# Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism



## Mark CMG (Dec 20, 2011)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Nod To Realism)




> (. . .) the levels of simulation rose and fell as the game developed, but there's no denying that a nod to realism is clearly something that a significant number of players over the years have felt was important. But how much realism is too much? How much is enough?





It's an interesting question.  What's your take on it?


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 20, 2011)

That's a tough question, and it varies from rule area to rule area and story to story.

Generally, I want my rules a _little more_ believable than Hollywood physics.  It's that subtle bit of story you can tell someone and they respond "cool" instead of "that's a load of BS."  Fireballs should burn, things with wings can fly (even if they'd be too heavy in our world), throw someone off the edge of the cliff and short of magic or wings, they should fall.

Ruleswise, I don't want to be involved in calculus calculations - Either give me an easy formula that takes a few seconds to solve (1d6 per 10 feet fallen) or a quick chart to reference.  Anything beyond that will likely get chucked (1E's Weapon vs. Armor charts, for example - even 2E's was a bit clumsy).

For me, the game isn't looking up and makes rules calls.  It's presenting a story and being able to quickly resolve what happens.  You don't need complex rules for that, you just need to be able to answer  "Will your crazy idea work (Yes/No)?" and then move on.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 20, 2011)

I had three major factors in mind when I made my RPG: realism*, fantasy, and balance.

I want the rules to feel realistic. I'm okay with bending them away from realism and towards the fantastic, but they still need to feel rooted in realism. Ideally, this should be the case while being balanced.

Realism is the basis for both of my other goals, and thus is very important to me, personally. I know it work be for others. We'll see how this goes. As always, play what you like 

* Yes, I know that I should be using the word "verisimilitude". I tire of it, personally, but consider it used, if that helps.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> It's an interesting question.  What's your take on it?



Of all the Monte Cook Legend and Lore columns, I think I found this one the most frustrating, because (at least as far as I can tell) he does not distinguish between (i) realism/verisimilitude as a constraint on outcomes generated via the action resolution mechanics, and (ii) realism/verisimilitude as a constraint on the processes of the action resolution mechanics.

To explain: suppose the game says that, when I want my PC to do something (say, cross a narrow ledge above a cliff) and the GM thinks it might be risky (my PC is wearing high heeled shoes and have little experience as a climber or acrobat), then I have to toss a coin: heads, and I get to narrate how my PC succeeds; tails, and the GM gets to narrate how my PC fails. Suppose, furthermore, that there is a rule that governs both PC and GM - that the narration, whatever it is, must be realisitc/verismilitudinous. So if my klutzy PC successfully traverses the ledge while wearing high heels I can't say "I suddenly developed Spider Man-style wall walking ability". I have to say something like "Despite the narrowness of the ledge and the inappropriateness of my shoes, I just don't look down, and inch across without falling".

Now we have a game that produces only realistic outcomes in play, but it doesn't have very simulationist mechanics. The coin toss is, very obviously, a metagame technique for allocating the authority to decide what happens in the game. (The World, The Flesh and the Devil is a more sophisticated version of this.)

A game like D&D can have comparable sorts of mechanics, too, although probably more heavily disguised. For example: in building up my PC's ability with a sword (proficiency, feats, better magic items, etc) am I (i) changing the nature of my PC within the fiction (ie making him/her a better sword fighter), or (ii) building up _player_ resources that give me a better chance, in conflicts involving sword fighting, of declaring that my PC is the winner? Most of the time, I think D&D assumes the first answer. But some aspects of 4e probably make more sense interpreted in the second way. For example, it's one way of making sense of a CHA paladin's attacks - it's not that the paladin charms his/her enemies into stepping into the path of his/her sword, but rather the PC's CHA is a resource the player is calling upon to make his/her paladin the centre of the action. Likewise the STR paladin power "Valiant Strike", which grants a bonus to hit when surrounded by multiple foes. Does the paladin actually get fiercer in the fiction, like Conan when surrounded? That would make sense for a babarian power, but for Valiant Strike I prefer the "player resource" interpretation: by using that power you actually make it more likely that your paladin will be valiant, because you increase your chances of getting to describe your paladin smiting foes if your paladin is surrounded by many such foes.

None of this vitiates realism/verisimilitude - at least in a fantasy game, there is nothing unverisimilitudinous about a valiant knight smiting the foes that surround him, nor about a Galahad-like figure who seems in some ways frail and innocent, but nevertheless smites foes with divine power.

But clearly these are not simulationionst mechanics of the sort Monte Cook seems interested in (weapon vs armour, speed factor, etc).

Particularly in this most recent column, I don't feel that Monte is asking the questions that will help the WotC designers reconcile 4e with 3E/PF, because they don't recongise the key dimensions in which those games differ.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 20, 2011)

"Nods to realism" comes close, but I think the key point is "don't get between the players and the simulation." In other words, the moment the players have to step "outside the game" and think about how to justify the mechanics, you've lost them. Even if there is in fact a pretty good justification, the fact that they had to stop and think in order to get to it is a major problem, because the last thing you want people thinking about in the middle of a game is how to justify the rules.

On the other hand, if the only way to notice a lack of realism is to step outside the game, you can get away with some utterly unrealistic systems; hit points and XP being good examples.


----------



## delericho (Dec 20, 2011)

If his notion of a nod to realism is "a detailed list of polearms", then he's on completely the wrong track.

In general, I want the game to be just about believable on a surface level. With low-level characters, unless they are explicitly using magic, what they do should be possible in the real world. When using magic, or for higher level characters, this is much less important, since at that point we're definitely dealing with fantasy elements. The "Hollywood Realism" description is a very good one.

But, really, it's not about what "nods to realism" the game provides, or even which ones it supports. For me, it is _much_ more important that the game not outright shred any notion of realism - I don't mind a high-level fighter surviving a huge fall, since he's an epic hero. I don't mind a wizard summoning fire with a few arcane syllables, since that's what he _does_. But I _do_ mind if a character changes direction in mid-jump with no magic involved, and no fixed point on which to adjust.

Edit: A better example: "Raiders of the Lost Ark". The bit where Indy goes under the truck is crazy, and would _almost certainly_ get him killed. But then, they actually had a stuntman do that, so fair enough. The bit where the Ark wipes out the Nazis is obviously not possible... but since we're dealing with an ancient artifact and assuming magic, I have no problem with it.

But the bit where he rides the submarine, and the canonical explanation is that he just held on to the outside? Yeah, that makes me want to punch George Lucas.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 20, 2011)

I think the article could have done with less focus on realism and addressed internal consistency instead. 

A game that assumes dragons, wizards, and flashy magical effects isn't selling realism. Magic and supernatural power being actual forces in the implied world mean that realism isn't all that big of an issue.

No matter how fantastic a fantasy world is, a certain level of believability is needed to draw in an audience. The easiest way to accomplish that is with common frames of reference. Simple things such as the presence of human beings, night and day, and the force of gravity help to provide that reference. 

A fantasy world being what it is, can change these things around but too much erasure of these kinds of things make it harder for players to accept the game world as a plausible place for the game to take place in.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 20, 2011)

@Dausuul , now here you can appropriately discuss potion helmets without threadjacking


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 20, 2011)

Guys, although I think it's useful to differentiate "realism" to believability to verisimilitude to internal consistency to plausibility, we've all been down that road many, many times -- and I think we all know what Monte is trying to get at it, even if we argue the minituae of definitions. "Nod to realism" works well enough for me, and he does acknowledge the subjectivity of it all, so you can't fault him for nailing down some sort of objective definition of what D&D "realism" would be.

I think this article is measuring the *desire* to achieve "realism", not measuring "realism" itself.


----------



## P1NBACK (Dec 20, 2011)

Monte has clearly missed the last 10 years of progress in game design and theory.

He's also stuck on "realism" when he needs to be talking about "plausibility". There's a difference.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> He's also stuck on "realism" when he needs to be talking about "plausibility". There's a difference.




Not necessarily.  To you, there's a difference.

Yes, folks on EN World have had discussions on the minutiae of definitions in there.  But while we are within his target audience, we are probably not the majority of his audience, much less the whole of it*.  And you can write a whole article upon those fine details, and never get on why the differences might be relevant to your average gamer - he's got a few paragraphs to get his idea across.

Keeping the likely purpose of his piece, and the full audience, in mind, and that word use makes some sense to me.  


*And, I wouldn't be surprised if on other forums they've had such discussions, and come to a habit of using different words - your plausibility might be their verisimilitude or "internal consistency".  That would mean he's completley hosed, as there's no one word he could use that means the same thing to everyone.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 20, 2011)

It's pretty clear that the purpose of these "Legends and Lore" things is to test reactions from the community and float trial balloons, with the end goal of figuring out how to bring Pathfinder and retro-clone fans back into the fold. One of the major complaints about 4E, perhaps the single biggest complaint, was a lack of "realism." In this one, Monte is trying to figure out, "What exactly does that _mean_? What makes 3E 'realistic' and 4E not, given the patent absurdities in both games?"

Monte seems to be operating on the theory that the game needs to nod in the direction of realism more. Which is fine as far as it goes, and I would certainly like to see more of the sense that the game is taking place in a fleshed-out world where people eat and drink and sleep and crap and have sex and are born and die. But honestly, the last time I really had that feeling was 2E.

If the issue is tackling the "lack of realism" in 4E, then I think nodding to realism is not a sufficient solution. It's a good idea, but if 5E contents itself with nodding a little more, it won't solve the problem. The solution is to figure out how to keep the implausibilities submerged, as it were. Classic hit points are ludicrously unrealistic, but in the heat of play you can easily overlook that fact, as the DM narrates grisly wounds and splattering gore. Healing surges are not much worse than classic hit points* in terms of realism, but the way they are presented really jolts people out of the narrative, and that's what provokes cries of "unrealistic!"

[SIZE=-2]*I do think they are worse. But not a lot worse.[/SIZE]


----------



## P1NBACK (Dec 20, 2011)

Umbran said:


> To you, there's a difference.




Yup. That's why _I_ posted that. 

To me, there is a difference. Yup. My opinion and all. That's usually how these forums work. You post _your_ opinion and I post _mine_. 

To me, there is certainly a difference.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 20, 2011)

As with all forms of fiction, D&D is crafted for an audience. Realism is important to the extent that the audience values it. If people are laughing at the absurdity of the rules, they need to be more realistic. If people give up the game because it's too complicated and not fun enough, then it's too realistic.

The problem here is that the audience for D&D is so intellectually diverse. It includes kids playing in their parents' basements and working professionals who have played together for 20 years, as well as the top and bottom rungs of the intellectual ladder, and people from all different backgrounds and all parts of the world. There's also a variety of takes on what people want out of a game. Some people want World of Warcraft. Some people want Lord of the Rings. Some people want Game of Thrones. So playing to this audience is rather difficult.

My take is that I want realism up to the absolute threshold of tolerance. I want my battles to track injuries up to the point where I (a veteran gamer) find it laborious to do so. I want my character's to be able to break down doors with the same ease (or difficulty) as a real person of comparable strength. I want to track the effects of weather. I suspect that I'm with a significant number of people, but in conflict with many others.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> To me, there is a difference. Yup. My opinion and all. That's usually how these forums work. You post _your_ opinion and I post _mine_.




Yeah, but you're stating an opinion about his mental state (being "stuck on realism").  I don't see where you get that from what he wrote.  I was arguing against doing so based on his word choice, as he's not likely using our rather particular local jargon.

If you have some other indication that he's really stuck on one concept (say, that he's shown a pattern of behavior outside this one article) I'm interested in hearing about it.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 20, 2011)

This is interesting.  Some random thoughts as I haven't worked this all out yet.

What I think needs to be "realistic": if you are going to model something fictional, the model needs to line up with your expectations.  eg. A house cat shouldn't be a more dangerous opponent than a normal man.

Thought: The more detailed the mechanical model, the more difficult it is going to be to line the model up with your expectations.  You create many interactions between these models; if any of those break from your expectations, it's a jarring experience.

I wonder: If you 1) keep these models at an abstract level, 2) give the table the responsibility to make sure things fit within the group's expectations (DM or group, depending on play goals), and 3) allow within the mechanics the possibility of judgement calls, is it easier to make things fit within the group's expectations?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 20, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> Yup. That's why _I_ posted that.
> 
> To me, there is a difference. Yup. My opinion and all. That's usually how these forums work. You post _your_ opinion and I post _mine_.
> 
> To me, there is certainly a difference.




Had you just posted that, Umbran probably wouldn't have said anything.  But since you started your post taking a potshot at Monte, insinuating (at least from what I gathered from it) that he's been blind to the last 10 years of roleplaying games and thus shouldn't be commenting on it at all... _that's_ why Umbran said what he did.

You can't insinuate that Monte's a moron and expect other people not to call you on it.  And if you didn't mean to imply that... then you probably might want to go back and review your comments and see why some of us got that take from you.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 20, 2011)

Let's not shoot the messenger.  Monte works as part of the team developing 5E and I am sure his topics are run by the group working on that project along with the nomenclature they are using to get the general idea across.  As said up thread by LurkAway, most of us understand what he means when he uses the word "realism" and taking him to task for allowing it to fit a loose meaning probably isn't going to get us very far.  There's a time for precision in semantics to be questioned, like when a word is used antithetically rather than generally.  This doesn't seem to be one of those times given the overall context of the article.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

I would have used the phrase "nods to simulation" instead, as that covers the whole gambit of realism, verisimilitude, etc. Come to think of it, I have used "nods to simulation" more than once in these conversations since 4E arrived, most often in conjuction with "4E removed them." 

In any case, "nods" is the important word. And here, I think Monte is on the right track, but at least in this column hasn't acknowledged what "nods" being important means. (To be fair, maybe is trying to be objective here so as to not skew the survey responses.) Because providing "nods" to something is implicitly also not providing the thing itself. 

A long list of weapons with slightly different damage expressions and otherwise modest differences is precisely a "nod". It is only "realistic" to someone that hasn't thought much about it, read about it, or has but doesn't much care. In a rough and ready way, it is correct in some sense (being on the business end of a sword is often likely to be slightly worse if the blade is heavier and longer) but skimpy on nuance (things that determine whether or not you end up on the business end in the first place, and what kind of strike was delivered, and in what conditions).

It is when you move into things like weapon speed factors that it stops becoming a nod and tries to be more than that. Technically, distinguishing reach, handedness, etc. are also more than nods, though at different points on the scale. (This is hardly an exact science.) If you start accurately modeling things like realistic load speeds and training times/efforts for longbow and crossbows, you've definitely moved out of the arena of nods into full bore simulation.

I'm all for nods that don't impede the main focus of the game and/or gameplay itself. Bonus points if they don't take up much space and/or are truly optional. Penalty points the longer they go on and the more intrusive they become. That is, for me, "nods to simulation" are distinctily a second order concern.

And just to be clear, for anyone that might be confused by some of my past statements along those lines, I do value that 4E ruthlessly excluded these nods, because it has forced this conversation. Way too often, people have treated the nods as, "if some are good, more deeper and intrusive ones, are better--especially the ones that I want." (Not said that plainly, of course.)

Nods that try to be more than nods, but fail, are the worst of all possible outcomes.  You get something large and clunky that few really like.  But the handful of people that want "more realism" in that particular area will get inordinately attached to it, making it harder to satisfy everyone else (those that value nods generally and those that just want them kept second order).  And such things are seldom optional or very playable.


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 20, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> "Nods to realism" comes close, but I think the key point is "don't get between the players and the simulation." In other words, the moment the players have to step "outside the game" and think about how to justify the mechanics, you've lost them. Even if there is in fact a pretty good justification, the fact that they had to stop and think in order to get to it is a major problem, because the last thing you want people thinking about in the middle of a game is how to justify the rules.
> 
> On the other hand, if the only way to notice a lack of realism is to step outside the game, you can get away with some utterly unrealistic systems; hit points and XP being good examples.




I think this is an excellent point.  (And, apparently, I need to spread xp around...)

I think of this issue as one of immersiveness -- not in Monte's slightly strange use of the term, but in the sense of asking how much of the player's time is spent thinking about what is happening inside the fiction as opposed to thinking about the rules mechanics.  The more the players have to step "outside the game", either to justify the mechanics or simply to select their next action, the less the players are thinking about the fiction itself.

Of course, this isn't the same thing as realism, but it comes from a similar motivation.  The primary issue with a realism failure is that it yanks the players out of the fiction -- either because the mechanic is too complicated or because the results/process is unbelievable.

-KS


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> I think of this issue as one of immersiveness -- not in Monte's slightly strange use of the term, but in the sense of asking how much of the player's time is spent thinking about what is happening inside the fiction as opposed to thinking about the rules mechanics. The more the players have to step "outside the game", either to justify the mechanics or simply to select their next action, the less the players are thinking about the fiction itself.
> 
> Of course, this isn't the same thing as realism, but it comes from a similar motivation. The primary issue with a realism failure is that it yanks the players out of the fiction -- either because the mechanic is too complicated or because the results/process is unbelievable.




The inherent problem here though is that "immersiveness" and "hit points" only go together as a learned skill. That is, "hit points" themselves are anti-immersive. But immersiveness is not mere simulation, but rather *overcoming* the need to step outside the rules. But it also depends upon a rule that can "fade into the background"--which presumes a certain limit on handling times or the type of mechanics.

Rolling d20+mod vs DC is counter to immersion. Rolling percentage dice on a roll under versus threshold is also counter to immersion. If you naturally think more in percentages (regardless of how "accurate" your thoughts are), then the second system, all else being equal, will be more immersive to you--and likely, feel more "realistic" as a bonus. OTOH, if you get sufficient practice with the d20+mod vs DC option and not the percentage version, the way the former fades into the background will gradually overcome this natural preference.

So I think the game is going to step between the players and the simulation, from an immersive standpoint. The question becomes about payoff down the road. If hit points can fade into the background and thus become a mechanic that intrudes not at all, then those first few times when they stepped in between the players and the simulation is a good deal. And compared to a lot of mechanical options for recording wounds, the evidence is that they can for many people. For other people, not so much. 

Moreover, in practice some substantial subset of players *are* going to get that "realism failure," one way or the other, from a given mechanic. Even simple mechanics can be too complicated for some. And any mechanic that tries to model both process and result is bound to be overly complicated--and likely fail at both to boot--again, at least for some people. It is not an achievable goal to make mechanics that will seldom have such failures in a single, small group--let alone the wider audience of the game.


----------



## VincentRVenturella (Dec 20, 2011)

I am very surprised that no one has discussed how this can affect the various elements (i.e. characters) within the game, because the effects are great. 

When I wrote The Legacy of Heroes, it was obvious to me, the real spectrum undergirding most fantasy literature is a spectrum between Talent/Skill (Fighters) and Magic (Wizards and to a lesser degree clerics). 

As you increase the nods to realism (or whatever we would like to call it), the more we try to feel like we are mechanically approximating the real world within the construct of the game - the more the left end of the spectrum suffers. 

Consider several examples in this very thread, people discussed the fact that certain things would feel unrealistic, and they were all very physical, martial tasks.

