Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
Um... I believe you need to amend the OGL to this post.Campbell said:
Thaumaturge.
D&D 4E Verisimilitude IMPROVEMENTS in 4e
- Thread starter ZombieRoboNinja
- Start date
Thaumaturge.
A'koss said:Well, immersion in lava now kills you outright, no save - so there is that improvement.
What happened to "No save or die" effects? OK, I guess isn't, technically, save or die -- it's just 'die'.
Next you'll say a fall off a hundred foot cliff can kill a 20th level fighter! ('Doh! Scooped!)
Doug McCrae
Legend
Halfling height.
AZRogue
Explorer
The jury is still out for a lot of verisimilitude issues as revealed to us so far, but I agree with the OP on his points.
As for the others, I've always found, in my own experience, that verisimilitude stems from the DM and his description. If the issue is described well and there's consistency then it will be alright.
A lot of the issues look like there will be a shift in verisimilitude. We've gotten in the habit of explaining certain things (falling from high places, for instance) and now we'll have different things to explain. It's more of a change in habit. We're in the habit of certain things explained a certain way and we might have to relearn some of our habits for 4E, which isn't in itself a bad thing.
As for the others, I've always found, in my own experience, that verisimilitude stems from the DM and his description. If the issue is described well and there's consistency then it will be alright.
A lot of the issues look like there will be a shift in verisimilitude. We've gotten in the habit of explaining certain things (falling from high places, for instance) and now we'll have different things to explain. It's more of a change in habit. We're in the habit of certain things explained a certain way and we might have to relearn some of our habits for 4E, which isn't in itself a bad thing.
Doug McCrae
Legend
No one knows what happens when you fall in lava. It breaks all the laws of physics. Maybe you die. Maybe you're transported to another plane.
fnwc said:
If a dragon breathes fire on you, what happens next is wholly at the discretion of the DM. The fact that some DMs need rules to adjudicate what happens in this situation is the difference between DMs who view the rules as a guideline and those who view them as gospel.
If you try to convince the King to aid you, what happens next is wholly at the discretion of the DM. The fact that some DMs need rules to adjudicate what happens in this situation is the difference between DMs who view the rules as a guideline and those who view them as gospel.
If the orc attacks you, what happens next is wholly at the discretion of the DM. The fact that some DMs need rules to adjudicate what happens in this situation is the difference between DMs who view the rules as a guideline and those who view them as gospel.
Etc...
Either we have rules (including metarules to enable adjudication of situations not handled explicitly), or we should play Amber and be done with it.
fnwc
Explorer
Lizard said:
These are all true. However, I don't personally find it necessary for a ruleset to explicitly define all possible situations in order to be a good ruleset. I don't really want to get into a gamist vs simulation argument here; I'm merely responding to previous posts that infer that a system isn't 'good' unless it can correctly simulate a character falling into lava and dying, expressly decided by the rules.
