Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[LurkAway]

See, the moment that I noticed that high-level wizards will be pretty good at bashing down doors, I thought that was most likely because they were using some simple magics to do it, not because they got physically stronger.
In my eyes, you always can (and probably should) flavour the half-level bonus to fit your character.

In a gamist game IMO. In a simulationist game, what are these magics they are using? Why use a Str check if it's magic? Why not Arcane check? Does these magics work in an anti-magic field? Can it be dispelled? Can it be used for things other than bashing down doors?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

We know they're not stronger - their STR attribute has not changed. But they are a lot more skilled. And bashing down doors is definitely a skill.

Actually I did not notice the slight error until you mentioned this. By RAW, the wizards Strength should have started at a minimum of 8 and increased at levels 11 and 21 to be 10 by 30th level, thus giving him a +15, not +14.

In a gamist game IMO. In a simulationist game, what are these magics they are using? Why use a Str check if it's magic? Why not Arcane check? Does these magics work in an anti-magic field? Can it be dispelled? Can it be used for things other than bashing down doors?

The system doesn't have to be gamist to make assumptions like this. To answer your questions in order: They are using magic built into their power scource which was chosen indirectly through character choice. Because the magic enhances all of their attribute and skill checks at a rate of +1 per two levels. Because Arcana isn't used to bash down doors normally. No, because the effect of the magic enhanced your abilities permanently, it is not an ongoing spell effect. For the same reasons, it cannot be dispelled. Yes, any other thing that requires an attribute of skill check.

 

[LurkAway]

The system doesn't have to be gamist to make assumptions like this. To answer your questions in order: They are using magic built into their power scource which was chosen indirectly through character choice. Because the magic enhances all of their attribute and skill checks at a rate of +1 per two levels. Because Arcana isn't used to bash down doors normally. No, because the effect of the magic enhanced your abilities permanently, it is not an ongoing spell effect. For the same reasons, it cannot be dispelled. Yes, any other thing that requires an attribute of skill check.

Oh lord, I remember this now from that long debate with JamesonCourage, and he didn't agree with that either. How about this -- there is a significant percentage of RPers who prefer pre-4E to 4E, and do not agree with reskinning mechanics the way you've attributed. Furthermore, these gamers, or a significant majority of them, will never migrate back to WoTC if 5E assumes that simulationism means the rules (as a simplified abstraction) informing the fiction from the top down, and filling in the blanks and being happy with the results. instead of building the rules inform the fiction from the bottom up.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Exactly. Can't XP, but you're hitting on the thrust of the matter, past the "reskinning" issue.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Oh lord, I remember this now from that long debate with JamesonCourage, and he didn't agree with that either. How about this -- there is a significant percentage of RPers who prefer pre-4E to 4E, and do not agree with reskinning mechanics the way you've attributed. Furthermore, these gamers, or a significant majority of them, will never migrate back to WoTC if 5E assumes that simulationism means the rules (as a simplified abstraction) informing the fiction from the top down, and filling in the blanks and being happy with the results. instead of building the rules inform the fiction from the bottom up.

First, if you're mistaking my posts as recruitment to 4E, please stop. I don't really have an invested interest in what you decide to play.

Second, if you don't like the reskinning approach then don't attribute the abstract rule to reskinning if that's what bothers you. A much simpler explanantion is that the entire party has had one profession in common for the past 30 levels: adventuring. So they've gotten better at things adventurers commonly do along the way.

Third, I can just as easily say there is a "significant percentage" of RPGers who don't like the arbitrary rules created for the sake of simulationism any more than we liked arbitrary level limits and blunt weapons for clerics in AD&D. And if WotC keeps catering to the group that wants everything to be "real" they will never satisfy everyone, because each person has a different opinion on how to simulate "reality." I've personally been through the table arguments in AD&D when the rules didn't cover something and the DM tried to dictate what he thought should happen "realistically." And I've been through the table arguments where the SCSA guy at the table thought the armor penalties in 3E were "ridiculously unrealistic" even though D&D includes those in a shot at simulation.

 

[RHGreen]

Doors should have a Resistance (like Damage Reduction) and have Hit Points (or as I like to call them Completion Points)

Wood Door RES3 COMP50

Reinforced Wood Door RES5 COMP60

Iron Door RES10 COMP100

BARGE 1d4 + Strength

Right tool for the job.

AXE 1d6 + Strength (+4 Versus wood)

SLEDGEHAMMER 1d6 + Strength (+4 versus iron)

A wizard barges with a lot lower damage. He will be lucky if he makes a dent.

A fighter barges with a lot higher damage. He will fare better.


Locks and traps should be treated the same.