Why? The answer is simple, Magic (as I would define it) is quite simply the ability to violate the physical laws of the universe. Can a person fly? the world says no - magic says yes. Can a person be on fire and survive? World says unlikely, magic says no problem. You see where this is going. 

When you increase your realism (getting to something like 2E) you naturally weaken fighters, rogues and other such archtypes, because barring very high levels, they basically have to act like (very) skilled people. 

As an example, one of the most famous Samurai duelists, Miyamoto Musashi, fought perhaps 50 real deadly duels in his lifetime, and took part in something like 20-30 battles as a combatant. He is one of the greatest weapon masters who have ever lived, and his combat experience probably equates to a 5th-10th level character depending on edition. My point is, we are already drifting from reality with D&D, so I agree with the "nod"

The more realistic you get however, the Wizard (the other end of the spectrum) is not affected at all. You can put in complicated casting systems, ritual components, casting times and all sorts of other crap, but those aren't "realism" those are fabricated constraints to hold back the guy whose training is effectively in the "Break Reality" skill. There is no magic, hence there is no Realism to be had with casting magic. 

My point is simply, choices of realism do not affect all game elements equally. Simply asking the question and talking in broad terms about a few high level mechanics does not betray the greater complexity and how differently some parts of the game may be changed while others are nearly unaffected.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 20, 2011)

VincentRVenturella said:


> The more realistic you get however, the Wizard (the other end of the spectrum) is not affected at all. You can put in complicated casting systems, ritual components, casting times and all sorts of other crap, but those aren't "realism" those are fabricated constraints to hold back the guy whose training is effectively in the "Break Reality" skill. There is no magic, hence there is no Realism to be had with casting magic.




It is precisely the "breaking reality" aspect of magic that makes it magical. That is kind of magic's job in the game world.


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 20, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The inherent problem here though is that "immersiveness" and "hit points" only go together as a learned skill. That is, "hit points" themselves are anti-immersive. But immersiveness is not mere simulation, but rather *overcoming* the need to step outside the rules. But it also depends upon a rule that can "fade into the background"--which presumes a certain limit on handling times or the type of mechanics.
> 
> Rolling d20+mod vs DC is counter to immersion. Rolling percentage dice on a roll under versus threshold is also counter to immersion. If you naturally think more in percentages (regardless of how "accurate" your thoughts are), then the second system, all else being equal, will be more immersive to you--and likely, feel more "realistic" as a bonus. OTOH, if you get sufficient practice with the d20+mod vs DC option and not the percentage version, the way the former fades into the background will gradually overcome this natural preference.




I disagree.  Yes, hit points and the d20 vs. DC system can sometimes produce results that are sufficiently counter-intuitive that they pull players outside the system (e.g. massive falling damage).  

But these rules have the considerable merit of being very simple.  Because they are so simple, they can be used very quickly and the players don't have to emerge from the fiction to apply them.  Not only does that leave more time to think about the fiction, but it also leaves less time for the player to think about how unrealistic the system is.  A more complicated, more realistic system might seem _less_ realistic because it encourages the players to think more about its imperfections.

I think that the non-immersive qualities of 4e come more from its many thought-demanding _mechanical_ decision points, than to the fact that there are fewer nods to simulationism.

-KS


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> I think that the non-immersive qualities of 4e come more from its many thought-demanding _mechanical_ decision points, than to the fact that there are fewer nods to simulationism.




Then I'm not sure we are on the same page on the question, let alone the answer. What is a thought-demanding mechanical decision point in 4E that has this characteristic? Presumably, you don't mean things like, "the results are roughly what a fantasy character could achieve; now narrate how that happened." That isn't mechanical, though it does demand a certain way of thinking about the process.

And in any case, I was hardly confining my comments to 4E. The history of people complaining about being drawn out of immersion by hit points or armor as AC is long and distinguished. 

I do agree that the simplicity of hit points is their main virtue for immersion.  To the extent that people enjoy them as an immersion mechanic, this is a big part of it.  But you may have overlooked my point that this is learned behavior.  *Any* new mechanic is anti-immersion for a gamer used to something else.  If you want to control for that aspect, you must control for that by seeing how competing mechanics work with new players.


----------



## P1NBACK (Dec 20, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Had you just posted that, Umbran probably wouldn't have said anything.  But since you started your post taking a potshot at Monte, insinuating (at least from what I gathered from it) that he's been blind to the last 10 years of roleplaying games and thus shouldn't be commenting on it at all... _that's_ why Umbran said what he did.
> 
> You can't insinuate that Monte's a moron and expect other people not to call you on it.  And if you didn't mean to imply that... then you probably might want to go back and review your comments and see why some of us got that take from you.




I love this website.  Only here will you run to the defense of someone by attacking someone else without even really asking them what they meant in the first place.  

If you weren't sure what I meant, then why not ask me to clarify? 

And, yes, I do believe Monte has missed 10+ years of game design theory based on his recent articles here. Seriously, his brainstorming is reflective of the most rudimentary theory discussions found, I don't know, maybe on ENWorld. 

Seriously: he's a public figure writing on behalf of the biggest RPG ever. 

I think it's acceptable to criticize the guy. It's not like I'm taking potshots at anything about him personally. I think Monte's a swell guy. I follow him on Google+ and check in on his thoughts regularly. 

I just don't think he's bringing anything new to the table for D&D, and it's mostly just rehash of the same old arguments of "realism" and "simulation". Wtf? 

Monte, if you have concerns about this and want feedback, read up on the 1000s of threads where every RPG forum ever has had the same debate. There's nothing new here. 

~ para removed. If you want to make a point, use grandma- friendly language please ~

Hell, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s post written up in probably 10 minutes this morning earlier in this thread was more thought-provoking than all of Monte's "Legends and Lore" articles combined. 

If that's hurtful to your D&D Celebrity fandom, apologies all around. 

But, I don't think calling someone out for having an opinion about the matter is really conducive to conversation. I just think it's defensive and argumentative. Goes nowhere. 

Party on!


----------



## Balesir (Dec 20, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> A long list of weapons with slightly different damage expressions and otherwise modest differences is precisely a "nod". It is only "realistic" to someone that hasn't thought much about it, read about it, or has but doesn't much care. In a rough and ready way, it is correct in some sense (being on the business end of a sword is often likely to be slightly worse if the blade is heavier and longer) but skimpy on nuance (things that determine whether or not you end up on the business end in the first place, and what kind of strike was delivered, and in what conditions).



In fact, even the "heavier and longer blade will damage more" trope is very largely false - the longer swords were used in a totally different way, mainly in response to improved technology in armour (both because piercing plate was harder and because a fighter wearing plate didn't really need a shield any longer).

But, regardless that many/most of the old movie/roleplaying tropes about medieval combat are false, the idea that it matters at all seems to be predicated here on a key point: that "immersiveness" is a paramount value in game play.

I don't think this has been justified in the slightest. I mean, I enjoy it, from time to time, even though I find it extremely hard to maintain with any edition of D&D. But I also find it entirely possible to enjoy play without it; what claim does "immersionism" really have to being the "paramount value"?


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 20, 2011)

As regards the "breaking reality" aspect of magic, I agree and disagree with this. D&D magic can do anything, but if you cut sharply against the established sense of how magic works, you can break immersion just as badly as if you allowed a non-magical fighter to take to the air and fly.

Imagine, for example, a spell that surrounds the caster with an aura of blinding sunlight, healing any nearby undead and dealing acid damage to Lawful creatures. Magic can do anything, so this should be just fine, right? But most people confronted with this spell would respond, "Wait. Sunlight that heals undead? And deals acid damage based on alignment? That doesn't make any sense!"

For a less egregious example, a lot of cleric powers in 4E take the form of "Damage an enemy. If you succeed, an ally gets a buff." I can't be the only one who finds those powers jarring. I understand what they're doing from a mechanical point of view (giving clerics the ability to buff allies while going on offense), but in terms of the game world, the only way they make sense to me is some kind of dark vampiric curse where you draw off your enemy's life-force to strengthen your allies. Not what you expect to see from a cleric of Pelor.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 20, 2011)

Balesir said:


> what claim does "immersionism" really have to being the "paramount value"?




None that I can tell, in fact playability would be my vote for paramount value.  I could play a game with heavy immersion and if it's "unplayable" for any of various reasons (rules, mechanics, cost, etc.) it will go to the "not even used" pile.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 20, 2011)

In the physics of the 3e world, I fail a save vs. a hold spell and am paralyzed for X rounds until the magic fades. I can see that being a plausible reality.

In the physics of the 4e world, I get hit by a hold spell, but continue to struggle against it (as a I make saves every round) and eventually break free. I can see that being a plausible reality as well.

Likewise, HP/Surges of 4e vs. the HP of 3e are for all intents and purposes the same. Both are an abstract measure of health and vitality. Any assertion to the contrary is really just splitting hairs and personal opinion.

I don't find either 4e or 3e more inherently "realistic" than the other one. Each represents internally consistent albeit different realities as defined by the game rules.

The 4e rules tend to represent a more Hollywood cinematic notion of reality. But that isn't always true either. I have made some ridiculously broken 3.x/PF characters in my day that were anything but realistic.

I think pursuing realism too far is the white whale of gaming. The more a game tries to be simulationist or realistic, the less fun I find it to play. I personally feel that "realism" should always take a back set to "fun". But I don't begrudge others who prefer the other notion.

If 5e isn't capable of smoothly handling both ideals then it will fail. I and many others already play Pathfinder, so I don't need another game system that mimics what it does. Likewise, I play 4e as well and I won't drop it for a 5e that takes away some of the fun gameplay that I enjoy about it to appease the tyranny of "realism".


----------



## mmadsen (Dec 20, 2011)

delericho said:


> If his notion of a nod to realism is "a detailed list of polearms", then he's on completely the wrong track.



I agree completely.  Similarly, he opens his piece with an odd idea of what's quintessentially simulationist:
Certainly, the roots of the game lie in simulation. The game distinguishes between the damage a sword does from a spear, for example.​Really?  Distinguishing the damage between a sword and a spear is profoundly simulationist?  I have no trouble imagining a more "realistic" game -- say, Warhammer -- not bothering with that distinction.




Ahnehnois said:


> Realism is important to the extent that the audience values it. If people are laughing at the absurdity of the rules, they need to be more realistic. If people give up the game because it's too complicated and not fun enough, then it's too realistic.



I agree that _realism is important to the extent that the audience values it_ -- or _recognizes_ it -- and I agree that _if people are laughing at the absurdity of the rules, they need to be more realistic_, but a game can most certainly be more complicated and less fun without being more realistic.

_Realistic_ and _detailed_ are not synonyms; neither are _abstract_ and _unrealistic_.  Many realistic war games are extremely abstract compared to D&D, especially compared to 4E.  (Many are painfully detailed, too, of course.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 20, 2011)

Dragonblade said:


> If 5e isn't capable of smoothly handling both ideals then it will fail. I and many others already play Pathfinder, so I don't need another game system that mimics what it does. Likewise, I play 4e as well and I won't drop it for a 5e that takes away some of the fun gameplay that I enjoy about it to appease the tyranny of "realism".




This is why trying to capture so diverse an audience with a single game system is the nigh- impossible task of game design. 

Whatever 5E ends up settling on, it should be clearly designed towards its intended goals. No matter what these goals are, there will be some people unhappy with them.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 20, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> And, yes, I do believe Monte has missed 10+ years of game design theory based on his recent articles here. Seriously, his brainstorming is reflective of the most rudimentary theory discussions found, I don't know, maybe on ENWorld.
> 
> Seriously: he's a public figure writing on behalf of the biggest RPG ever.
> 
> ...




I don't know what sort of effective circulation the Legends and Lore articles have on the WotC site, but I believe they are targeted at a much broader audience than EnWorld or any of the dank corners of the internet in which more in depth debates on game design occur. As such, I think a back to basics approach, looking at all sorts of fundamental elements of the game in general terms, is a fine approach. I'd even call it much less mentally masturbatory than most of the game design theory debates over the last 10 years which probably more than 90% of D&D players never heard of and don't care about.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 20, 2011)

*Nod to realism by monte cook*

This time I believe he addresses a very important point. Especially because it is one where 4e actually fails!

Realsism. how much is enough. how much is too much. And he honestly asks for opinions...

which leads me to the most interesting part of his article (bolded):

"Understanding where the current audience (as opposed to say, the 1974  audience, or the 2000 audience) stands when it comes to how much of a  nod to reality is enough is *something that's really important to me*. I  hope you'll answer this week's poll questions and let me know."

Why is it so critical for him to know? it smells like 5e design team is really beginning to work!


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

Balesir said:


> But, regardless that many/most of the old movie/roleplaying tropes about medieval combat are false, the idea that it matters at all seems to be predicated here on a key point: that "immersiveness" is a paramount value in game play.
> 
> I don't think this has been justified in the slightest. I mean, I enjoy it, from time to time, even though I find it extremely hard to maintain with any edition of D&D. But I also find it entirely possible to enjoy play without it; what claim does "immersionism" really have to being the "paramount value"?




Logically, none. The claim to importance is all widespread popularity of preference. Immersion is the pizza of gaming. It is entirely possible to have weeks, months, and years of excellent eating with no pizza whatsoever. And there are plenty of meals that would be actively harmed by including pizza with them. But people wants their pizza. 

They want it greasy and dry, with little fish and not. With red sauce and white. With onions, mushrooms, and green peppers and none or only some of those. They want it deep dish, ultra thin, and everything in between. And get 6 random gamers together, count yourself lucky if 3 different types of pizza will satisfy them. 

So Monte was also very much on the right track saying that a certain amount of the nods must be supplied by the individual group. There just is no way for Joe to have anchovies embedded in his D&D throughout and Jane to never deal with them at all. Something has always got to give.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 20, 2011)

P1NBACK said:


> If that's hurtful to your D&D Celebrity fandom, apologies all around.




I love this website too. Not so much when people start throwing around insults like this though. It is like saying "I don't mean to be rude but you are stupid". 

From the posts you've made in this thread you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and I'm not sure why. I don't want to give you an outright suspension, but I'm certainly booting you from this thread.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 20, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Logically, none. The claim to importance is all widespread popularity of preference. Immersion is the pizza of gaming. It is entirely possible to have weeks, months, and years of excellent eating with no pizza whatsoever. And there are plenty of meals that would be actively harmed by including pizza with them. But people wants their pizza.
> 
> They want it greasy and dry, with little fish and not. With red sauce and white. With onions, mushrooms, and green peppers and none or only some of those. They want it deep dish, ultra thin, and everything in between. And get 6 random gamers together, count yourself lucky if 3 different types of pizza will satisfy them.
> 
> So Monte was also very much on the right track saying that a certain amount the nods must be supplied by the individual group. There just is no way for Joe to have anchovies embedded in his D&D throughout and Jane to never deal with them at all. Something has always got to give.




Gotta spread some around. 

Serves you right for making me hungry.


----------



## Tymophil (Dec 20, 2011)

Once again, I am not impressed by Monte Cook's column. As someone else said, he seemed to have missed years of game development thinking.

I think that D&D4 is not less pausible/realistc whatever than any other versions. In fact, I firmly believe this is the first edition where one could play something close to the journey of the _Fellowship of the Ring_. That is not realistic, but can produce a good tale to play.

But, there is one thing that _D&D 4th Edition_ failed to do : translate its mechanisms into concepts that are clear for the players, and the game masters. For someone used to D&D, fourth edition doesn't make not much sense at first. Those hit points don't represent what they used to, this funny push effect, those strange healings by using combat powers... It's all weird.

But weird doesn't mean that that it cannot make sense in a "realistc" way. It is all a question of defining the effect in a believable way. After all, the _Armour Class_ doen't make much sense and yet it is accepted. While _healing surges_ are not, and they could make as much sense. It is, in my humbe opinion, because the AC is in D&D from day one, while the Healing Surge is a new kid on the block.

It would not have been wasted space to give a few lines to describe how a power would be described in a "realistic" way. Then, a new concept for hit point could have been defined. A cleric can inspire his mates by performing deeds clearly showing that his Diety is on their side (and raise their confidence, ie hp). A fighter display of might makes his enemies withdraw in fear, and so on...

I really miss designer notes in D&D...


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 20, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Logically, none. The claim to importance is all widespread popularity of preference. Immersion is the pizza of gaming.



Then isn't everything pizza? Everything is a preference. Therefore everything is pizza. QED.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 20, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> I agree that _realism is important to the extent that the audience values it_ -- or _recognizes_ it -- and I agree that _if people are laughing at the absurdity of the rules, they need to be more realistic_, but a game can most certainly be more complicated and less fun without being more realistic.
> 
> _Realistic_ and _detailed_ are not synonyms; neither are _abstract_ and _unrealistic_.  Many realistic war games are extremely abstract compared to D&D, especially compared to 4E.  (Many are painfully detailed, too, of course.)



Realism and detail are not synonymous, but they are related. In general, I think pushes to make rpgs more realistic have added complexity. I also think that the biggest pushback against realism is based on the amount of work people want to put into understanding the rules. There are other issues there, though.

The example I was thinking of is the tracking of health and injury. Almost anything designed to create a "more realistic" description of the topic than hit points involves making the game much more detailed and complex, which explains why D&D is still stuck on a videogame health bar. For other aspects of the game, it's different.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Dec 20, 2011)

Tymophil said:


> It would not have been wasted space to give a few lines to describe how a power would be described in a "realistic" way. Then, a new concept for hit point could have been defined. A cleric can inspire his mates by performing deeds clearly showing that his Diety is on their side (and raise their confidence, ie hp). A fighter display of might makes his enemies withdraw in fear, and so on...



Err, isn't that what the flavor text attached to each power was? I mean, take the base wording for the Cleric's Divine Glow power.

"Murmuring a prayer to your deity, you invoke a blast of white radiance from your holy symbol. Foes burn in its stern light, but your allies are heartened and guided by it."

Seems like that does exactly what you're suggesting, no?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Then isn't everything pizza? Everything is a preference. Therefore everything is pizza. QED.




I would expect someone that has lately been lobbying heavily against "semantics" in arguments to eschew such bad logic--especially in something that was clearly an analogy.  

I started to write a detailed rebuttal, but I think it will be better to simply state that everything is not a preference, and this should be obvious with a bit of thought.  For example, the exact system you prefer is often highly driven by preference.  Having a system to play an RPG is not a preference, but a requirement (even if very light and ad hoc).  Eating pizza is a preference.  Eating is not.  

But more critically, not all preferences are equally popular.  The question asked was what was immersion's claim to some pride of place.  It is the same claim that pizza has if you passed a law banning it everywhere.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 20, 2011)

I liked this one. He seems to be saying realism, like many other things (say balance) is an important, but not overwhelming, part of the game. It is a nod to realism, nothing more. For me that is what was lacking in 4e. If they make a system that balances out the elements of flavor, balance and realism, i think I will be happy.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 20, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I would expect someone that has lately been lobbying heavily against "semantics" in arguments to eschew such bad logic--especially in something that was clearly an analogy.



Sorry, I was partially being cheeky, and partially protesting that immersion is necessarily more preference-y than other rpg goals.

