gets disrupted). That is what a nod to realism means. It doesn't mean creating a host of mechanics so the game models reality.

There is nothing whatsoever logically inconsistent about healing surges. Nothing. They are entirely internally consistent with what the intend to do. They produce results consistent with what they are meant to simulate (though not necessarily what everyone wants). It's true that the process of applying them strains belief to the breaking point and past it for some people. And it is also true that the whole set of healing mechanics (surges being a part of that) make no provision whatsoever for a "damaged for a long time" result, which certainly adds to the disconnect. (Though anyone remotely familiar with 4E rules can see how to house rule that issue away using the disease track in about five minutes of work. So much so that this should have been a sidebar example of a house rule.)

Intent isn't the only thing that matters when you are talking about consistency. I bring up consistency because healing surges produce inconsistencies in play for some people (i.e. I was wounded impaled last round but now I am fine). You make a good argument for why it shouldn't be an issue (as has Hussar and others in the past). But for whatever reason it remains a problem for many gamers. Something about the mechanic is producing this inconsistency and creating a belief issue for enough gamers that it continues to be debated.

To equate "logical consistent" and "models a process" is to strain the meanings of those terms to the breaking point. If that is a fundamental principle of an argument against 4E, it is no wonder that some of us never agree. We might as well agree to disagree on this point and move on.

This isn't an argument against 4E, it is an argument for including a nod to realism in the next edition of D&D. I don't see why you are bringing up the "models a process" thing here, as I never used that term. I merely said believability is important, and that includes considering consistency and realism.

I think we may be getting lost in terms here. When I originally made my post, I was only trying to point out that a nod to realism doesn't equal simulationism. The basic point is if they want to attract the most people they can to the edition, they are going to need to figure out a way to balance out flavor, playability and believabilty. It would be just as much of a mistake to focus entirely on creating a system that models reality at the expense of playability, because you are going to lose people by doing that as well.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

(snip) I think we may be getting lost in terms here. When I originally made my post, I was only trying to point out that a nod to realism doesn't equal simulationism. The basic point is if they want to attract the most people they can to the edition, they are going to need to figure out a way to balance out flavor, playability and believabilty. It would be just as much of a mistake to focus entirely on creating a system that models reality at the expense of playability, because you are going to lose people by doing that as well.

OK, I think I'm with you now, and with the above not even in disagreement.

However, I'd direct attention back to what Monte pointed out in the article that started this discussion: That the designer cannot produce such nods to satisfy everyone--or even close to everyone. To be satisfied, you must be able to customize those nods to your version of the simulation. Because not only do people suspend disbelief in widely different (and frankly, highly inconsistent) ways, they also want to simulate different things, and to vastly different degrees.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say logical consistency is the last thing you want, if you want to cater to such a wide audience. Sure, you want a thread of consistency running through the main set of rules, to keep people from pulling their hair out. No need to include the 1E grapple rules, for example. That is something the designer can do. But defining what fireballs catch on fire, exactly, is the last thing they should be doing. (They might give you better advice on how to be consistent at the table, whatever you decide.)

Part of the big disconnect that those of a simulationist bent have with 4E is that it is fairly rigorous in its version of playing the heroic action tale. Take something that rubs me a bit wrong, even otherwise appreciating it for what it is--magic crafting dust out of disenchant rituals as almost a currency. You can't get any more consistent than that. Disenchant, get a certain amount of dust based on the magic in an item. Turn around and use that dust to enchant something with X loss of dust. It's like a machine. Whereas, what the simulationist approach wants is that you make bags of holding this way, and +1 flaming swords this other way. They may be roughly balanced on average, but circumstance of campaign or adventure or even character--can turn one into a better deal than the other. That feels "real", even that is more inconsistent.

Gee, never thought I'd trot out this paraphrase to hit 4E, but if by G. K. Chesterton's definition, 4E is a bit insane. He defined experience with the actual insane as not too erratic, but ultra logical in too tight of a loop. If the madman thinks that he his is the king of England, deposed by a broad conspiracy, nothing you can say will argue him out of his logic. His logic is tight. To cure him, you'll have to say something like, "Yes, yes. Given all that, though, wouldn't you be happier moving on with your life?"

 

[Bedrockgames]

OK, I think I'm with you now, and with the above not even in disagreement.

However, I'd direct attention back to what Monte pointed out in the article that started this discussion: That the designer cannot produce such nods to satisfy everyone--or even close to everyone. To be satisfied, you must be able to customize those nods to your version of the simulation. Because not only do people suspend disbelief in widely different (and frankly, highly inconsistent) ways, they also want to simulate different things, and to vastly different degrees.