Cheap Lock RES10 COMP50
Good Lock RES14 COMP70
Expert Lock RES18 COMP90

WOOD AXE 1d6 + Strength
SLEDGEHAMMER 1d6 + Strength

THIEF'S PICK 0 (1d12 + Dexterity +Thievery versus locks)


The numbers are all over the place and the whole idea would need work, this is just off the top of my head (well I've been thinking about it for a while in principle - too lazy to flesh out the details), but you get the idea.

This was effectively my idea for how to deal with skills in the upcoming 4E and I posted it on the WOTC boards before 4E came out - so when I read the books and discovered skill challenges you can imagine my dissapointment (along with pretty much everyone else that has ever seen them.) This general idea would make skills comparable with combat and get rid of single roll/single round skill checks, which skill challenges aimed to do - badly).

Sorry for the derail, but it was in response to the bashing doors line of posts.

As you were.

 

[S'mon]

Actually I did not notice the slight error until you mentioned this. By RAW, the wizards Strength should have started at a minimum of 8 and increased at levels 11 and 21 to be 10 by 30th level, thus giving him a +15, not +14.

Ah, right.

 

[LurkAway]

First, if you're mistaking my posts as recruitment to 4E, please stop. I don't really have an invested interest in what you decide to play.

Don't worry, I'm not, this is a 5E thread about the temperature of the rules, it's not about 4E. I was trying to discuss simulationist vs gamist assumptions in this context, and you came in and told me that this increasing ability to bash open doors was simulationist while on the other hand in another thread saying that 4E is blatantly not a simulationist game at all nor doesn't even try to be, so color me confused as to what your purpose is exactly.

Second, if you don't like the reskinning approach then don't attribute the abstract rule to reskinning if that's what bothers you. A much simpler explanantion is that the entire party has had one profession in common for the past 30 levels: adventuring. So they've gotten better at things adventurers commonly do along the way.

I could use that explanation, but as you'd suspect, it doesn't suffice for me because it doesn't get over the stereotype that every PC gets equally better at everything adventure-wise in equal measure, while in an alternate reality, Pathfinder heroes are not stereotyped to get better at everything, and so forth.

Third, I can just as easily say there is a "significant percentage" of RPGers who don't like the arbitrary rules created for the sake of simulationism any more than we liked arbitrary level limits and blunt weapons for clerics in AD&D. And if WotC keeps catering to the group that wants everything to be "real" they will never satisfy everyone, because each person has a different opinion on how to simulate "reality."

Agreed, thus the OP about adjusting the temperature of the rules, complexity dials, etc. You might also note my comments upthread where I insist there are irreconcilable differences between at least 2 opposing perspectives on roleplaying playstyles leading to 2 separate 'defaults' for a 5E.

 

[Umbran]

And if WotC keeps catering to the group that wants everything to be "real" they will never satisfy everyone, because each person has a different opinion on how to simulate "reality."

Well, let's be honest here - WotC will never satisfy everyone. Period. Full stop.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Don't worry, I'm not, this is a 5E thread about the temperature of the rules, it's not about 4E.

Now I'm confused. The article linked to is a 4E article, any 5E involved is pure speculation. And the OP did not ask the question in regard to any edition.

I was trying to discuss simulationist vs gamist assumptions in this context, and you came in and told me that this increasing ability to bash open doors was simulationist while on the other hand in another thread saying that 4E is blatantly not a simulationist game at all nor doesn't even try to be, so color me confused as to what your purpose is exactly.

I could use that explanation, but as you'd suspect, it doesn't suffice for me because it doesn't get over the stereotype that every PC gets equally better at everything adventure-wise in equal measure, while in an alternate reality, Pathfinder heroes are not stereotyped to get better at everything, and so forth.

You asked a bunch of questions, then reminded me that you didn't like my answers. If you already knew the answers, why'd you ask the questions? And my purpose was to answer in context of your comments. The +1 per 2 levels may very well be gamist, but I do see valid ways to describe it in a simulationist manner. It depends on what you are trying to simulate and what you believe can model that reality. Some of us are OK with it simulating behind-the-scenes magic, it could also be the "get better at your adventuring job" explanation. The +1 per 2 levels could just as easily be used as a way to simulate overall general aptitude when one is repeatedly confronted with a certain set of tasks. Just because it is outside your range of acceptability doesn't make it non-simulationist.

Well, let's be honest here - WotC will never satisfy everyone. Period. Full stop.

That was basically my point. One "side" insists that they won't come back, but it almost seems as if they forgot that some of us left 3E and yet others skipped it entirely. I get that people want things to match what they want, but stating that you won't come back until they do ignores the fact that others might leave if you change it back. So why don't we do it both ways? Because I believe the game would get bogged down in trying to appeal to everyone when, as you said, we know it can't.