For example, we know that balance is a pizza. Almost 30% of enworld users didn't think it was important part of their meal, and just over 30% thought it was very important AFAIR.

So someone could ask "what claim does 'balance' really have to being the 'paramount value'?" And then I say that balance is like pizza


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Sorry, I was partially being cheeky, and partially protesting that immersion is necessarily more preference-y than other rpg goals.
> 
> For example, we know that balance is a pizza. Almost 30% of enworld users didn't think it was important part of their meal, and just over 30% thought it was very important AFAIR.
> 
> So someone could ask "what claim does 'balance' really have to being the 'paramount value'?" And then I say that balance is like pizza




The difference is that even the most rabid supporters of "balance" are seldom in the habit of claiming it as the be all and end all, and certainly not the paramount value.  That claim has been explicitly made, however, for immersion, and sometimes by some otherwise very reasonable people.  It was asserted several months back by several posters that lacking immersion made a giving system not a roleplaying game.

More often, however, importance of immersion is asserted with no evidence--or even more often still, simply assumed with no written assertion.  So yes, balance and immersion are very much alike in this respect--you *demand* enough to satisfy you, and *want* some more if you can get it.  The practical difference in the two sides is not the things, but precisely the self awareness of the importance of the things--not least to the wider audience for the game.*

* In some ways, this is only natural.  Balance is something that, if you care about it and aren't getting it, you'll want to highlight.  The more you talk reasonably about balance, the more you may get.  Immersion, however, depends in some part on not thinking about the things that support it too deeply.  If you start thinking, for example, of "longsword" as "artificial game construct that does 1d8 + Str mod damage and has these other features," you must at least risk that this thought will creep in during play and intrude on immersion.


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 20, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> KidSnide said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the non-immersive qualities of 4e come more from its many thought-demanding _mechanical_ decision points, than to the fact that there are fewer nods to simulationism.
> ...




For new players (IME), the biggest thought-demanding mechanical decision is choosing your attack with an AEDU character.  Their internal motivation is to attack a guy, but they have to step out of the game, look at their sheet/cards and pick the specific attack they want to make.  Even with more experienced players, their decision is based more on the out-of-game list of powers (with the consideration of whether they want to blow a daily/AP) than it is on the in-game situation.

If I had to pick another example, it would be this thought: "I've used my standard and my move.  Is there a productive way to use a minor action?"  It's a highly tactical thought based on how the action economy works, but it's anti-immersive because the player is thinking about the rules mechanic instead of the in-game fiction.

Obviously, pulling players back from the action needs to be balanced against giving the players interesting decisions.  It's just that, with 4e, the mechanical decision making has been further attenuated from the in-game fiction.  When it comes to the player's experience, there's a cost to that.



Crazy Jerome said:


> I do agree that the simplicity of hit points is their main virtue for immersion.  To the extent that people enjoy them as an immersion mechanic, this is a big part of it.  But you may have overlooked my point that this is learned behavior.  *Any* new mechanic is anti-immersion for a gamer used to something else.  If you want to control for that aspect, you must control for that by seeing how competing mechanics work with new players.




That is a good point.  Unfamiliar mechanics are always going to bother experienced gamers more than than equally problematic mechanics that they have gotten used to.

-KS


----------



## mmadsen (Dec 20, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> In general, I think pushes to make rpgs more realistic have added complexity.[...] The example I was thinking of is the tracking of health and injury. Almost anything designed to create a "more realistic" description of the topic than hit points involves making the game much more detailed and complex, which explains why D&D is still stuck on a videogame health bar. For other aspects of the game, it's different.



I agree completely that many attempts to make D&D (or gaming in general) more "realistic" have involved making it more complex, especially all the attempts to replace hit points with something more "realistic" -- but it's quite simple to replace hit points with something more realistic with even less detail to track: remove hit points entirely and make all hits save-or-die.  (Now, that has other problems for a game with PCs who need to survive...)


----------



## Kannik (Dec 20, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The inherent problem here though is that "immersiveness" and "hit points" only go together as a learned skill.




I concur with this -- familiarity facilitates immersion.  Once a system becomes learned, the other aspects we want out of it (story, fun, excitement) can come to the fore.  A dancer learning some new moves will be slow, awkward, halting;  once they know the moves they can flow, express themselves, and create art... and even improvise into new areas because they can use the dance (system) eloquently.  

Another analogy for new game systems can be found for many people when our/their favourite software upgrades, and suddenly things are a bit different.  There can be cursing, acrimony, slowness, re-learning, trying to force fit what we know into the new 'paradigm', and then, magically, over time, the ease and speed returns and perhaps surpasses the original now that the new software and its features have been learned, integrated and exploited.

And I need to spread XP around some more.   

As for the article itself I was a bit surprised to hear Monte say that the roots of the game lie in simulationism, given the following quote from the 1e PHB:



> It is important to keep in mind that, after all is said and done, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game. Because it is a game, certain things which seem "unrealistic" or simply unnecessary are integral to the system. ... Everything in the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS system has purpose; most of what is found herein is essential to the campaign, and those sections which are not — such as sub-classes of characters, psionics, and similar material — are clearly labeled as optional for inclusion.




Not that I mind his phrase 'nod to realism', and even 'nod to fake realism' (ie, some of the arbitrary weapon damages), it's probably a good way to hold it in the mind as the game is designed...

Must run, hopefully this doesn't seem too fragmentary of a thought...

peace,

Kannik


----------



## Mallus (Dec 20, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> If I had to pick another example, it would be this thought: "I've used my standard and my move.  Is there a productive way to use a minor action?"  It's a highly tactical thought based on how the action economy works, but it's anti-immersive because the player is thinking about the rules mechanic instead of the in-game fiction.



This is also true under the action economies of 3e/Pathfinder. I think you have to go back to the long, abstract rounds found in 1e/2e before you return to actions being declared in natural language which doesn't chafe against the mechanical framework.

Also, in 3e/Pathfinder, you need to be some kind of crazy specialist to do something _while_ moving.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 20, 2011)

If familiarity enables immersion, then so does intuitive mechanics.

If I'm using an iPhone or iPad, it's easy to pick up that sliding open 2 fingers is to zoom in. Very little learning needs to happen. That finger action isn't purely simulationist of anything (it's probably a vague abstraction of a lens opening?) but it's a very transparent and immersive-enabling interface.

While rpg mechanics aren't directly comparable to smartphone interfaces, I think some learned mechanics are more immersive-enabling than other learned mechanics. I can intuitively record that x hp have been deducted from the character sheet while almost effortlessly imagining a corresponding loss of something to the character in the fiction. Whereas other learned mechanics, like bloodied and action economy tactics, are not a transparent interface for me to the fiction. Is that my failure to learn and internalize the mechanic, or does it have at least something to do with the opaqueness of the mechanic?

For me, a simple fun immersive 5E needs to be an Apple product*, and Monte the new Steve Jobs.

* Although I still prefer PCs but that's for entirely different reasons


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 20, 2011)

Tymophil said:


> Once again, I am not impressed by Monte Cook's column. As someone else said, he seemed to have missed years of game development thinking.



Years of game development thinking! Oh, wow!

Let's not pretend that game development is science, alright? 

If you are a quantum physicist and you miss years of quantum physics research, you might lack some FACTS that your fellow scientists have access to. 

How does this transfer to the realm of gaming development where almost everything is based on matters of preference? Or did the 4th Edition reveal some FACTS about roleplaying that were hitherto unknown to man?


----------



## Kraydak (Dec 20, 2011)

The biggest "realism" issues for me tend to come in large scale issues.  I want NPCs (and also PCs, but that is less important) to act sanely.  I want the game-world-as-is to be plausible based on the mechanics-that-are.

For examples, prior to 3e, NPCs behaved illogically with respect to magic items (no trade in magic items existed), and the game-world-as-was (magic items everywhere) was inconsistent with the mechanics-that-were (magic item creation difficult to impossible).  This is a place where "it's magic" doesn't fix anything, because you want humanish characters to be, well, humanish, and the game world to be internally consistent.

I don't have problems with high level fighter bodies having more hp/volume or hp/weight than stone, and them able to casually walk away from huge falls.  Enh.  They are beyond normal human limits, so it is ok with me if they are actually, physically, tougher than stone (and this fits better with rules than a "luck" or "skill" argument).  But, dammit, I want that human merchant to be, somewhat, interested in turning a profit.  Or if not, there to be a convincing explanation of why not.  I want the +1 weapons that are pouring out of my character's ears to have a plausible origin story.  I don't care, pretty much at all, what that story is.  Please don't tell me.  But I care that it is there.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 20, 2011)

Tymophil said:


> But, there is one thing that _D&D 4th Edition_ failed to do : translate its mechanisms into concepts that are clear for the players, and the game masters. For someone used to D&D, fourth edition doesn't make not much sense at first. Those hit points don't represent what they used to, this funny push effect, those strange healings by using combat powers... It's all weird.
> 
> But weird doesn't mean that that it cannot make sense in a "realistc" way. It is all a question of defining the effect in a believable way.




What you're struggling to put your thumb on here is that 4E features dissociated mechanics to a degree previously unprecedented in D&D. While such mechanics can often be explained _post hoc_, this process of explanation is distinctly different from that found in roleplaying game mechanics.

This is the central problem I see with Cook's essays. He's artificially conflating two radically different concerns:

(1) The balancing act between the accuracy of a simulation and the ease of using that simulation. (In general, the more accurate you make a simulation the more difficult and complex it becomes to use. So there's a trade-off. Like most trade-offs, there'll be a sweet spot. And that sweet spot will vary from one player to the next.)

(2) The distinction between associated and dissociated mechanics.

To be fair, this is a confusion often found among fans, too. But a lot of the dissatisfaction with 4E comes from #2. And if you try to solve that problem by tweaking #1, you _won't_ solve it.

To make matters even more complicated, you can probably also toss the sense of "lost utility" from guidelines which were removed entirely from 4E. AD&D and D&D3 reached their state of complexity not because people just randomly added crap to them. That extra stuff was mostly added because somebody, at some point, needed that information. This, of course, also needs to be balanced against the emergent complexity of the ruleset. And there's no easy answer for that, either.

But it, too, isn't a problem you'll solve by just tweaking #1.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

Mallus said:


> This is also true under the action economies of 3e/Pathfinder. I think you have to go back to the long, abstract rounds found in 1e/2e before you return to actions being declared in natural language which doesn't chafe against the mechanical framework.




That's true. It is also true that one's approach to the action economy is going to determine how immersive it may be (or at least the iimits of that immersion). At our table, it would *never* occur to a player to try to squeeze something out of a move, much less a minor. The standard is all that matters to them, unless they want to do something else in the fiction. In which case, they say what they want to do. If that uses moves and/or minors, great. If not, they still want to do that. (Part of this is because we aren't playing the tactical game to the max. If you play any roleplaying like a tactical skirmish game, your play will edge towards a tactical skirmish boardgame. If you don't, it won't.)

Not infrequently, the less mechanic savvy players at our table are surprised to find that their stated actions only take moves and/or minors, and they still have a standard left. When this happens, they will often react with an at will attack. "Oh, I did all that and still get to smack someone? Longsword to the gut for this nearby orc, then."

That said, it is certainly true that compartmentalizing actions this way is going to encourage some people to think about the mechanics instead of the related fiction. (Yet another reason that I like my "dual action" proposal to an earlier Legends and Lore. It doesn't have this issue.) OTOH, this is back to a preference on pizza toppings issue. To wit, compartmentalizing hit locations: some find D&D style hit points preferable to immersion because it is so easy to handle, while others prefer something like the Runequest hit locations diagram, because you don't need to go through mental gyrations to visualize what "called shot to the face" means. It is going to depend heavily on whether being able to "waste him in the knee with my crossbow" is high on your list.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> For new players (IME), the biggest thought-demanding mechanical decision is choosing your attack with an AEDU character.  Their internal motivation is to attack a guy, but they have to step out of the game, look at their sheet/cards and pick the specific attack they want to make.  Even with more experienced players, their decision is based more on the out-of-game list of powers (with the consideration of whether they want to blow a daily/AP) than it is on the in-game situation.



I don't find this very different, in the way it plays, from a D&D magic-user deciding what spell to cast, or a spell user in a power point based game deciding what spell to use.

In the fiction, the PC is wondering what manoeuvre to peform, or (in the case of daily/AP) whether to risk an extra burst of effort.



KidSnide said:


> I think of this issue as one of immersiveness -- not in Monte's slightly strange use of the term, but in the sense of asking how much of the player's time is spent thinking about what is happening inside the fiction as opposed to thinking about the rules mechanics.  The more the players have to step "outside the game", either to justify the mechanics or simply to select their next action, the less the players are thinking about the fiction itself.



I don't find hit points immersive at all. What is happening to my PC when s/he takes 4 hp damage from a dagger, or a magic missile?



LurkAway said:


> I can intuitively record that x hp have been deducted from the character sheet while almost effortlessly imagining a corresponding loss of something to the character in the fiction.



Loss of what? Blood? Flesh? Mojo?

There was a whole RPG industry (from the late 70s to mid 80s) based on the fact that a large number of RPGers found hit points incompatible with immersion and verisimilitude. (I was one such.)



KidSnide said:


> hit points and the d20 vs. DC system can sometimes produce results that are sufficiently counter-intuitive that they pull players outside the system (e.g. massive falling damage).
> 
> But these rules have the considerable merit of being very simple.



Runequest's d100, roll under is simpler than the d20 system. It's basic combat mechanics are a bit more complex.

Rolemaster's combat mechanics are pretty complex, but in my experience are also pretty immersive - because no one has to step out of the fiction and think about things from a meta-level in order to know what is going on. You just roll the dice.



Ahnehnois said:


> The example I was thinking of is the tracking of health and injury. Almost anything designed to create a "more realistic" description of the topic than hit points involves making the game much more detailed and complex, which explains why D&D is still stuck on a videogame health bar.



If you go to Classic Traveller or Basic Roleplaying - where the health pool is based on the PC's physical stat(s) - you straight away increase verisimilitude without increasing complexity.

Jorune (I think - it's been a while) also had a simple health level system which increases verisimilitude without increasing complexity.



Dausuul said:


> Classic hit points are ludicrously unrealistic, but in the heat of play you can easily overlook that fact, as the DM narrates grisly wounds and splattering gore.



Many aspects of 4e - hit point depletion, healing, forced movement, etc - can be handled the same way. These are all examples of what I mentioned upthread, namely, rules that distribute the authority to say what is happening in the fiction, plus an implicit constraint that those descriptions of the gameworld must abide by genre/verisimilitude constraints.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I don't know what sort of effective circulation the Legends and Lore articles have on the WotC site, but I believe they are targeted at a much broader audience than EnWorld or any of the dank corners of the internet in which more in depth debates on game design occur. As such, I think a back to basics approach, looking at all sorts of fundamental elements of the game in general terms, is a fine approach.



I've got nothing against back-to-basics. But Monte's column doesn't get back to the basics. It seems to assume a whole lot of non-basic stuff.



Mark CMG said:


> Monte works as part of the team developing 5E and I am sure his topics are run by the group working on that project along with the nomenclature they are using to get the general idea across.  As said up thread by LurkAway, most of us understand what he means when he uses the word "realism"





LurkAway said:


> I think we all know what Monte is trying to get at it
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think this article is measuring the *desire* to achieve "realism", not measuring "realism" itself.



I _don't_ know what Monte's trying to get at. I can guess - purist-for-system simulationist priorities in rule design - but I'm not sure. This is because he doesn't distinguish between different ways a ruleset can secure realism - such as a rule stating limits on the way any participant can characterise any outcome of the action resolution mechanics.



Umbran said:


> folks on EN World have had discussions on the minutiae of definitions in there.  But while we are within his target audience, we are probably not the majority of his audience
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Keeping the likely purpose of his piece, and the full audience, in mind, and that word use makes some sense to me.



I don't care what word he uses. But if he is going to assume that the only way to ensure "realism" is to have simulationinst mechanics, than he's already suggesting that he doesn't understand important elements of 4e's design. Or is rejecting them without explanation.

But maybe WotC doesn't care to retain the custom of those who like 4e for the ways it differs from classic D&D.


----------



## Lum The Mad (Dec 20, 2011)

For me even the crunchiest crunch needs realism. 

Let's make a ridiculous example. Let's say we design a new rule for grapple.
And we come up with the following:
_To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. Starting a grapple requires a successful Charisma Check. If you have Item Creation feats you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times_ (depending on the number of Item Creation feats you have).

What is wrong with this rule? You could play D&D 3rd Edition with this rule with no problems at all. Yet nobody will use it. Why is that? Because everytime grapple would come up, every fiber of your being would screem 'WTF is this? Charisma has nothing to do with Grapple! And Item Creation feats don't either!'

Admittedly no real rule is that ridiculous. But some people seem to have a higher threshold of what they can tolerate while other people have a lower threshold. 

I am one with a lower threshold.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> If familiarity enables immersion, then so does intuitive mechanics.
> 
> If I'm using an iPhone or iPad, it's easy to pick up that sliding open 2 fingers is to zoom in. Very little learning needs to happen. That finger action isn't purely simulationist of anything (it's probably a vague abstraction of a lens opening?) but it's a very transparent and immersive-enabling interface.
> 
> While rpg mechanics aren't directly comparable to smartphone interfaces, I think some learned mechanics are more immersive-enabling than other learned mechanics. I can intuitively record that x hp have been deducted from the character sheet while almost effortlessly imagining a corresponding loss of something to the character in the fiction. Whereas other learned mechanics, like bloodied and action economy tactics, are not a transparent interface for me to the fiction. Is that my failure to learn and internalize the mechanic, or does it have at least something to do with the opaqueness of the mechanic?




The real answer here is that we don't know. And until someone does a controlled study on it, we still won't know.

Since I remember learning all those mechanics fresh (even if divided by many years), I can say that for me it was all about internalizing the mechanic. I find them about equally easy to visualize. But then, maybe those all happen to be things that hit me well. And you can't entirely discount outside experience, either. RPG fighting mechanics I find easy to internalize, post fencing experience, is a somewhat different list than what I found equally easy, prior. I believe a similar distinction has been raised among gamers who have a heavy dose of certain disciplines represented in the players (e.g. physics majors getting frustated with the internal logic of fireball spells, et. al.)

And that doesn't even get into simple operations that one would expect to be about equally easy--and so easy in any case that you would expect any distinctions to be trivial. Yet I believe there has been research to show that some people are more distracted by comparing two small numbers and picking the higher one, while others are more distracted by adding two numbers and comparing to a target number. Distraction leads to some decrease in immersion (however difficult to measure in practice).


----------



## aurance (Dec 20, 2011)

You know, the main thing that bothers me about these posts - his ambiguously self-affirming poll questions.

Let me explain it by a metaphor. They're phrased much like this:

"We should help the starving." Rate 1 to 5.

Most people would answer "5," and I'm concerned that when they do, he would take that they agree with _his_ interpretation of "5", when in fact there's probably more variability in that "5" than answering "1".