I think the issue isn't so much about "how much simulation" the game contains, but whether the mechanics that do exist in the game disrupt suspension of disbelief. There will of course be varying degrees of reaction, but on the whole I think you can produce a game using this baseline assumption and it could be something would would appeal to a wider audience. For instance you could still make 5E with many of the playability considerations that 4E assumed. But each innovation has to be carefully considered. There are going to be cases where this will be very difficult (I think healing surges are an example of something that appeals to people who want the game to play a certain way but run into some belivability issues with certain gamers). In these instances I would say you remove the mechanic and replace it with something else or you revise it.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say logical consistency is the last thing you want, if you want to cater to such a wide audience. Sure, you want a thread of consistency running through the main set of rules, to keep people from pulling their hair out. No need to include the 1E grapple rules, for example. That is something the designer can do. But defining what fireballs catch on fire, exactly, is the last thing they should be doing. (They might give you better advice on how to be consistent at the table, whatever you decide.)

Here I think you are talking about granularity and size of the rules system (rules heavy versus rules medium or light). You can have consistency without devising mechanics for for all the effects of fireball (this is actually another issue in my opinion as the only place I've really seen this come up is this thread). That is really more of how deep the rules are, and how many things in the setting they address. Consistency is still important even in a rules light game though. There is nothing rules light or heavy about Healing surges and describing what happens to wounded characters. But the consistency issue emerges. What happens when you apply this mechanic to this situation. It may produce logically consistent rresults in 5 out of 8 scenarios, but if it produces illogical results in the three remaining ones that could produce believability concerns.

Consistency keeps getting brought up by people who think believability is important. So I think it is a valid thing to consider. There may be some width to the term itself that is creating a problem in this discussion however.

Part of the big disconnect that those of a simulationist bent have with 4E is that it is fairly rigorous in its version of playing the heroic action tale. Take something that rubs me a bit wrong, even otherwise appreciating it for what it is--magic crafting dust out of disenchant rituals as almost a currency. You can't get any more consistent than that. Disenchant, get a certain amount of dust based on the magic in an item. Turn around and use that dust to enchant something with X loss of dust. It's like a machine. Whereas, what the simulationist approach wants is that you make bags of holding this way, and +1 flaming swords this other way. They may be roughly balanced on average, but circumstance of campaign or adventure or even character--can turn one into a better deal than the other. That feels "real", even that is more inconsistent.

I think it is a mistake to see this as a simulationist concern. People who want heavy simulation play rolemaster or harnmaster. But there are those of us in the middle who want the game to hit a number of sweet spots (I want balance, I want playability, I want flavor, I want believability). The issue with 4E isn't that it is a bad game (it does what it set out to do very well), but that it is perhaps too narrow in its focus to attract the core D&D audience. Emulating heroic action tale is fine, but in previous editions the game has been used for so much more than that. So suddenly you have lots of folks who found the previous system broad enough to do other things, and now it seems it isn't. If D&D were going after a smaller more focused audience like Savage Worlds is, I'd say keep going in that direction. But D&D has always been the standard fantasy RPG. In order to hold that place it has to appeal to the largest number of fantasy gamers possible.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...There are going to be cases where this will be very difficult (I think healing surges are an example of something that appeals to people who want the game to play a certain way but run into some belivability issues with certain gamers). In these instances I would say you remove the mechanic and replace it with something else or you revise it.

And this is where I say, and while you are at it, I won't a pony for Christmas too. That is, it is theoretically possible--you aren't trying to make the sun rise in the west--but in practical terms it often isn't going to happen. To satisfy many 4E players, you must keep the essential part of the healing surge in some form. You can camoflague it, rename it, and all sorts of things like that, to try to make it more palatable to folks. You can put in options to expand what the related systems can do (e.g. long-term injury). But there isn't any way to get, "people use non-magical means to get hit points back rapidly from a reserve, that nonetheless is not completely available in combat"--and not tick some people off.

Or maybe an example that is more clear, you can't both have high level wizards using something close to the 1E Wish, and also not have them using it. You can introduce some options that lets people turn that one and off. You can make it easy for them to do so. You can make the consequences more or less clear. You can be a bit inconsistent with Wish when it is included to smooth out some of the rough edges. But if Wish is in there as an option, that affects the rest of the system (i.e. see attribute gain expectations).

Or take the transparency of 4E mechanics. For fans, this is a feature, not a bug. If I want to change it or reskin it, how is often obvious. But this very transparency is a bug to anyone with world consistency concerns. If they don't want to hear, "impose your own consistency," then tools that make it obvious you are expected to are not going to go over well.

At this point, I'm not even sure we disagree about the main thrust of such an effort. I do think we have disagreements about the practical effects of certain means.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And this is where I say, and while you are at it, I won't a pony for Christmas too. That is, it is theoretically possible--you aren't trying to make the sun rise in the west--but in practical terms it often isn't going to happen. To satisfy many 4E players, you must keep the essential part of the healing surge in some form. You can camoflague it, rename it, and all sorts of things like that, to try to make it more palatable to folks. You can put in options to expand what the related systems can do (e.g. long-term injury). But there isn't any way to get, "people use non-magical means to get hit points back rapidly from a reserve, that nonetheless is not completely available in combat"--and not tick some people off.

Or maybe an example that is more clear, you can't both have high level wizards using something close to the 1E Wish, and also not have them using it. You can introduce some options that lets people turn that one and off. You can make it easy for them to do so. You can make the consequences more or less clear. You can be a bit inconsistent with Wish when it is included to smooth out some of the rough edges. But if Wish is in there as an option, that affects the rest of the system (i.e. see attribute gain expectations).