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 20, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> Admittedly no real rule is that ridiculous. But some people seem to have a higher threshold of what they can tolerate while other people have a lower threshold.
> 
> I am one with a lower threshold.




Yes.  And most people seem to have varying thresholds depending upon a given aspect of the game, sometimes widely so.  If you had that rule, there would eventually be someone that came to terms with the Charisma check, but the Item Creation feats part was simply a bridge too far.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> That is a good point.  Unfamiliar mechanics are always going to bother experienced gamers more than than equally problematic mechanics that they have gotten used to.




While this is true, I should point out that people unfamiliar with the hit point mechanic are few and far between nowadays, even people who've never so much as laid eyes on a die with more than six sides. It's the default approach for the vast majority of computer and console games.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Yes.  And most people seem to have varying thresholds depending upon a given aspect of the game, sometimes widely so.  If you had that rule, there would eventually be someone that came to terms with the Charisma check, but the Item Creation feats part was simply a bridge too far.



I think this is a biggie for a lot of people, and here's how I see it as a problem.

I have no issue with the 4e paradigm where some classes can use nonphysical stats to make melee attacks. In the context of a specific case - a class going for a particular concept - it's fine. If it were a general rule, like the example above, I would find it harder to swallow.

The problem though, is that some folks can't handle that level of abstraction or dissociation in their game _at all_. Designing around that fact though, makes people like me (i.e. those who at times find it _actively desirable_) unhappy. A game devoid of those constructs is essentially telling us, "no, you can't do that - it's badwrongfun." Especially since that particular can of worms has already been opened.

It's like the abstract version of what someone said upthread about the pro-simulationists getting used to clunky rules, then finding it jarring when those rules get removed for ease-of-play concerns.

And like another poster has already pointed out, no 5e will truly succeed unless both camps can somehow be satisfied. For what its worth, I think 2e handled that pretty well by making all the clunky wargame sim type stuff pretty much optional, and being pretty clear in sidebars about why.

As another, more recent example of how I believe both sides can be satisified: I think the Skald from 4e's Heroes of the Feywild does a pretty reasonable job of this - you can make your Skald as a pure Charisma class, for weapon attacks and all. At the same time, nothing prevents you from making the same character to swing an axe using Strength, and still benefit from all your powers. That way, for those who find it jarring, they can avoid it, but the rules are also there for those who want them and/or don't care about pure sim.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> As an example, I think the Skald from 4e's Heroes of the Feywild does a pretty reasonable job of this - you can make your Skald as a pure Charisma class, for weapon attacks and all. At the same time, nothing prevents you from making the same character to swing an axe using Strength, and still benefit from all your powers. That way, for those who find it jarring, they can avoid it, but the rules are also there for those who want them and/or don't care about pure sim.




Are you playing your RPGs solo or something?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Are you playing your RPGs solo or something?



No. Who says you have to describe your stats when you tell your fellow gamers what actions your character is doing? Why should they even know your stats unless you want to tell them?

EDIT: I should point out that I do game with several others who actively take issue with what I described, but have no problem gaming alongside my characters (or others built along a similar vein). I know it's only one gamer's anecdotal experience, but it is what it is.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 21, 2011)

It's not and never was about "realism", to me. It's about immersion, i.e. about experiencing the game world from my character's perspective, as being that character (or, as a DM, experiencing the environment through its many moving parts, environments, monsters, maps, NPCs etc. it's fundamentally the same thing). 

Some rules make this process easier on me than others, and there are different ways for the rules to manage that sine qua non condition for me to experience what I think of as "role playing". Some ways are rules heavy, and some are not. Some pay attention to details within details through the rules, and some paint the experience with a wider brush of abstract concepts that can be declined in play in many different ways.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 21, 2011)

Instead of realism, why don't we try coherency? Magical realism is commonly quite coherent even if we believe half of it is fairy tale and the other more likely. Coherency I take as attempting to express one's self in the game in order to be comprehended by others. Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness) is basically that for game worlds. Here are the article's questions with this one change:



> 1. I need to feel that the situations created in the game are *coherent*.
> 2. I need to be able to at least justify the rules in the game as being *coherent*.
> 3.
> 4. I ignore or change rules that don't feel *coherent*.
> 5. Too much time spent making everything seem *coherent *wastes game time.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> No. Who says you have to describe your stats when you tell your fellow gamers what actions your character is doing? Why should they even know your stats unless you want to tell them?




Maybe it's just that I'm primarily a GM, but this kind of mechanics-only focus is part of the problem. I'd find it disruptive no matter where it's coming from at the table.

"I use Rainbow Blades."
"Okay, but what are you actually doing?"
"Using Rainbow Blades."
"But what are you actually doing?"
"Somehow using my Charisma to swing my sword better."

I suppose it makes sense if you're entirely focused on playing the mechanics-as-mechanics or improvising-in-the-vague-vicinity-of-the-mechanics instead of playing a roleplaying game. Of course, that's the heart of the problem in a nutshell.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Maybe it's just that I'm primarily a GM, but this kind of mechanics-only focus is part of the problem. I'd find it disruptive no matter where it's coming from at the table.
> 
> "I use Rainbow Blades."
> "Okay, but what are you actually doing?"
> ...



I am also primarily a GM, and I have zero problem with it, and I don't think of it as mechanics-as-mechanics. I have read, and used all kinds of justification for using non-physical stats to attack, and to me they make sense.

I've also acknowledged that to others those definitions _don't_ make sense, and I'm okay with that too. I take exception when it gets chalked up to purely gamist reasons though, or with those who try to paint anyone in my boat with that overly broad brush. It'd be great if we could all just agree to let others play in the style they prefer without telling them that they're _wrong_ for doing so, or not even playing a roleplaying game.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Maybe it's just that I'm primarily a GM, but this kind of mechanics-only focus is part of the problem. I'd find it disruptive no matter where it's coming from at the table.
> 
> "I use Rainbow Blades."
> "Okay, but what are you actually doing?"
> ...




Or when my wife's psion used _Mind Thrust_ on a skeleton and *bloodied* it.  That completely ruined her immersion in the game thereafter.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> It'd be great if we could all just agree to let others play in the style they prefer without telling them that they're _wrong_ for doing so, or not even playing a roleplaying game.




You're free to play however you like at your own table. But you made an assertion about what other people do and don't find disruptive at their tables which was false. And you got called on it. Sorry if that upsets you.



Stormonu said:


> Or when my wife's psion used _Mind Thrust_ on a skeleton and *bloodied* it.  That completely ruined her immersion in the game thereafter.




Good example. That's the kind of thing that even improvising-in-the-vague-vicinity-of-the-mechanics will struggle with (assuming they don't just ignore the power they're using entirely, of course).


----------



## Pour (Dec 21, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Or when my wife's psion used _Mind Thrust_ on a skeleton and *bloodied* it.  That completely ruined her immersion in the game thereafter.




I'm not presuming to tell your wife how to have fun, but just because of specific terminology like bloodied the immersion was ruined for her? 

My groups and I never considered bloodied literal, rather the skeleton lost an arm and all of its ribs, gained a huge fracture across its jaw, and now hobbled instead of scrambled toward the wizard (where upon I'd then notify the party the skeleton was bloodied, or at half hp). 

Rainbow Blades can be performed in so many different ways, maybe as an upward thrust across an orc's chest, or a quick swipe to cut a chandelier cord, or a dazzling arc to momentarily distract the swooping peryton. In my interpretation of 4e, nothing is entirely literal. It's what you make of it. Healing surges, encounter and daily powers, warlord healing are all the mechanics to represent in-game occurrences. The mechanics are not always happening in-character, what they represent is happening, largely flavored and filtered through the players and DM.

I suppose I can see a division between the idea of in-game and the out of game that uses rules terminology, but I've always played D&D like that, ever since I was a cleric using up my turn healing hp and whenever the party discussed tactics, or even when one of us made a joke or asked about a check or ruling. The divorce between in game and out doesn't jar me, nor restrict me, I guess is all.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 21, 2011)

I think more of a nod toward realism would help D&D.  Obviously I am speaking from personal preference.  I am aware 'realism' is not a concern for many groups.

However; while I understand and am capable of enjoying games which do not aim to be simulations of realism, I do prefer at least a nod.  There have been a lot of times during my experience with 4E in which I felt as though D&D was not giving any nod toward realism, and was instead flipping realism the bird as D&D drove by.  It was jarring enough for me when I was new to 4E that I sought out (for the first time) a non-D&D gaming experience.  I've gotten to a point where I can now enjoy 4E, but it requires me to turn certain parts of my brain off and/or view my character as a game piece first and a rpg character second - which I am capable of doing, but that's not my preferred style of play.

I am completely aware that magic, orcs, and dragons are not real.  Though -generally speaking- I do not believe being fictional means something should be free to just fly in the face of expectation.  I expect a magic fireball to catch things on fire.  I expect D&D orcs -who are described as being very very similar to humans- to be similar to humans on the inside if I cut one open.  Dragons (and wyverns, griffons, and etc) generally are described as using wings to fly.

While not completely outside the realm of possibility, I generally do not expect a character to fall several hundred feet and walk away unharmed... or at the very least I generally do not expect that to be so common that it is normal in a world.  I expect grappling to be more effective than to simply apply the immobilized condition.  To some extent, I  expect Pelor to be annoyed when my paladin multiclasses into warlock and sells his soul to Vecna.  (Yes, there may be good storyline reasons for how that works, but... as a general rule.)

I do temper my expectations.  I openly admit that I enjoy far more than a simple passing nod to realism, but I do have a tolerance for unrealistic stuff, and I fully understand choosing playability over realism.  Still, even with me tempering my expectations and being tolerant of unrealistic elements, there are still times when 4E steps beyond the ballpark I want my rpg experience to exist in.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Dec 21, 2011)

If being realistic was really that important to you, you all would be playing GURPS instead of D&D!  At the very least, I assume everyone who wanted more realism has both the Codex Maretialis and A Magical Medieval Society?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 21, 2011)

Another understanding of why realism is important for not only some players, but all players can be learned through words. Here you are reading "realistic" words you've probably seen before. But if I start going fantastical like "momberbastic" "Temhelaterpamd" or even "(sd3Ed(#9e,|d~" well. then you might start wondering "what the heck is he referring too?"

It's not that those terms cannot be given meanings or that I don't necessarily have some for them, but rather that I created these pretty much divorced from anyone else's understanding. I'd need to further define them using words you and I have a greater degree of common ground for and shared understanding of, if we are to use them together.

I think realism is an attempt to allow enough common connections with other players in the game so we can all be sharing in it together more than apart. Part of this "commune"-ication is with language, but shared understandings of non-verbal expressions matter too. Designers of game rules can deliberately attempt to more or less mimic these referents and expressions from the game pieces or seek to separate them. In a game where the pieces are held to be in one and another's imagination, it gets even more tricky.

Some games treat rules exclusively as referents to the players, some more simulation games design rules use them as referents to the characters as well as the game world and everything else in it. Those who want immersion typically go the second route. Those who prefer using them to contract with other players usually go the first. Is one design or the other the right way or best way to create games? Well, I think it's personal preference, but I'd hate to see either completely written off (so to speak).

There are also players who prefer the rules be the game in abstract form and treat both rule and referent as the same without dividing the two. For example, chess pieces and their names and how they are to be moved during play. The difference here is the rules don't need to refer to anything known to the players before playing the game. Knights aren't plate-armored lance carriers on horseback, but what the rules tell the players a "Chess Knight" is prior to play.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> You're free to play however you like at your own table. But you made an assertion about what other people do and don't find disruptive at their tables which was false. And you got called on it. Sorry if that upsets you.



I made an assertion about what I and the people I game with find disruptive. If you have a bone to pick I suggest you take it elsewhere.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 21, 2011)

Pour said:


> I'm not presuming to tell your wife how to have fun, but just because of specific terminology like bloodied the immersion was ruined for her?




I had a player quit 3E because a foe using a polearm was able to do an Opportunity Attack against him, even though he was behind the foe.

It bothered his sense of immersion that someone who was attacking in front of himself could suddenly swing around, not hit anyone next to him, but get a free attack against the guy sneaking up behind him. And the enemy in front of that foe does not get an Opportunity Attack for him dropping his guard by spinning around and attacking someone behind him. 3E dropping the facing rules ruined immersion for this player.


Immersion is individual.


I too dislike the word "realism". I like the word plausible. Does the rules make sense to the players if they were in the game world as PCs?


I find many of the 4E rules do not make sense from a plausibility POV.

Hot fire in a square does not melt ice in that square.

Conjurations can fly because they are not affected by the environment, including gravity, not because it necessarily makes sense for them to fly.

Diagonal movement is just as short as non-diagonal movement, and bursts/blasts are big cubes.

The original Come and Get It could move almost any creature (unless it had a special power to negate some forced movement) as a Martial non-magical power.

Martial powers allow those characters to do magical things.

Warlords can shout and an unconscious ally is suddenly conscious and healed.

A prone conscious guy can drop his guard and provoke an Opportunity Attack, but an unconscious guy cannot drop his guard and provoke an Opportunity Attack.

Hit points are not considered actual damage (by the rationalizers) until the PC dies.


To me, there will always be lines drawn in the sand. I don't like where WotC drew many of the lines because the 4E game became cartoonish in many ways. I prefer a more mature logical consistent plausible game and not one where I have to pull some stupid rationale out of my butt, just to explain away the stupidity (e.g. Daily powers). In fact, I find it vastly amusing how so many people here on these boards will take the most nonsensical illogical rationale, and explain it as if it makes all of the sense in the world, and it isn't just a cumbersome rationale to explain away a non-plausible rule that exists in the game system, merely because the rule is simpler than any plausible rule that the designers could think of to take its place.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> "I use Rainbow Blades."
> "Okay, but what are you actually doing?"
> "Using Rainbow Blades."
> "But what are you actually doing?"
> "Somehow using my Charisma to swing my sword better."



The only time that the conversation would go like that, though, is if there was some deeper incomatibility between players' preferred styles and the players didn't care about this. If the first speaker actually cares about the fiction - whether for their own sake, or because they know the second speaker cares - then they can reply "I'm cutting the Orc with my sword".

And if the second speaker then asks, "OK, but how does you CHA factor into that" that's the second speaker's problem. _They've_ decided to shift the focus of discussion from the fiction, to the mechanics whereby the content of the fiction is settled.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't find hit points immersive at all. What is happening to my PC when s/he takes 4 hp damage from a dagger, or a magic missile?



As far as I understand from previous threads, we're very different in the sense that you find immersion in games like Rolemaster and very little or zero immersion in gonzo heroic systems like D&D. OTOH, I understand that you're not actively seeking "realism" in D&D anyway. So that's OK if you don't accept that anything "realistic" is happening when your PC takes 4 hp of damage, right?



> Loss of what? Blood? Flesh? Mojo?



According to the description of hit points in the 4E PHB, any of the above, as narrated by the group based on fictional positioning.

For me, in 3E, I could mentally split hit points into 2 pools or layers. One layer is morale, stamina, luck, karma, armor integrity, superficial  wounds. A 2nd layer is serious physical wounds. So if my PC takes 4 hp, maybe it's 4 hp deducted from the serious wounds hit points, but most likely it's a kind of damage reduction absorbed by loss of the other pool of hit points.

Do I idealize a separate wounds/vitality track for more "realism"? Sure, but I have yet to see that officially in the game (and I don't know how if it would be fun and compelling). Until then, I've made do with hit points as is.



> There was a whole RPG industry (from the late 70s to mid 80s) based on the fact that a large number of RPGers found hit points incompatible with immersion and verisimilitude. (I was one such.)



A few people have suggested that familiar mechanics, after being learned and internalized, may better enable for immersion. Although 20-30 yrs later, you still didn't "learn" (I use quotation marks because I don't mean that pejoratively) to find the hit point mechanic immersive. But that's totally OK. The question is whether hit points as an abstraction allows a significant number of other people to have a minimum amount of immersion. I think yes. Because hit points aren't realistic, but they are a "nod" to realism, and that opens at least a small door (clearly not for everyone, but for enough people it seems) to immersion.

How about some younger 4E mechanics -- well, this is something that I'm (and clearly other people) are still struggling with very much, and I suspect it will never work out for me.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> That's the kind of thing that even improvising-in-the-vague-vicinity-of-the-mechanics will struggle with (assuming they don't just ignore the power they're using entirely, of course).



In addition to the reply upthread about "bloodied" being a term of art for half-hp, rather than literal, I'll suggest a further possibility - one of the skeleton's bones has been cracked, and the necrotic marrow is now leaking out.



Johnny3D3D said:


> I  expect Pelor to be annoyed when my paladin multiclasses into warlock and sells his soul to Vecna.  (Yes, there may be good storyline reasons for how that works, but... as a general rule.)



But why, then, would you take the Warlock multi-class feat. Or, if you did (because you wanted to play out your paladin's fall from Pelor's grace) wouldn't you expect your GM to set up situations which reflect Pelor's annoyance (eg your rations rot away, it is always cloudy and raining wherever you go, good folk shun you and won't offer you food or shelter, etc). Nothing in 4e that I'm familiar with gets in the way here.



KarinsDad said:


> The original Come and Get It could move almost any creature (unless it had a special power to negate some forced movement) as a Martial non-magical power.



I know this has been discussed to death in the past, but clearly - in at least some cases - a player's use of Come and Get It does not correspond to (or correspond only to) things that his/her PC is doing in the fiction.

Sometimes, at least, the forced movement reflects something else going on in the fiction (eg the villain zigged when it should have zagged).

Similarly, some forced movement - like the *fear* effects of the Enigma of Vecna and the Deathlock Wight - don't correspond to any pushing done by the monster, but rather to the victim fleeing in fright.



KarinsDad said:


> Hit points are not considered actual damage (by the rationalizers) until the PC dies.



When you say "are not", I think you mean "may not". There's a significant difference there, which is important to the way these sorts of mechanics work.



KarinsDad said:


> Warlords can shout and an unconscious ally is suddenly conscious and healed.



My favourite version of this treats the Inspiring Word, on such occasions, as a metagame power. It is analogous to Aragorn's dream sequence in the Two Towers movie, in which (to put it in RPG terms) the player of Arwen uses one of Arwen's powers to heal Aragorn, even though the two are not in the same country. The ally regains consciousness because memory's of the warlord's inspiring presence, or previous urgings to victory, etc, revive him/her.

Another version, equally tenable, is this: the PC is unconcious, but as her eyes flicker open she sees the warlord gazing intently at her. His lips are moving, but at first she can't make out what he's saying. Then gradually (as it seems to her - because time has slowed down for her, although in reality this is all happening in mere moments) it dawns on her that she has been wounded, but he is urging her to get to her feet - the battle isn't over, and her friends need her.

Not only is this second version tenable - I'm pretty sure that I've seen that scene more than once in war/action films, and I think 4e is the only version of D&D capable of reproducing it.

Anyway, there is nothing about any version of Inspring Word on an unconscious PC that is an obstacle to a verisimilitudinous fiction.

More generally, there are things to be said for and against these sorts of mechanic, but they don't give rise to verisimilitude issues. The verisimilitude issues arise only if the mechanics areapplied as if they were simulationist ones, even though they manifestly are not. It's like playing The Riddle of Steel and complaining "Why do I hit harder when my destiny is at stake?", or playing HeroQuest revised and complaining "Why do tasks get more difficult for someone who's had a string of successes?" What unreaslistic games these must be! - but only if played under an assumption of simulationism.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 21, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> If being realistic was really that important to you, you all would be playing GURPS instead of D&D!  At the very least, I assume everyone who wanted more realism has both the Codex Maretialis and A Magical Medieval Society?





Honestly, (for the past few years) I often do play GURPS instead of D&D if given the choice.  In my previous post, when I mentioned I had sought out a non-D&D experience after my initial experience with D&D 4E was somewhat jarring, GURPS is the game I ended up learning (and now very highly enjoy.)

Aside from that, one of the other reasons I decided to quote you is because the GURPS comment is something which strikes me as being somewhat accurate.  There have been a lot of times during L&L articles lately in which I've felt as though Monte Cook had good ideas; however, those ideas are already being used by the folks over at SJG.  Then I see comments from readers along the lines of "yeah, cool, modular D&D" and "woo, more realism."  I think a similar to thing which you just commented; if I want a modular game which provides a variable amount of complexity and allows for different styles while striving to give more of a nod toward realism, why not play GURPS?

Strangely, one of the reasons I had such an easy time learning GURPS is because a lot of the rules looked passingly familiar to D&D 3rd Edition.  3rd's grappling, splash rules for thrown weapons, and a few other things seem to have been inspired by GURPS.  When I played 3rd, I thought some of those rules were good; when I more fully understood GURPS, I got the impression that perhaps 3rd was trying to mimic GURPS in some areas, but fell a little short.  I say fell short only because there were times in which I felt that D&D 3rd Edition's problem was trying to be two (very) different games at the same time; serving two masters: realism/simulation & the more typical D&D style and tropes.  

Monte Cook was involved with 3rd Edition; now that he's involved again with D&D, some of the conversations about the game rules once again remind me of what the folks over at Steve Jackson Games are already doing.  Coincidence?  I think it's a good thing for a R&D department to seek out ideas wherever they may be; think outside of the Red Box.  I simply find myself curious about how familiar MC is with the work of Steve Jackson and whether or not he's a fan.

Here's a link to GURPS Lite for GURPS 4th Edition.  e23: GURPS Lite (Fourth Edition)
  It's a free 'Lite' version of the rules.  I provided the link for the benefit of anyone who may be curious to skim the rules themselves and decide if my perception of similarities between them and current L&L articles as well as the old 3rd Edition rules is has some merit or not.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> As far as I understand from previous threads, we're very different in the sense that you find immersion in games like Rolemaster and very little or zero immersion in gonzo heroic systems like D&D.



The most immersive system I've played is Call of Cthulhu. Rolemaster and Runequest are a bit clunkier in some parts of their mechanics, and Rolemaster also requires players to make choices that are capable of being metagamed, and hence are vulnerable to non-immersive wedging.

I tend not to find AD&D immersive whenever its action resolution mechanics (mostly combat) come into play, because I'm often not very sure what's going on in the fiction.



LurkAway said:


> OTOH, I understand that you're not actively seeking "realism" in D&D anyway. So that's OK if you don't accept that anything "realistic" is happening when your PC takes 4 hp of damage, right?



I'm a big fan of realism (or, at least, verisimilitude and genre consistency). I like to know what's happening when my PC takes damage. My experience with playing classic D&D is that I generally didn't know until my PC got dropped. That's probably correctable with better GM narration. In 4e, if it's not obvious what a given bit of damage indicates (sometimes it is - for example, if a giant hits a PC and pushes him a few square, everyone can envisage the fist or club connecting and the PC going flying, action movie style) then I will narrate it as GM.



LurkAway said:


> According to the description of hit points in the 4E PHB, any of the above, as narrated by the group based on fictional positioning.



Agreed, but this is the sort of narration that it is being suggested in this thread (if I'm reading right) is at odds with immersion.

I personally don't see the contrast here between 4e and classic D&D.

As long as the GM does the narration, I also don't see (from the players' point of view) any obstacle to immersion (other, perhaps, than having to write down a change of status).

The reason that I think hit points are at odds with immersion isn't because of how they are tracked in combat. It's because of the effect they have on player decision making. Players make decisions about what sorts of risk to take with their PCs, for example, based on the current distribution of hit points (and, in 4e, surges) in the party. This is a constant feature of D&D play, at least in my experience. But what does it correspond to in the fiction? What are the _PCs_ talking about when the players are saying "I'm nearly at full, but the thief is pretty low, and the wizard will pop if s/he gets hit one more time?" This, for me, is the immersion-breaker. It doesn't come up in RQ or RM, because talking about injuries in mechanical terms is just like talking about them in fictional terms (eg "I've got a -30 penalty to my right arm, so I don't want to do another fight" is, in fictional terms "My sword arm is badly hurt - cut and bruised - and I don't think I can fight very well like this").



LurkAway said:


> Although 20-30 yrs later, you still didn't "learn" (I use quotation marks because I don't mean that pejoratively) to find the hit point mechanic immersive.



I challenge _anyone_ to tell me how the conversation about hit point levels in making party decisions in D&D play is consistent with immersion. What can it possibly mean, in the context of the fiction? And if - as I believe - it's purely metagame, then immersion is per se ruled out, at least during that portion of play.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But why, then, would you take the Warlock multi-class feat. Or, if you did (because you wanted to play out your paladin's fall from Pelor's grace) wouldn't you expect your GM to set up situations which reflect Pelor's annoyance (eg your rations rot away, it is always cloudy and raining wherever you go, good folk shun you and won't offer you food or shelter, etc). Nothing in 4e that I'm familiar with gets in the way here.
> .





I'm not saying anything does get in the way.  It was simply an easy example for me to pick out; also, it has the added bonus of being a combo which is very good and often used to great effect by people optimizing multiclassing and/or hybrid options.

There are other parts of 4E which bother me far more (unless -as stated in a previous post- I "shut off certain parts of my brain") such as Grab being virtually useless.  When I first learned 4th Edition, it seemed strange to me that I could grapple someone using a longbow, and they could still fire without any difficulty.  Likewise, it was strange to me at the time that -short of dimensional shackles- there was no way to really pin somebody down or physically restrain them with the intent being to take them prisoner or pacify them.  Instead, while I was using my actions to attempt to do so, they were free to attack me; eventually I simply stopped trying and realized that I was better off with the intent of simply killing all enemies.

I'm drifting away from my Pelor example and what it was meant to show though.  My point for bringing it up was to showcase that -IMO- the crunchy parts of 4th Edition and the fluffy parts do not always have a very good relationship; that can at times make it difficult for me to have the rpg experience I want.  I am somebody who believes that there is indeed a connection between fluff and crunch and that changing one can (and often does) have an impact on the other.

A better example would be for me to cite the math which the game and game world is built around.  I fully understand the reasons for PCs and monsters being built differently.  I really do not even have a problem with the concept that they are built differently, and I will go so far as to say I think that is often a good design choice because there are details you need to know for a PC which may not be relevant to a monster (or NPC.)  However, there are times when those differences and the different branches of game math which are born from those differences creates odd situations.

I remember one of the first games in which I went from 1-30.  Part of the campaign took the party into The Nine Hells.  I forget exactly which level it was (I've played a lot of D&D since then, so the details are fuzzy,) but there was a giant black gate which was the barrier between the level of hell we were on and the next one.  Our goal was to seek an audience with Asmodeus, so we need to walk to his layer.  Supposedly the gate was this super material we could not break -based on fluff; a few at-wills later, and the party was on the other side.

Likewise, even the fact that we could casually stroll through The Nine Hells and physically walk to where we needed to go without really having any serious problems seemed odd.  It wasn't for a lack of the DM trying to challenge the party; we simply just crushed anything which tried to impede us.  It was jarring because all of the uber-devils and lords and creatures which were supposedly terrors to behold were just steamrolled over.  It was difficult to understand why anyone in the game world would fear them if the powers available to heroes were so much better than what the villains had.  At the conclusion of that campaign, my character ended up intimidated Orcus into submission; he became my warlord's butler (no, I'm not making that up.)  Killing him seemed too easy, so I challenge myself to see if I could subdue and intimidate him.  The GM allowed it because 'realistically' (based on in-game events and such) he felt that Orcus probably would have been terrified after the encounter with the party.

Granted, back then a lot of powers were not yet given errata, and the monster math was weaker than it is now; I do not deny that was part of the issue.  Still, the most recent game just wrapped up, and -even with using the new material- the same result was achieved: the PCs easily crushed most things in their way.

I suppose a good fiction example would be to say that I would find it equally as jarring if Frodo had not needed any help at all in LoTR.  Imagine if he had simply just walked to Mt. Doom -slaying any orc which had gotten in his path with barely an effort- and destroyed the ring.  Likewise, imagine if he had been capable of simply just breaking the ring after everyone had said how impossible it was to destroy it.  It wouldn't make any sense, and I feel it would have made it difficult for me to enjoy the story.  Though, that's simply my opinion, and I have no doubt that such a sequence of events would not be jarring at all for others.

There have been times too when (to touch on the Orcus battle again) an enemy who was said to be a scourge of the world and feared throughout the land could barely break through a door or a wall.  Meanwhile, the PCs barely sneeze and blow the hinges off the thing.  The discrepancies between what is stated and how things work out in actual play often made enjoying the game difficult for me before I took a step back and started playing D&D 4E with a different state of mind.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What are the PCs talking about when the players are saying "I'm nearly at full, but the thief is pretty low, and the wizard will pop if s/he gets hit one more time?" This, for me, is the immersion-breaker. It doesn't come up in RQ or RM, because talking about injuries in mechanical terms is just like talking about them in fictional terms (eg "I've got a -30 penalty to my right arm, so I don't want to do another fight" is, in fictional terms "My sword arm is badly hurt - cut and bruised - and I don't think I can fight very well like this").
> <snip>
> I challenge anyone to tell me how the conversation about hit point levels in making party decisions in D&D play is consistent with immersion. What can it possibly mean, in the context of the fiction? And if - as I believe - it's purely metagame, then immersion is per se ruled out, at least during that portion of play.



Yes, immersion IS ruled during that portion of play when players step back and talk metagame. However, players have a *choice* to speak in character or speak out of character about hit point levels. Myself, I wouldn't assume that in classic D&D for whatever gaming group that players *must* have x amount of out-of-character conversations about hit point levels such that it completely wrecks immersion for the whole session for everyone.


----------



## Tymophil (Dec 21, 2011)

Mercutio01 said:


> Err, isn't that what the flavor text attached to each power was? I mean, take the base wording for the Cleric's Divine Glow power.
> 
> "Murmuring a prayer to your deity, you invoke a blast of white radiance from your holy symbol. Foes burn in its stern light, but your allies are heartened and guided by it."
> 
> Seems like that does exactly what you're suggesting, no?



Yes, they give you a flavour text, it is a step in the right direction. This is a feature I point people to when they say that D&D4 is a "rules only" system.

Unfortunately, the designers did not emphazise that _heartening and guiding_ is related with other mechanism (hp, bonus to hit, etc.). *Flavour text was a step in the right direction*, but, in my humble opinion, it should have been *doubled* with a flavour text or examples, describing those effects, in the rules for the DM and players alike. For exemple, it should have made clearer that there is a strong link between confidence and hit points. In fact, designer notes were needed for both beginners and veteran alike. I miss them in D&D4... For example, they would have been useful to point the veteran to those flavour texts like you did.

Moreover, in the introductionary adventure (_Keep on the Shadowfell_), there should have been lots of advices/examples/situations/scenes where the link should have been strikingly evident.

In fact, I think the designers of D&D4 were overconfident. They seem to have thought that the new edition of D&D would be accepted smoothly... They included some rules/mechanisms that meant a shift in some basic features of D&D (AC, powers, hp, etc.) and did not stress the shift...

In a nutshell, my point is that D&D4 has many (most) of the ingredients required to build a believable fictionnal reality... But it takes quite a fair amount of energy from the user (GM and player) to make them surface.


----------



## Tymophil (Dec 21, 2011)

Lum The Mad said:


> Years of game development thinking! Oh, wow!



I have to admit that my sentence is quite ridiculous...



Lum The Mad said:


> Let's not pretend that game development is science, alright?
> 
> If you are a quantum physicist and you miss years of quantum physics research, you might lack some FACTS that your fellow scientists have access to.
> 
> How does this transfer to the realm of gaming development where almost everything is based on matters of preference? Or did the 4th Edition reveal some FACTS about roleplaying that were hitherto unknown to man?



I think the parallel with science is quite interesting, as it seems to me that Monte Cook missed some concepts, paradigms. Science can move on by using new paradigms that can model in a better way facts that are observed (sometimes observed a long time ago). Quantum physics is also, and maybe just that, new paradigms...

Monte Cook take on realism is, in my very humble opinion, outdated. Thinking that because damage from different weapons are different, then there is realism in a system, is, for me, outdated... This is an outdated paradigm, it does not reflect in any *fact*, it is just something that _seems to make sense_ if you cling to the paradigm (that is backed up by no fact) that swords are more dangerous than spears...

The more I read his prose, the more I hope he will take no part in the making of the new edition of D&D.


----------



## Tymophil (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> What you're struggling to put your thumb on here is that 4E features dissociated mechanics to a degree previously unprecedented in D&D. While such mechanics can often be explained _post hoc_, this process of explanation is distinctly different from that found in roleplaying game mechanics.



You are somehow right, I have read this article and did not give it enough credit.
Why? Because I believe it is possible to move the lines: transform a dissociated mechanism into an "associated" one, but stating what kind of "model of reality" you're using.

For example, if hit points are simply a measure of your health, then an attack versus Will should not affect it. If you can attack Fortitude, Will and Reflex, then the definition of Hit Point should emphasize that it reflects health, confidence, stamina. I would draw a strong line between the three defences and the hit points. By doing so, a dissociated system can lose its (perceived) _dissociated_ feature.
This something that was often done in AD&D first edition Dungeon Master Guide. Gary Gygax spent lot of energy to convince the reader that it was a good thing to distinguish Intelligence from Wisdom for example.



Rogue Agent said:


> This is the central problem I see with Cook's essays. He's artificially conflating two radically different concerns:
> 
> (1) The balancing act between the accuracy of a simulation and the ease of using that simulation. (In general, the more accurate you make a simulation the more difficult and complex it becomes to use. So there's a trade-off. Like most trade-offs, there'll be a sweet spot. And that sweet spot will vary from one player to the next.)
> 
> ...



That is what I meant by stating that Monte Cook position was outdated. You are right, I did not give enough thought and, therefore, importance to dissociated mechanisms.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 21, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Logically, none. The claim to importance is all widespread popularity of preference. Immersion is the pizza of gaming. It is entirely possible to have weeks, months, and years of excellent eating with no pizza whatsoever. And there are plenty of meals that would be actively harmed by including pizza with them. But people wants their pizza.
> 
> They want it greasy and dry, with little fish and not. With red sauce and white. With onions, mushrooms, and green peppers and none or only some of those. They want it deep dish, ultra thin, and everything in between. And get 6 random gamers together, count yourself lucky if 3 different types of pizza will satisfy them.
> 
> So Monte was also very much on the right track saying that a certain amount of the nods must be supplied by the individual group. There just is no way for Joe to have anchovies embedded in his D&D throughout and Jane to never deal with them at all. Something has always got to give.



Nice analogy - shame I need to "spread the xp love"!

I guess my main respones is "When people want pizza, why don't they get it from a pizza parlour instead of demanding that MacDonalds should do pizza?"


----------



## Balesir (Dec 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I challenge _anyone_ to tell me how the conversation about hit point levels in making party decisions in D&D play is consistent with immersion. What can it possibly mean, in the context of the fiction? And if - as I believe - it's purely metagame, then immersion is per se ruled out, at least during that portion of play.



Even though I don't prioritise immersion while playing D&D, I think 4E's "bloodied" condition actually can help with this a good deal. In 4E other players will pretty much never _*need*_ to know anything about another player's character's hit points except "are they/you bloodied" and "are they/you _hors de combat_ (<0 hp)". And I think both of these are very easily "justified" in the fiction:

- Bloodied is when the damage becomes visible; before bloodied the creature looks no different from when it started the fight, but when bloodied it has scratches, bruises and other signs of damage. Or maybe just its hair is mussed up - or Captain James T. Kirk's tunic is torn, now...

- At <0 hit points the creature is out of the fight; not, necessarily, literally unconscious, but no longer able to act.

Simples...


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 21, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Nice analogy - shame I need to "spread the xp love"!
> 
> I guess my main respones is "When people want pizza, why don't they get it from a pizza parlour instead of demanding that MacDonalds should do pizza?"





I think this is a good question to ask.  It ties into what I was getting at with a few of my posts both here in this thread as well as ones I've made elsewhere.

For me, my answer was that I was lead to believe McDonald's made pizza -to keep with the same analogy.  The vast majority of my rpg experience at one time had been D&D and virtually nothing other than D&D.  I was vaguely aware that other games existed, but I mostly assumed that most ways of rolling dice and playing a rpg were pretty much that same.  I did have a very brief period of playing Rifts when first introduced to the hobby, but the GM of the game I was in did most of the rolling for players and my time with the game was very brief, so I did not see a lot of how it worked at the time.  

So, honestly, my education level concerning games and game design was very poor at that time.  Looking back on some old posts I made concerning D&D, I can now admit to myself that I held a lot of opinions about what I thought I liked due to not knowing any better.  While some of 4th's changes were things I did not like (some were things I did like too,) they helped me to discover (through being so different from what I knew in 3rd) that there was more to pretending to be an elf or slaying a dragon than simply rolling a d20, and that styles of mechanics might actually change the flavor of the game.

I suppose my personal answer is that for years I had been eating chicken nuggets and thinking they were pizza.  I had been told it was pizza.  Not ever having pizza, I had no idea that McDonald's chicken nuggets were not pizza.  Now that I've had pizza, I am aware that it tastes nothing like chicken nuggets, but there was a time when I would have never known the difference.  Had somebody told me I was eating what I thought was pizza the wrong way, I would have argued with them and defended my chicken nuggets as being the real pizza.

It would not surprise me to find that there are others right now who are eating 'chicken nuggets' and believing they are in fact pieces of 'pizza.'


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 21, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Even though I don't prioritise immersion while playing D&D, I think 4E's "bloodied" condition actually can help with this a good deal.



As someone who does value immersion, I would disagree with that vociferously.



> In 4E other players will pretty much never _*need*_ to know anything about another player's character's hit points except "are they/you bloodied" and "are they/you _hors de combat_ (<0 hp)".



AFAIK, many 4E groups treat 'bloodied' as a pure metagame construct with no simulationist element, and I agree that this would usually have to be true (which is exactly why it's non-immersive for me).



> - Bloodied is when the damage becomes visible; before bloodied the creature looks no different from when it started the fight, but when bloodied it has scratches, bruises and other signs of damage. Or maybe just its hair is mussed up - or Captain James T. Kirk's tunic is torn, now...