Or take the transparency of 4E mechanics. For fans, this is a feature, not a bug. If I want to change it or reskin it, how is often obvious. But this very transparency is a bug to anyone with world consistency concerns. If they don't want to hear, "impose your own consistency," then tools that make it obvious you are expected to are not going to go over well.

At this point, I'm not even sure we disagree about the main thrust of such an effort. I do think we have disagreements about the practical effects of certain means.

Whether all this can be achieved at this stage is up for debate for certain. It may be that the divisions are now too deep to go back (perhaps 4E fans will only move for something that is more 4E than 4E, and pathfinder fans will only go for pathfinder +). But there was a time when you had all these different camps at the table. My suspicion is there are hardcore fans on both sides who won't move. But I think the majority of gamers want to game and are more in the middle. I would be happy to play something like 4E if they injected it with more flavor and realism for my tastes. I'd also go back to 3E if it were a bit more balanced. I don't think most gamers fall naturally into Gamist, Simulationist or Narrativist divisions. I think really most people want a game that hits the three buttons I mentioned earlier. I could be wrong for sure. And even if I am not wrong, it is very possible you are correct, that it things are already set.

I would point to the 90s though as an example of how ephemeral gaming trends can sometimes be. WOTC did a pretty good job of hitting the reset button with the release of 3E (and I think it is possible to do again).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Whether all this can be achieved at this stage is up for debate for certain ...I don't think most gamers fall naturally into Gamist, Simulationist or Narrativist divisions. I think really most people want a game that hits the three buttons I mentioned earlier. I could be wrong for sure. And even if I am not wrong, it is very possible you are correct, that it things are already set.

Just to be clear, I agree that hardcore GNS divisions is not the way to go, and elements of all three should be addressed (along with other things not dreamed of in that philosophy). Also, I think it can be done in a way that will appeal to a broad swath, if not everyone.

I don't, however, think that modeling processes to make them feel more real is one of the techniques that will get you there. I do think you have to make nods in that direction to get there, and those nods will necessarily be inconsistent and incomplete when looked at as a whole. The long list of weapons, even in 4E, is such a nod that mostly works--despite not really being consistently supportive of gamist, simulationists, narrativist, dramatic, or any other number of such tendencies that you could support more firmly.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I bring up consistency because healing surges produce inconsistencies in play for some people (i.e. I was wounded impaled last round but now I am fine).

People who didn't make the transition to 4E have explictly stated things like many of the per encounter powers that aren't based in magic or being tired strain belief for them. They've stated that healing surges when they aren't magic strain belief.

<snip>

Obviously there are ways to explain how the powers work and how healing surges work that produce consistent and believable results for many gamers. But I think it is pretty self evident that 4E ran into a believability problem with a large number of gamers.

<snip>

Look at virtually any forum and you will see endless debates about realism and believability in 4E.

I think the healing surge example is very problematic, and shows that something other than consistency is at work.

Your example of inconsistency with healing surges is "I was wounded impaled last round but now I am fine". But there are no wound/impale mechanics in 4e (nor any other version of D&D, except perhaps some of that Players Option stuff in late 2nd ed AD&D). And even the dying condition doesn't have to be treated as an ingame state. Ingame, all that we know about the PC is that s/he is prone and unable to perceive or act - this can be narrated in any of a range of ways, of which literally dying due to wounds or bleeding is only one.

So healing surges only produce this consistency issue if:

(1) Players narrate hit point loss as wounding/impaling regardless of any rules to that effect;

and/or

(2) Players treat the "dying" condition not as a metagame state but as an ingame state (ie my PC is literally in a critical condition).​

(1) and (2) are not the result of players wanting consistency. They are the result of play habits or play preferences (i) for gonzo criticals in narration if not in mechanics, and (ii) for non-metagame mechanics (similar to what Crazy Jerome is calling "process simulation", I think).

Which goes back to my post on the first page. The real issue here isn't about "realism" or "consistency". It's about what sort of approach to play the mechanics presuppose. If players are going to treat the mechanics as process simulation rather than as metagame (see also the endless complaints that Come and Get It should involve a Will attack, or is objectionable martial mind control), that has to shape design in ways that don't have anything to do with whether or not the fiction is realistic or consistent.

The issue with 4E isn't that it is a bad game (it does what it set out to do very well), but that it is perhaps too narrow in its focus to attract the core D&D audience.

<snip>

D&D has always been the standard fantasy RPG. In order to hold that place it has to appeal to the largest number of fantasy gamers possible.

I don't really know what "standard" means here. D&D is not particularly generic - no more so than Rolemaster, for example, and arguably less so. What the 4e episode has shown, it seems to me, is that in certain respects the core D&D audience is rather specific in its tastes: it wants "process simulation" in its mechanics, and is hostile to metagame mechanics that are any more integrated into action resolution that "fate point" style bumps to an otherwise simulationist engine.