In addition to above, this eliminates the possibility of drawing first blood on the 1st round, then deducting morale/luck/stamina/karma hit points afterwards.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 21, 2011)

For what it's worth, I view 4th's Bloodied condition to be more realistic than the 3rd Edition model in which being at 100 HP is treated exactly* the same as being at 1 HP.  There are some monster abilities which key off of a character being bloodied; it makes sense.  I think the term 'Bloodied' might carry some baggage with it at this point in 4E's life though.  When I GM, I usually describe a machine or construct as being 'oily' instead of bloodied or I might say that a part of a zombie's body has fallen off.  I change the term if I feel doing so fits the theme of the creature better; though, if I sense player confusion, I follow it up by clarifying that I mean the creature is 'Bloodied' as in the game mechanics term.  

*with the exception of certain spells


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> It would not surprise me to find that there are others right now who are eating 'chicken nuggets' and believing they are in fact pieces of 'pizza.'



That may be true, but personally, I have played Call of Cthulhu too and I know what great immersion is, and I can still expect and enjoy a different (IMO lesser) quality of immersion in D&D. I mean, one person can say that LoTR is far more immersive than other fantasy films, and another person will say that LoTR is silly and only the realistic gripping dramas are immersive, and I will say that both LoTR and modern dramas are immersive in different ways. Crazy Jerome is correct that pizza preferences is about various toppings and styles of pizza. Analogizing that a certain 'pizza' is really just a 'chicken nugget' is, IMO, segregating beyond what is necessary.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 21, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> That may be true, but personally, I have played Call of Cthulhu too and I know what great immersion is, and I can still expect and enjoy a different (IMO lesser) quality of immersion in D&D. I mean, one person can say that LoTR is far more immersive than other fantasy films, and another person will say that LoTR is silly and only the realistic gripping dramas are immersive, and I will say that both LoTR and modern dramas are immersive in different ways. Crazy Jerome is correct that pizza preferences is about various toppings and styles of pizza. Analogizing that a certain 'pizza' is really just a 'chicken nugget' is, IMO, segregating beyond what is necessary.





I agree with part of this.  I too can still enjoy D&D; if I didn't, I would no longer show up to game day with the group I play with.  However, part of my point was to say there was a time when I had no idea that different flavors existed.  I accepted D&D as pizza because I was told it was.

I like both chicken nuggets and pizza.  Now that I am aware there is a difference, I'm overall happier because I am now aware that when what I'm really hungry for is chicken nuggets and not pizza that I can go somewhere else and get chicken nuggets.  

I am now better able to enjoy D&D 4th Edition because I am now able to recognize that it is designed with a certain flavor in mind, and I am aware that other flavors exist if I do not want that flavor.  Before, I was at a state in which I did not like the flavor 4th Edition was offering, but was not knowledgeable enough about the other flavors to comprehend how different they would be.  I became a bitter customer because my experience was bitter.

I didn't know enough to be aware that I might be happier eating something else.  The other cravings I had, I now know can be satisfied by going somewhere else.  Now, when I walk into 4E and sit down at the table, I do so expecting something which is offered and served rather than trying to special request something which the chef or the guy running the milk shake machine isn't able to offer.


edit:  Though I do still feel there are things which would make D&D better.  When I run a game of 4E, I do modify parts of it.  However, there comes a point where -if I want a certain thing- it's easier to just use a system which is better equipped to handle what I want rather than trying to make nuggets into pizza.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> In fact, I find it vastly amusing how so many people here on these boards will take the most nonsensical illogical rationale, and explain it as if it makes all of the sense in the world, and it isn't just a cumbersome rationale to explain away a non-plausible rule that exists in the game system, merely because the rule is simpler than any plausible rule that the designers could think of to take its place.




You know, you could also say, it is amusing how some people believe, the hit point system can be plausible at all...

Some thingsyou listed are in fact better than any system before... some of your listed items do bother me too...

Warlords healing by shouting and hp as a real abstraction seems consistent enough for me. The only thing I would change would be bloodied in fact meaning bloodied. (First blood drawn) And beeing unconscious having effects after combat.)
I really would like to see some use of healing skill, that allows you to saw wounds, etc. And maybe some damage carrying over to the next day, if you are badly hurt.
Not beeing able to describe a nearly deadly blow as a nearly deadly blow is problematic.

Fire melting ice and spell effects that are iconic and really different from each other would make immersion a lot easier!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> snip
> ...I really would like to see some use of healing skill, that allows you to saw wounds, etc. And maybe some damage carrying over to the next day, if you are badly hurt.
> ...




this is something I would like but only as a optional system, when I am in the mood for gritty D&D


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I know this has been discussed to death in the past, but clearly - in at least some cases - a player's use of Come and Get It does not correspond to (or correspond only to) things that his/her PC is doing in the fiction.
> 
> Sometimes, at least, the forced movement reflects something else going on in the fiction (eg the villain zigged when it should have zagged).




Except that it has nothing to do with zigging or zagging in many cases. Again, a real stretch of the fiction in order to explain the subpar metagame rule.

I hate stretching the fiction to have things make sense.

As an example, the NPC shifts away from the Fighter with Come and Get It and is planning on running away. He's moving north. The Fighter is using the power and the NPC is suddenly moving south, even though that's clearly not the intent of the NPC in the fiction.

This is jarring in the fiction. It's not zigging where he should have zagged. It's turning him around 180 degrees when the NPC was out of reach.


But what is even more jarring in the fiction is that this power has no plausibility in my viewpoint of fantasy. Martial powers should not act like spells. Pulling someone towards you is what telekinesis or charm should do. Fighters should fight. As long as someone is within reach of their weapon, that foe can be affected. Fighters should not be able to affect foes outside the reach of their weapon (shy of throwing a weapon in which case, the foe is still in reach of that weapon).

It bugs me that there is no internal "non-magical" consistency in the Martial powers.

Martial powers shouldn't heal people. A portion of hit points should be actual damage. The game shouldn't be cartoonish, all for metagame reasons that then have to be explained away in the fiction.

Obviously, YMMV and I agree, Come and Get It has been discussed to death. 

But, I just wish the lines were drawn in the sand a little further towards plausibility and less towards fictional stretches of metagame rules. It really wouldn't kill the game (and I think it would help) if the Martial power source was limited to physical effects which are non-magical in nature. Especially at the Heroic tier.

Come and Get It with a thrown weapon where it requires the PC to bounce his weapon off a wall and knocks the foe towards the Fighter? Bravo. What a cool Epic level power. Come and Get It as the equivalent of a magical attraction spell at Heroic level affecting NPCs out of the Fighter's reach? Meh. What a waste of paper that it's written on.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My favourite version of this treats the Inspiring Word, on such occasions, as a metagame power. It is analogous to Aragorn's dream sequence in the Two Towers movie, in which (to put it in RPG terms) the player of Arwen uses one of Arwen's powers to heal Aragorn, even though the two are not in the same country. The ally regains consciousness because memory's of the warlord's inspiring presence, or previous urgings to victory, etc, revive him/her.
> 
> Another version, equally tenable, is this: the PC is unconcious, but as her eyes flicker open she sees the warlord gazing intently at her. His lips are moving, but at first she can't make out what he's saying. Then gradually (as it seems to her - because time has slowed down for her, although in reality this is all happening in mere moments) it dawns on her that she has been wounded, but he is urging her to get to her feet - the battle isn't over, and her friends need her.
> 
> ...




Nonsense.

The game should be consistent. Other players cannot encourage the PC to get up with a shout. Why can't the Heal skill be used at range to do this?

You have to really stretch the fiction to get to your conclusions. IMO.

In a moment, that PC might be dead due to failing death saving throws. He goes from being dead to being "just a flesh wound" because the Warlord asks him to get back on his feet. Sorry, but that's just plain silly and cartoonish, and a real stretch of the fiction. The metagame rule taking over the fiction of what should be possible.


The way Inspiring Word SHOULD have been worded is temporary hit points. The Warlord INSPIRES a conscious PC to fight better. Future attacks against that PC harm him less because he is being inspired to fight a bit faster, avoid the attacks a bit better, etc.

Inspiring Word should not heal. It should encourage.

I have no problem with the Warlord encouraging conscious allies, giving them extra attacks and buffs and saves. I have a problem with the non-plausibility of the Warlord healing allies (conscious or unconscious). It's a realm of the game that the Martial Power source shouldn't be able to go into. Just like it shouldn't be able to go into Flight or Teleport.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 21, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Inspiring Word should not heal.



Wounds should impair. 

How is what pemerton suggesting functionally any different from the kinds of rationalizations D&D players have been making since OD&D? 

Oh, and the difference between a Heal check and Inspiring Word is the first represents medicine and the second represents mythology/folklore.


----------



## steenan (Dec 21, 2011)

Interpreting 4e mechanics as "process simulation" is doomed to failure. From this perspective, it definitely does not work. I think it's obvious to everybody here.

The point is, that is not what 4e mechanics does. It is the first edition of D&D with reasonably consistent design assumptions and goals - and it was never designed as simulation. It's not a good hammer, not because it is poorly made, but because it is a reasonably good screwdriver.

Powers work on metagame level. They represent story elements, not setting elements. When a player uses a power, they are requesting something to happen in fiction, they are extending their narrative rights; it's very different from the character doing something to this effect. In many cases, a character does not anything special when a power is invoked - it's how others react and how circumstances change. Using mechanics as a way of deciding outcomes and narrating events to make sense within it is not patching a nonfunctional system; it's playing the game as designed.

One more thing of note: the magical/mundane split you seem to request is mutually exclusive with class balance many people want from D&D. Being able to override physics, psychology and other notions of "realism" is by definition more powerful than not being able to do it. So, when aiming for balance, one has to either give magic to everyone, remove everything "magical" from magic or move from simulation mechanics to metagame, narrative mechanics. 4e is far from perfect, but the choice it made here is the most sensible one.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 21, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> As an example, the NPC shifts away from the Fighter with Come and Get It and is planning on running away. He's moving north. The Fighter is using the power and the NPC is suddenly moving south, even though that's clearly not the intent of the NPC in the fiction.



But as soon as the Fighter uses CaGI, the NPC's intent _changes_ to "I want to get up in that fighter's grill and smack him". 



> This is jarring in the fiction.



Not when you describe it as the NPC changing their mind. 



> But what is even more jarring in the fiction is that this power has no plausibility in my viewpoint of fantasy.



Of course it does: the NPC changes their mind.



> Martial powers should not act like spells. Pulling someone towards you is what telekinesis or charm should do.



It's not magic. It's metafiction. Think of it less as a maneuver or spell, and more like a action point. Something that acts directly on the game fiction, and not an in-game object or process. In fact, think of it like a traditional saving throw, which model the heroes' ability not to die --of various causes-- in middle of the story.   



> TObviously, YMMV and I agree, Come and Get It has been discussed to death.



Damnit... you're right. Sorry. Got sucked into this again...


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Wounds should impair.




Should they? I don't think the real record on that is actually clear. Sometimes they do, even minor ones. Sometimes even mortal ones don't seem to until the wounded individual stops running on adrenaline and keels over.

In D&D, wounds don't impair all actions directly. But they do impair in the sense that you can now take fewer additional ones before you keel over. Given the mixed results reality gives us, I'm content with that for a game.


----------



## Aenghus (Dec 21, 2011)

I think that for some 4e elements to be portrayed as "realistic" (coherent, with versimilitude etc) e.g. warlord's ins, piring word, the old "Come and Get It" power, certain constraints are placed on description of the gameworld. However these constraints are an emergent phenomenon, a consequence of wanting the rules to work and being willing to adapt to them. 

"Inspiring Word" is the "It's just a flesh wound" schtick from many action films, IMO. It doesn't make sense if the DM insists on describing massive gaping wounds and crippling injuries. The thing is, given the D&D hit point system, for me it never did for positive hp values, and I didn't describe unconscious-but-living PCs in earlier editions as having crippling injuries either. So only minor changes were needed in my descriptions.

However, I can see different wound description styles could make "Inspiring Word"  problematic, and the rules didn't say anything about this issue.

Similarly, even the old Come and Get It power could be described in ways that retained versimilitude, but hostile and some neutral descriptions of it's functioning could break said versimilitude.

Personally, I think 4e has the implicit assumption all PCs can have supernatural powers, not just spellcasters.Even martial PCs can be super-good at their specialities. In old Irish folklore most of the heroes tended to be warriors of superhuman ability, and I have no problem with  4e balancing the scales between non-spellcasters and spellcasters, its one of the changes I heartily approve of.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 21, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Should they? I don't think the real record on that is actually clear. Sometimes they do, even minor ones. Sometimes even mortal ones don't seem to until the wounded individual stops running on adrenaline and keels over.



My point was 4e's Inspiring Word is no more unrealistic than wounds _never_ causing impairment. The only difference is the community has had less time to rationalize Inspiring Word, and more time to politely ignore all the traditional mechanics which "stretch the fiction".


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I think this is a good question to ask. It ties into what I was getting at with a few of my posts both here in this thread as well as ones I've made elsewhere.
> 
> For me, my answer was that I was lead to believe McDonald's made pizza -to keep with the same analogy. The vast majority of my rpg experience at one time had been D&D and virtually nothing other than D&D. I was vaguely aware that other games existed, but I mostly assumed that most ways of rolling dice and playing a rpg were pretty much that same. I did have a very brief period of playing Rifts when first introduced to the hobby, but the GM of the game I was in did most of the rolling for players and my time with the game was very brief, so I did not see a lot of how it worked at the time.
> 
> ...




Yes.  However, in the pizza analogy, a game system is not a single meal, but a menu or series of meals over some time.  If you want pizza, and you go to McDonalds and get chicken nuggets, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.  (Try to write a complaint to McDonalds or interested observers that will sound reasonsable. )

But the fair claim for immersion in D&D is not that.  Rather, it is that if I'm going to frequent your place all year long, there had better be pizza as an option part of the time.  Any given meal, a whole bunch of given meals, with no pizza?  No problem.  No pizza whatsoever for a whole year?  Problem.  

*My* complaint with the (particular, more strident) advocates of "more immersion, more immersion!" all the time in D&D (i.e. the assumption that immersion is the paramount virtue in any RPG, including D&D) is that they aren't lobbying for pizza on the menu.  They want to replace pretty much everything else on the menu with varieties of pizza.  You can have your hamburger and chicken as toppings, and you can get the shoddy version at McDonalds, the tasty version at a nicer place, and maybe some Asian flavoring at the Japanese steak house.  But it will all be pizza. When you cook at home, you can make anything you want, but it will only be made with pizza ingredients. 

Guy I knew in high school worked at a very nice pizza place for awhile that let the employees cook and eat as much as they wanted with the food that was there.  He said it worked great for awhile.  They made some mean omelets for variety.  But after two or three months, you got sick of the ingredients.  I worked at a nearby hamburger joint.  We used to trade them a bag of burgers for pizza, since we were sick of our food.

Then you have the "disassociated" nonsense which is basically folks claiming that you can tell how appropriate a mechanic is for D&D by testing to see whether or not you can fool yourself.  A hamburger is bad as a hamburger.  But if you can fool yourself into thinking it is pizza, well alright!  

The exact, optimal amount of immersion producing mechanics--and lack of immersion destroying mechanics--is a fair point of discussion.  And so is, if D&D is truly to remain rather middle of the road, support for other styles of play.  You merely can't get very far in that discussion if some of the people involved will not acknowledge the inherent limits of going down the middle.  One of them is that "more pizza" is not automatically a good thing. I know that is hard to believe.  There was a time when I wouldn't have believed it.  

And yes again, wider experience in games (and food) will make one a more discerning critic of the limits of a particular game.  Lack of this experience is not automatically crippling, but it runs the risk of leading one into very shallow argument that try to turn hamburgers into fake pizzas.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 21, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> The game should be consistent...




It is consistent. It is not consistent in the way that you are assuming as the defacto standard. That is classic begging the question. The rest of your post unpacks to the equivalent of: "Food should be consistently pizza. This is self-evident. Therefore, if a food isn't pizza, there is something wrong with it." 



steenan said:


> Interpreting 4e mechanics as "process simulation" is doomed to failure. From this perspective, it definitely does not work. I think it's obvious to everybody here.
> 
> The point is, that is not what 4e mechanics does. It is the first edition of D&D with reasonably consistent design assumptions and goals - and it was never designed as simulation. It's not a good hammer, not because it is poorly made, but because it is a reasonably good screwdriver.




Exactly.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I guess my main respones is "When people want pizza, why don't they get it from a pizza parlour instead of demanding that MacDonalds should do pizza?"




I think the answer to that would be, "The Wizards' Pizza Parlor said they were coming out with a spiffy new pizza. But when I went to try it out, they served me burgers and fries. Where's my pizza?"

Or, in my case, "These burgers and fries are pretty good, and they don't give me heartburn the way the old pizza did. But I miss pizza. I'd really like it if the Wizards' Pizza Parlor would start making pizza again, but use some of those burger ingredients."

D&D is a brand, and a brand is built on the customer's trust that it delivers a certain thing at a certain standard of quality. As long as 4E is calling itself Dungeons and Dragons, it is entirely fair and reasonable to expect it to be the same kind of game as all previous editions of Dungeons and Dragons. Otherwise you're putting burgers in a pizza box and selling it as pizza, in order to get in on the lucrative pizza market. So I judge 4E by the same standard I would use to judge any D&D edition, and immersiveness is part (though by no means all) of that judgement. If the designers want to ditch immersiveness as a design goal, let them go off and make their own game under a new brand name.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 21, 2011)

steenan said:


> Interpreting 4e mechanics as "process simulation" is doomed to failure. From this perspective, it definitely does not work. I think it's obvious to everybody here.
> 
> The point is, that is not what 4e mechanics does. It is the first edition of D&D with reasonably consistent design assumptions and goals - and it was never designed as simulation. It's not a good hammer, not because it is poorly made, but because it is a reasonably good screwdriver.
> 
> ...




The most sensible only if the goal of the game is collaborative storytelling.

The original D&D game was not designed for such a goal. The biggest challenge for the designers is to decide if the game is going to be about roleplaying adventurers exploring a fantasy world or an exercise in collaborative storytelling.

Either way, about half the audience will have diminished interest in the game.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 21, 2011)

Mallus said:


> But as soon as the Fighter uses CaGI, the NPC's intent _changes_ to "I want to get up in that fighter's grill and smack him".




But it is incredibly jarring that suddenly the massively intelligent wizard with a huge will who doesn't even speak my language decides to come up close and smack the big huge fighter with his dagger. That is atrocious and unbelievably bad fiction.

This has been discussed before because it is SO absurd an example to many of us. I've never seen an explanation that made the slightest sense to me. 

Obviously lots of people have no problem with this and that is absolutely fine with me. 

But for some of us CAGI exemplifies design decisions made in 4th Edition that we do not like. NOT "bad" decisions, just decisions that are not to our taste.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 21, 2011)

Aenghus said:


> "Inspiring Word" is the "It's just a flesh wound" schtick from many action films, IMO. It doesn't make sense if the DM insists on describing massive gaping wounds and crippling injuries. The thing is, given the D&D hit point system, for me it never did for positive hp values, and I didn't describe unconscious-but-living PCs in earlier editions as having crippling injuries either. So only minor changes were needed in my descriptions.
> 
> However, I can see different wound description styles could make "Inspiring Word" problematic, and the rules didn't say anything about this issue...




This mirrors my experience. It is part of the reason why I find 4E healing, complete with warlord powers and healing surges, less immersion destroying than pure hit points. Most purely physical "adrenaline" style mechanics coupled with hit points get to complicated and/or encourage the players to metagame into edge cases such that I find the results highly implausible. So they are immersion destroying for me. 

However, my "shallow immersion" is mainly predicated on getting plausible results in the flow of the story, not process or micro focus on details. When I focus on details, it is seldom related to mechanics, but in finer points of the story line--e.g. presentation of crucial information.

And it is also true that any process simulation process invariably forces the game into the core of that simulation. (Well, it does if the process simulation is well done. And if it isn't well done, why would you want it?) Since game designers seldom make games that cater to my style preferences, then the only way I can have my style supported is by a game that focuses more on general results. It is what drove me to Hero System, away from D&D 2E, in the first place. 

BTW, all of this is also one of the many reasons why the 3E craft rules offend my sensibilities so much. The micro details of the process are poorly designed, and the results are ludicrous. But because it is embedded into the skill system, it is harder to ignore than it first appears. You can't really replace it the way it needs to be replaced without redesiging the skill system, the feat system, or both--and tampering with those ricochet into classes, messing the whole system up. So I end up dropping it. But it just being the core book interferes with my immersion in the game world, the same way goofy weapon weights does. I tell ya, what brings people in and out of the game world is highly personal.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 21, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I think the answer to that would be, "The Wizards' Pizza Parlor said they were coming out with a spiffy new pizza. But when I went to try it out, they served me burgers and fries. Where's my pizza?"
> 
> Or, in my case, "These burgers and fries are pretty good, and they don't give me heartburn the way the old pizza did. But I miss pizza. I'd really like it if the Wizards' Pizza Parlor would start making pizza again, but use some of those burger ingredients."




Fair enough. Though I think it would be stronger had the place started as a pizza parlor instead of one of those hodge-podge places that served (greasy) pizza, burgers, and a bunch of other things. 

Looking at D&D as a whole, since its inception, I can see an argument for--2E as a lurch away from the "game" in favor of "storytelling", 3E as a lurch back to the "game" that over-corrected by trying to merge the two into a process, and 4E as an over-correction to that by hyper focus on replacing process with results. 

All anyone really wanted to do was get a slickly produced, streamlined, clear, relatively easy to understand and play version of D&D that more or less replicated what you could do (albeit with more effort and missteps) with Basic or the first AD&D. I still say that 5E could do worse than to start with the Rules Cyclopedia as a base, and then apply all the lessons learned making 2E, 3E, and 4E.


----------



## avin (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Likewise, even the fact that we could casually stroll through The Nine Hells and physically walk to where we needed to go without really having any serious problems seemed odd.  It wasn't for a lack of the DM trying to challenge the party; we simply just crushed anything which tried to impede us.  It was jarring because all of the uber-devils and lords and creatures which were supposedly terrors to behold were just steamrolled over.  It was difficult to understand why anyone in the game world would fear them if the powers available to heroes were so much better than what the villains had.




Ah, you hit the nail why sometimes D&D (in every incarnation I've played) make me sick...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 21, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> In fact, I find it vastly amusing how so many people here on these boards will take the most nonsensical illogical rationale, and explain it as if it makes all of the sense in the world, and it isn't just a cumbersome rationale to explain away a non-plausible rule that exists in the game system, merely because the rule is simpler than any plausible rule that the designers could think of to take its place.




That's cause for myself and probably a few others... it isn't at all cumbersome, because D&D's a game.  As a result, I accept that game rules are in place to try and make the game fun, balanced, and interesting for all players, all races, and all classes, and sometimes game rules run counter to so-called 'immersion'.  And I just don't get hung up on that in my made-up fantasy story... because if I wanted immersion above all else, I wouldn't be playing _a game_.  I'd be doing improv theater or writing a novel, that way I could get immersed as much as I wanted and never have to worry about those pesky game rules occasionally getting in the way.

I am at one end of the acceptance spectrum where I just don't bother demarcating some game rules as 'acceptable' to the 'immersion' and some rules as 'not acceptable'.  My 'immersion' is going to be broken at some point regardless, just due to the fact that it's a game.  So why waste my time worrying about only certain parts of it?  The game rules are the game rules.  And if the game rules are fun, great!  Let's play!


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I know this has been discussed to death in the past, but clearly - in at least some cases - a player's use of Come and Get It does not correspond to (or correspond only to) things that his/her PC is doing in the fiction.
> 
> Sometimes, at least, the forced movement reflects something else going on in the fiction (eg the villain zigged when it should have zagged).




This is something I detest about the CaGI power and how dissociative it could be. If the PC is spending an action and having an effect, I really want the causality to be fairly clear. I don't want a PC action to generate some other narrative effect not related to the PC's action. 

If I want any actions to have a non-PC caused narrative effect, I want it to come from *the player* not from his avatar in the game setting. If that means having cards like in Torg that the player can use to affect the action, that's fine since I don't believe they have any effect on the actions a PC can take (though I'm new to Torg and may not have learned all the cases in which a card comes into play).


----------



## avin (Dec 21, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Come and Get It with a thrown weapon where it requires the PC to bounce his weapon off a wall and knocks the foe towards the Fighter? Bravo. What a cool Epic level power. Come and Get It as the equivalent of a magical attraction spell at Heroic level affecting NPCs out of the Fighter's reach? Meh. What a waste of paper that it's written on.




Amem.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The most sensible only if the goal of the game is collaborative storytelling.
> 
> The original D&D game was not designed for such a goal. The biggest challenge for the designers is to decide if the game is going to be about roleplaying adventurers exploring a fantasy world or an exercise in collaborative storytelling.
> 
> Either way, about half the audience will have diminished interest in the game.



I think what you're saying here speaks to the dichotomy inherent to the two game design philosophies that came together to create D&D in the first place. It's fairly evident that both Gygax and Arneson brought different ideas and priorities to D&D, but also, I think, in equal measure.

So to me, saying that roleplaying adventurers exploring a world and collaborative storytelling are mutually exclusive as design goals, sells the game short. There is nothing to say that it can't do both, and IMHO, it does both fairly well. Or, at least it _can_. The rest is largely dependent on the group and their preferred style of play, I suppose.



pauljathome said:


> But it is incredibly jarring that suddenly the massively intelligent wizard with a huge will who doesn't even speak my language decides to come up close and smack the big huge fighter with his dagger. That is atrocious and unbelievably bad fiction.



Without knowing the exact circumstances of the fiction involved with that particular scenario, at that particular table, sure it sounds silly. It doesn't have to, though. If one has already decided that a given power is ridiculous, one tends not to try very hard when describing its effects.

If described properly, I can see ways in which even that scenario makes sense. Perhaps in this case CaGI represents a warrior feigning weakness, enticing even a lowly mage with a knife to want to come stick it in his belly during a moment of weakness.



> This has been discussed before because it is SO absurd an example to many of us. I've never seen an explanation that made the slightest sense to me.



So I don't particularly expect my example explanation to make any more sense to you either, especially since your mind is already firmly made up.

But here's the thing - CaGI, and powers like it, are basically like giving players 'narrative control cards' that they can invoke pretty much any time. They are not only free to, but more or less obligated to figure out how that interacts with the fiction of the game at any given time. This is not always an easy task. It speaks to why (at least in part), there are so many fewer DMs than players. A power like that basically turns the player into a DM for part of her turn, but the game gives only the vaguest guidance on how to do that (i.e. flavour text), and what guidance given isn't always going to fit what's going on. It can't - that would require far too much text for every power.

So this is where the actual DM is needed - the DM needs to interpret how the player is playing their 'narrative control card', even if it isn't what they had in mind, and make it work the way the player wants it to in a given situation. Again, some DMs will have trouble doing this, with good reason - it isn't always easy.

From personal experience though, when it works, it really _works_. Particularly if the end goal is not only exploring a fictional game world, but telling a collaborative story while you're doing it.

Some groups or players won't like that, and that's fine. Some DMs don't like losing that control, even for a part of a player's turn. Some players don't want the responsibility. Some DMs don't want to have to come up with explanations when they player can't or won't either. That's fine - it just means that there are some elements of the game that they should avoid. The problem with that is, 4e isn't very good at explaining this, nor on giving advice on how to handle it.



> Obviously lots of people have no problem with this and that is absolutely fine with me.
> 
> But for some of us CAGI exemplifies design decisions made in 4th Edition that we do not like. NOT "bad" decisions, just decisions that are not to our taste.



I just wanted to point out that I appreciate your civil tone in your post. It's very easy to go on the offensive about elements you find really jarring, and like some, to call it all nonsense.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> But here's the thing - CaGI, and powers like it, are basically like giving players 'narrative control cards' that they can invoke pretty much any time. They are not only free to, but more or less obligated to figure out how that interacts with the fiction of the game at any given time. This is not always an easy task. It speaks to why (at least in part), there are so many fewer DMs than players. A power like that basically turns the player into a DM for part of her turn, but the game gives only the vaguest guidance on how to do that (i.e. flavour text), and what guidance given isn't always going to fit what's going on. It can't - that would require far too much text for every power.




As in my post above, I don't see it as giving narrative control cards to the player. It's giving them to the *character* and uses a character's actions to achieve an effect not directly related to any cause the character could effect. If you want to give that power to a player - give it to the *player* through some alternative mechanism that's not directly caused by a PC action.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 21, 2011)

billd91 said:


> As in my post above, I don't see it as giving narrative control cards to the player. It's giving them to the *character* and uses a character's actions to achieve an effect not directly related to any cause the character could effect. If you want to give that power to a player - give it to the *player* through some alternative mechanism that's not directly caused by a PC action.



That's an astute point.

I suppose _they_ could say that these narrative-control powers are not given to the characters, but rather assigned to the character. But if so, growing up with D&D never, ever taught me to think that way. AFAIK, nothing in the 4E books mentions that either (does it?). The fact that CAGI got nerfed doesn't seem like a heartfelt support of "narrative cards" either.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

billd91 said:


> As in my post above, I don't see it as giving narrative control cards to the player. It's giving them to the *character* and uses a character's actions to achieve an effect not directly related to any cause the character could effect. If you want to give that power to a player - give it to the *player* through some alternative mechanism that's not directly caused by a PC action.




Bwah? You're giving narrative control to the _character_? Your fighter is suddenly gaining the power to reshape reality?

The idea of giving narrative control to a character makes no sense unless you're playing in Discworld or equivalent.


----------



## Aenghus (Dec 21, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Bwah? You're giving narrative control to the _character_? Your fighter is suddenly gaining the power to reshape reality?
> 
> The idea of giving narrative control to a character makes no sense unless you're playing in Discworld or equivalent.




Depends on your definition. In previous editions spellcasters had lots of ways to effectively reshape reality via their magic. Case in point, there was a 1e Illusionist spell called "Alter Reality". Was 1e D&D Discworld? 

Non-spellcasters had much less ability to instantly affect their environment in previous editions, especially as character levels rose. However, they could build strongholds and work through other people to effect medium and long term change.

4e has  balanced the ability to instantly reshape reality much more by greatly reducing spellcaster power in this area across the board, while opening the gates to non-spellcasters to do such actions sometimes.

I do think some players are more aware than ever before for their personal game preferences and agitate for something that exactly fits them. But preferences are so personal, individual, idiosyncratic that you end up with a whole bunch of small camps of people, each wanting a different set of rules.

A successful new edition of D&D will have to appeal to as many different camps as possible, which will inevitably involve compromise, both in the rules themselves and on the part of the GMs and players who play the game.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Dec 21, 2011)

Time for me to use Come and Get It!!!

Come and Get it a great power and anyone who disagrees simply lacks the imagination to make it work!!!!


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

Aenghus said:


> Depends on your definition. In previous editions spellcasters had lots of ways to effectively reshape reality via their magic. Case in point, there was a 1e Illusionist spell called "Alter Reality". Was 1e D&D Discworld?




We're talking about narrative control here. Narrative control is about being able to write part of "the story," which entails knowing that a story is being told. If your _character_ knows she's in a story and that story-rules apply, then you're playing in Discworld, or Order of the Stick. OotS is hilarious, but it's not how most people run their games.

Narrative control is a player-level thing, not a character-level thing. The extent to which players should have narrative control is a question worth debating. What I was challenging was this:



billd91 said:


> As in my post above, I don't see it as giving  narrative control cards to the player. It's giving them to the *character*  and uses a character's actions to achieve an effect not directly  related to any cause the character could effect.




Billd91 is saying "Come and Get It" gives narrative control to the _character_ rather than the player, which assertion I consider utterly bizarre.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 21, 2011)

Here's my shot at recapping the recent issues, using a video game analogy (because you can never have enough analogies 

I've always played RPGs like a 1st person shooter. I imagine the rules as a HUD interface (with a health bar, etc.) between me as a player and the POV of the character.

In classic D&D, the HUD is obvious around the periphery but it doesn't have to be immersion-wrecking -- because players can choose to reference the in-game world instead of the HUD.

After all, in a conversation with an ally NPC, I could choose "I'm exhausted and bleeding, we need a defensible or safe place to rest and bandage our wounds" instead of "my health bar is low, we need a safe zone with no monsters on the mini-map". Honestly, I'm frequently lazy and say "I'm low on health, we need to rest" -- which isn't entirely in-character but not entirely immersion-breaking either. Once near full hit points, I can say "I feel perfectly fine now, let's head out!" instead of "My health bar is 100%, I'm ready now!".

So I know how to fluff an abstraction like hit points, and I know how to reference it in-character as a double entendre, and this helps to maintain immersion.

Then comes 4E, and two things happen...

Firstly, gameplay changed from 1st person perspective to a bird's eye view or 3/4 perspective _and someone forgot to tell me!_ It wasn't until a few years ago I suppose that I learned about non-Actor stance on Enworld. Maybe other people were always playing with a 3/4 perspective pre-4E and I was clueless otherwise. Why this focus on narrativist playstyle wasn't even mentioned in the 4E preview I have _no_ idea.

Secondly, abstractions like bloodied appear on the HUD. What does the specificity and timing of the occurence of a 50% full health bar mean, in the fiction? IMO absolutely nothing. There's nothing that can be said in-character that conveys the phenomenon of bloodied for PCs and monsters and all the in-game expectations and various associated triggers and effects. Unlike referencing hit points and other "pretend" simulationist mechanics in which you have a choice to use in-character or out-of-character language, trying to reference a condition like bloodied almost always has the player speaking in metagame and out-of-character. Pile on too many pure metagame interfaces like this and the HUD feels more referential and more important (and IMO too obtrusive) vs the character POV.

I guess I should have a conclusion now. I guess the importance of a "nod to realism" depends on your value on immersion. I guess that your value on immersion at least partially depends on whether you're roleplaying 1st person perspective or 3/4 perspective or top-down view. I suppose that "realism" attached to cause-and-effect and narrativist mechanics also depends on your perspective (pun intended).


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 21, 2011)

LurkAway, nice analogy. 

For me, 3E is still sticking to the HUD style, with the clear window in the middle. But the HUD takes up so much of the real-estate, that the window is fairly small, and I keep getting distracted by the HUD. Plus, there are some parts of the HUD that seem rather tacked on, though you can see how "push X" leads to "get Y".

Whereas, 4E is a much bigger window with mostly transparent overlays for control. It is true that the overlay is sometimes in the way, and moving around all over the screen with the action can be distracting--but I can still see what is behind it, easily. Actually, to be fair, 4E is a relatively early version of said technology, where the missteps are all the more glaring for being a new way. 

(And then 2E is an ornate but relatively small HUD stylishly decorated with dragon buttons and wizard sliders and such, which would be great if the controls that you pressed had anything much to do with the action in the window. And just when I think they might, oh look, a cut scene. )


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 21, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> Time for me to use Come and Get It!!!
> 
> Come and Get it a great power and anyone who disagrees simply lacks the imagination to make it work!!!!




Rarrr! I'm enraged and feel an unquenchable urge to run up and stab you with a puny dagger! Rarr!


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 21, 2011)

This is one discussion I am particularly apt to have, since I think it came up in 4th edition a fair amount.


First of all, I think everyone recognizes that a gaming system at some level has to be less than 100% simulationist. Else you spend some much time with mechanics that you never play the game. This is a weakness of PNP games that we can never get away from....and so a compromise will be made somewhere along the road.

I think its also important to note that Dnd stems from a common culture that drives our sense of immersion or reality. In other words, the community is already more willing to accept certain mechanics over others, regardless of good flavor.

Take this simple example. What is every fighter power was an encounter power, and every wizard power was at-will?

This can actually be explained with flavor pretty easily. Magic is an endless power of power that can be channeled by a person. Since its not their energy they expend, fatigue doesn't factor in. Meanwhile, a fighter grows tired as he fights, so only has so many powers before he is exhausted and forced to rely on basic attacks.

In some worlds and gaming systems, this might be perfectly acceptable, but it clashes greatly with the years of culture built by DND, and probably wouldn't be generally acceptable. I'm noting this because when people are debating how one gamist mechanic is acceptable and another is not....this culture is also there at the heart of the discussion.


With that in mind, I want to review two 4e game mechanic and why I think one has been generally accepted and the other has not.


*Diagonal Movement same as regular movement:* This change caused a lot of fuss when it was first announced. People said they would never use such an unrealistic and "gamey" concept. Yet years later it isn't really talked about much. Why?

I think it stems from two answers. The first is that because 4e greatly reduced the range of combat compared to 3e, the cases were the fantasy and reality most greatly clash don't come up that often. Most of the time the difference in rules is just a few feet of distance, and since we already use the 5 foot square to streamline movement, its really not that much more of a stretch.

The second reason is because its universal. PCs use it, monsters use it, everyone uses the same mechanic. Further, other areas of the system use it consistently. For example, forced movement and regular movement respect the diagonal rule consistently. This helps promote consistency which helps immersion.


*Fighter Daily Powers*: On the other hand, years later I still see complains about this one. Why?

First of all, Dnd culture has known for years that one primary difference between Wizards and fighters is that wizards have limited spells, and a fighter can fight all day long. That convention has been around a long time, and still affects our expectations.

But even with that people are generally comfortable with encounter powers for fighters. So the idea that the fighter isn't at full strength every moment has been generally accepted. So why encounter powers and not dailies?

Again, I think its steam from two points. Again, encounter powers work on a narrow focus, a single fight. As such, our immersion isn't pushed too hard. Because its a single fight, I can use things like fatigue to explain the idea in flavor. A fighter has some big moves that tire him out, but he rests for a bit and then can use them again. Ok, I can buy that.

But with dailies that same flavor doesn't work. Ok I use a big move that fatigues me. I rest for a bit and....I still can't use it?

Well....maybe its REALLY fatiguing, so much so that it takes a full night sleep to recover. Ok....I could buy that, but the problem here is the rest of the system doesn't support that.

We have a number of mechanics that simulate fatigue, HP, healing surges are the two most prominent. So why is it that using a daily is so incredibly fatiguing....but doesn't effect my hp or my surges?

If it did, I bet people would accept fighter dailies much more readily. 


The second aspect is that fighter dailies are not consistent with the rest of the world. If all fighters had dailies that would be one thing. But NPC fighters often don't have dailies. They have encounter powers....or even powers that recharge! So....why does my fighter only uses his guns once a day, but that fighter over there can use his big guns every few rounds!

This further strains credibility, and I think in this case pushed it far enough where it has become a flavor issue for many.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I think what you're saying here speaks to the dichotomy inherent to the two game design philosophies that came together to create D&D in the first place. It's fairly evident that both Gygax and Arneson brought different ideas and priorities to D&D, but also, I think, in equal measure.




They certainly did. That has nothing to do with storytelling or the mechanics used to facilitate that. 



Nemesis Destiny said:


> So to me, saying that roleplaying adventurers exploring a world and collaborative storytelling are mutually exclusive as design goals, sells the game short. There is nothing to say that it can't do both, and IMHO, it does both fairly well. Or, at least it _can_. The rest is largely dependent on the group and their preferred style of play, I suppose.




It is difficult to play a game about adventurers exploring a world with mechanics that constantly blather on about "the narrative" which has nothing to do with roleplaying whatsoever. 





Nemesis Destiny said:


> But here's the thing - CaGI, and powers like it, are basically like giving players 'narrative control cards' that they can invoke pretty much any time. They are not only free to, but more or less obligated to figure out how that interacts with the fiction of the game at any given time.




Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. A narrative control card, when used, switches the player perspective from adventurer to author. As an author, the player is engaging the game from outside the adventurer role.

While this is not badwrongfun it does change the nature and play of the game in a major way. A game's mechanics will either account for narrative constructs or it won't. 

This is why, no matter what direction is chosen, about half of the D&D population won't like the basic assumptions used.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> It is difficult to play a game about adventurers exploring a world with mechanics that constantly blather on about "the narrative" which has nothing to do with roleplaying whatsoever.



How's so? Why do you find it difficult?

And as for narrative, I find it has quite a bit to do with roleplaying. Acting in character has little meaning without a narrative provide context and to give a character's action meaning.



> Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. A narrative control card, when used, switches the player perspective from adventurer to author. As an author, the player is engaging the game from outside the adventurer role.



Sometimes. Sometimes a group's DM will adjudicate what happens. In either case, using such an ability is the player saying how they'd like to see things unfold, but by shorthanding it into a power that is fairly specifically defined, is arguably less immersion breaking than, say, an open ended thing like Drama points, or whathaveyou.



> While this is not badwrongfun it does change the nature and play of the game in a major way. A game's mechanics will either account for narrative constructs or it won't.
> 
> This is why, no matter what direction is chosen, about half of the D&D population won't like the basic assumptions used.



I don't think it's that simple. Binary thinking doesn't encompass the whole of the situation. Why can't a game's mechanics provide options to account for narrative constructs while leaving them optional for those who don't care to use them?

As it is, nothing stops a group (or even just the DM) from deciding these things for themselves, in any edition. Don't like x? Don't use x. It has always been that way. Conversely, if you want to add y - go for it. D&D has always, if nothing else, been an adaptable framework.

I see no need for polarizing arguments. There is no need to say, if it pleases one group then the other MUST be unhappy. I think it is possible to accomodate both, if not necessarily at the same time / table.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 21, 2011)

Mallus said:


> But as soon as the Fighter uses CaGI, the NPC's intent _changes_ to "I want to get up in that fighter's grill and smack him".




Ah. Mind Control without a roll (pre-errata). Another power that shouldn't be in the Martial Power source.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> But here's the thing - CaGI, and powers like it, are basically like giving players 'narrative control cards' that they can invoke pretty much any time.




First off, they differ very significantly from narrative control cards in that they have to be played at a particular time by a particular character and cause that character to lose their standard action. 

Secondly, I would not at all approve of a narrative control card that said "At one point you can force any enemy whatsoever to move towards the fighter regardless of whether or not it makes any sense for that enemy to move towards the fighter at that time"

CAGI works against creatures regardless of their size, will, intelligence (including non intelligent vermin), whether or not they can currently move voluntarily, etc


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 21, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> *Diagonal Movement same as regular movement:* This change caused a lot of fuss when it was first announced. People said they would never use such an unrealistic and "gamey" concept. Yet years later it isn't really talked about much. Why?.




This is actually the rule that I hate the most in 4th Ed. I especially hate the fact that 3rd edition had a perfectly elegant solution to the problem that was very easy to apply even for most innumerate types and close enough to reality for even a math geek like myself.

But I only rarely talk about it any more because it is obvious that the vast majority of players don't care about it. There really is nothing else to say about it that hasn't been said. It is an absurdly idiotic rule but people like it.

Yeah, I know, I just failed my will save and started talking about it. Sorry about that. But at least that is a rare event now.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> First off, they differ very significantly from narrative control cards in that they have to be played at a particular time by a particular character and cause that character to lose their standard action.



That makes complete sense. It is still a game, after all. If you are granting a player temporary narrative control, then logically, you must establish limits for that control, or it quickly degenerates into, "I win," or, *bang-bang* "I shot you!," "no, you didn't!" nonsense.



> Secondly, I would not at all approve of a narrative control card that said "At one point you can force any enemy whatsoever to move towards the fighter regardless of whether or not it makes any sense for that enemy to move towards the fighter at that time"



Again, there are limits. And what makes sense is largely determined by the narrative, which can accomodate these things. Some people aren't very good at that, or find it jarring, and that's fine. Nothing forces them to allow or to use such things.



> CAGI works against creatures regardless of their size, will, intelligence (including non intelligent vermin), whether or not they can currently move voluntarily, etc



Regardless, apparently it was enough of an issue that it is no longer automatic - it's been errata'd to include a roll. So what you point out here is no longer completely correct.

Though it still does break the condition of moving voluntarily, most conditions in 4e should not be interpreted literally, at least not all the time. The other things can all be accounted for within the scope of the narrative.

I am not trying to force anyone to change their ways here - by all means, play however you like. I enjoy the narrativist approach though, and any new edition will have to take that into account, or it will fail to capture a significant portion of the gamers out there.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> How's so? Why do you find it difficult?
> 
> And as for narrative, I find it has quite a bit to do with roleplaying. Acting in character has little meaning without a narrative provide context and to give a character's action meaning.




Quite simply because when narrating begins, roleplaying stops. At any given time you are doing one or the other. 



Nemesis Destiny said:


> Sometimes. Sometimes a group's DM will adjudicate what happens. In either case, using such an ability is the player saying how they'd like to see things unfold, but by shorthanding it into a power that is fairly specifically defined, is arguably less immersion breaking than, say, an open ended thing like Drama points, or whathaveyou.




" how they'd like to see things unfold" is yet another observation from a storytelling perspective. 





Nemesis Destiny said:


> I don't think it's that simple. Binary thinking doesn't encompass the whole of the situation. Why can't a game's mechanics provide options to account for narrative constructs while leaving them optional for those who don't care to use them?




There are games that can do so. It is not impossible. GURPS can be played ultra gritty or super cinematic depending on what options are plugged in. The problem is that D&D is not generic, it is fairly specific with its traditions. It would be difficult to manage and still keep the " D&Dness" intact.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 21, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Quite simply because when narrating begins, roleplaying stops. At any given time you are doing one or the other.



You can have narrative, in the sense of "story elements" that isn't explicitly narration. Maybe my group is just odd, but we often explore the story, the narrative, _through_ roleplaying and roleplaying encounters. 



> There are games that can do so. It is not impossible. GURPS can be played ultra gritty or super cinematic depending on what options are plugged in. The problem is that D&D is not generic, it is fairly specific with its traditions. It would be difficult to manage and still keep the " D&Dness" intact.



I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time then. 

I think the core of your statement remains true, to a point. What "D&D-ness" is, is different for different people, or at very least it can be perceived differently.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> You can have narrative, in the sense of "story elements" that isn't explicitly narration. Maybe my group is just odd, but we often explore the story, the narrative, _through_ roleplaying and roleplaying encounters.




Story elements are added to the story, which can be told after play is concluded. 



Nemesis Destiny said:


> I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time then.




Impossible. I was referring to the design of a theoretical D&D game that provided mechanics and options for both styles of play.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> *Fighter Daily Powers*: On the other hand, years later I still see complains about this one. Why?
> 
> First of all, Dnd culture has known for years that one primary difference between Wizards and fighters is that wizards have limited spells, and a fighter can fight all day long. That convention has been around a long time, and still affects our expectations.
> 
> But even with that people are generally comfortable with encounter powers for fighters. So the idea that the fighter isn't at full strength every moment has been generally accepted. So why encounter powers and not dailies?




For the record, I have a problem with both encounter and daily powers for fighters. My problem is that they use the Vancian "use it and lose it" model; you get to use each of your encounter powers exactly once per encounter. You can use Attack Power X once and Attack Power Y once, but you can't use Attack Power X twice, or Attack Power Y twice. This makes no sense. It was bad enough when it was just wizards and clerics who had to deal with that crap.

(This is a source of some bitterness for me, actually. I've disliked Vancian casting since I started playing in 1987. When 4E was under development, they promised me non-Vancian wizards. But when the game finally came out, not only were wizards still Vancian, _every other class was Vancian too!_ Until Essentials came out, I was stuck with the Vancian mechanic no matter what, and I still don't have a non-Vancian spellcaster option.)


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 21, 2011)

Fighter powers are usually reliable, so they can actually use them over and over and over again until they hit.

Once they hit, doing it AGAIN is going to start making the fight boring, so they do something else.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Once they hit, doing it AGAIN is going to start making the fight boring, so they do something else.




I know why the mechanic works the way it does in a metagame sense. My point is that it's incomprehensible in terms of what's going on in the game world. You don't stop using a winning tactic because it's _boring.

_(I should also add that from a metagame perspective, it's lazy design. It's an attempt to impose variety by fiat; you want people to not use the same power over and over, but instead of putting some thought into designing powers that are useful in different situations, you just disallow using the same power twice.)


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I know why the mechanic works the way it does in a metagame sense. My point is that it's incomprehensible in terms of what's going on in the game world. You don't stop using a winning tactic because it's _boring.
> _



_

Encounter powers for martial characters don't really bother me, at least not all of them do. They can be seen as special moves that, once used, leave the rest of the witnesses wise to that trick. Of course, based on the fluff and general behavior of the powers, that rationale doesn't always make sense.

It also does absolutely nothing to indicate why dailies can only be used once/day._


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 21, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Regardless, apparently it was enough of an issue that it is no longer automatic - it's been errata'd to include a roll. So what you point out here is no longer completely correct.



I'm definitely refering to the original CAGI. I stopped tracking 4th ed changes in any detail well over a year ago



> I am not trying to force anyone to change their ways here - by all means, play however you like. I enjoy the narrativist approach though, and any new edition will have to take that into account, or it will fail to capture a significant portion of the gamers out there.




I'm most certainly not trying to convince anybody that their way of gaming is BadWrongFun. Just trying to point out why I think that 4th ed went too far for personal taste.

I think that you've nailed the problem on the head with this last, however.

For better or for worse I think that the split between 3rd (including PF) and 4th has made the age old differences between gaming styles far more visible than before. Trying to make a 5th edition that will be a sufficient compromise to make me want to adopt it while also making it one that YOU will want to adopt is going to be very, very difficult. And trying too hard could easily alienate both of us.


----------



## Pour (Dec 21, 2011)

I think 4e actually relies a lot less than past editions on the mechanics informing the in-game. During real play many, many powers across classes are not described, and certainly not tyrannized, by the flavor text or mechanics. I think a lot of non-4e players are looking for direct correlations between mechanics like encounter/daily, or half damage on a miss, or losing healing surges and the game world, and I'm not sure many 4thers really play that way. 

The encounter/daily business with a martial character is just a mechanically better move that is in a character's arsenal, which, at some point in the game, the player decides to use- maybe during a difficult fight, or when the condition or benefit is ideal. No one in any table, Encounters session, Maptool, or VT game that I've seen has stumbled over this notion that the fighter can no longer swing his sword in a 'daily power way'. I mean it doesn't even cross into player minds why they can't do it again. Players know that there is an allotted amount of game resources- but, unlike past edition wizards memorizing spells and that, then, being described directly in-game as a fusion of mechanics and game world (and in doing kind of forcing a setting assumption into every core game)- 4e mechanics have whatever in-game affect you want them to. 4e is huge on reflavoring and personalizing. I really believe it a strength.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 21, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I know why the mechanic works the way it does in a metagame sense. My point is that it's incomprehensible in terms of what's going on in the game world. You don't stop using a winning tactic because it's _boring.
> _



_

In a story, you sure as heck do. 4th edition is cinematic. Repetition is not cinematic. *The game world is cinematic.*

_


Dausuul said:


> (I should also add that from a metagame perspective, it's lazy design. It's an attempt to impose variety by fiat; you want people to not use the same power over and over, but instead of putting some thought into designing powers that are useful in different situations, you just disallow using the same power twice.)




That would just be a lazy way to hide that your powers are encounter powers.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

Pour said:


> I think 4e actually relies a lot less than past editions on the mechanics informing the in-game. During real play many, many powers across classes are not described, and certainly not tyrannized, by the flavor text or mechanics.




It's interesting that you think of this as being "tyrannized," where I see it as "supported." To me, one of the fundamental tasks of the mechanics is to inform the in-game. That's the difference between Magic: The Gathering, where the flavor elements are there as decoration, and D&D, where the flavor elements are the beating heart of the game.

On occasion in the early days of 4E, I heard statements from the designers along the lines of, "We're not going to tell you how to flavor mechanic X. You get to do that yourself!"

That's like Dell saying, "We're not going to tell you how to install your operating system. You get to do that yourself!" I don't _want_ to do that myself. Part of what I'm paying Dell* for is to do that for me so I don't have to deal with it. I may tweak a few settings from the factory standard, but I don't want to have to install the entire OS from the ground up. Likewise, I may tweak the flavor a bit on this element or that, but I don't want to have to make up flavor for all of D&D.



Pour said:


> I think a lot of non-4e players are looking for direct correlations between mechanics like encounter/daily, or half damage on a miss, or losing healing surges and the game world, and I'm not sure many 4thers really play that way.




I play and run 4E. The game's strengths in other areas are enough to overcome my annoyance with dissociated mechanics.  Those strengths include rock-solid game balance, first-rate support for the DM, resource recovery between encounters, lack of having to flip back and forth between books, the elimination of instant-death mechanics, and tight control on "world-breaker" elements like flight and invisibility.

But if I could get those strengths _and_ not have to deal with the dissociated mechanics, I would be an exceedingly happy camper.



Pour said:


> 4e mechanics have whatever in-game affect you want them to. 4e is huge on reflavoring and personalizing. I really believe it a strength.




It's a strength if that's something you want to spend your time doing. If it isn't, it's a weakness.

[size=-2]*Not that I actually buy my computers from Dell. But you get the idea.[/size]


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> In a story, you sure as heck do.




In a story, you sure as heck don't. If you give your protagonist an awesome power, and she's in a situation where that power would be just the thing, and she doesn't use that power, you give a reason why, if you don't want readers rolling their eyes and thinking, "What a moron." Do enough of that, and you start losing readers because your protagonist has the Idiot Ball chained to her leg. It's why I quit watching "Heroes."


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Even though I don't prioritise immersion while playing D&D, I think 4E's "bloodied" condition actually can help with this a good deal. In 4E other players will pretty much never _*need*_ to know anything about another player's character's hit points except "are they/you bloodied" and "are they/you _hors de combat_ (<0 hp)". And I think both of these are very easily "justified" in the fiction:
> 
> - Bloodied is when the damage becomes visible; before bloodied the creature looks no different from when it started the fight, but when bloodied it has scratches, bruises and other signs of damage. Or maybe just its hair is mussed up - or Captain James T. Kirk's tunic is torn, now...
> 
> - At <0 hit points the creature is out of the fight; not, necessarily, literally unconscious, but no longer able to act.



This fits with my experience, and is how it works for NPCs in our game, but the players in my game go into more detail than that with their hps, in order to more optimally ration their healing. It doesn't both me (or, I assume, them, given that they do it!) but I do think it breaks immersion.



Johnny3D3D said:


> I think the term 'Bloodied' might carry some baggage with it at this point in 4E's life though.  When I GM, I usually describe a machine or construct as being 'oily' instead of bloodied or I might say that a part of a zombie's body has fallen off.  I change the term if I feel doing so fits the theme of the creature better; though, if I sense player confusion, I follow it up by clarifying that I mean the creature is 'Bloodied' as in the game mechanics term.





LurkAway said:


> AFAIK, many 4E groups treat 'bloodied' as a pure metagame construct with no simulationist element, and I agree that this would usually have to be true (which is exactly why it's non-immersive for me).



My experience is Johnny3D3D's - we don't treat bloodied as pure metagame, and I narrate zombies, golem's etc as Johnny describes it (with the mechanical clarification following the narration).



LurkAway said:


> In addition to above, this eliminates the possibility of drawing first blood on the 1st round, then deducting morale/luck/stamina/karma hit points afterwards.



First blood can be drawn on the first round - a crit by a striker can do it, for example.

I'll agree it's not that common with a non-minion.


----------



## Aenghus (Dec 21, 2011)

The 4e rules support the bloodied condition being known about, as all condtions are public information, and both players and monsters can act on this information. 

In my gameworld "bloodied" means the creature concerned is visibly beaten up and starting to suffer from it - depending on the creature and situation this could be anything from cuts and scrapes to a nasty gash on a living creature to a lack of energy to physical damage and bits falling off on corporeal undead and constructs, to a tattered look for incorporeal creatures. 

I actually don't make all conditions  completely public, I make some judgement calls, there are situations where PCs or monsters know some effect is in play but don't know the details.

I've never had a problem with describing the condition, and have seen no players who have problems understanding the concept, for what anecdotal evidence is worth.

This is a good example of the fragmentation of the player base. People can have strong opinions for or against every element of setting and mechanics, and the chances of finding compatible players get smaller and smaller the longer and more detailed this set of likes and dislikes gets. 

And the emergent properties of any particular set of preferences can get so complex that meaningful discussion gets very difficult, the further the preferred game is from the theoretical unhouseruled baseline.


----------



## Walking Dad (Dec 21, 2011)

I haven't read the whole thread, but my two cents:

- realism isn't as important to me as verisimilitude and consistency of the "gameworld reality".

- I hate "realism" as an excuse to disallow cool and powerful things for "martial" characters. If their power is cut, because it is "unrealistic" to be that powerful and able to do things, but the others can change reality at a whim because it is "magic", you create different tiers of power. IMHO, this is a bad thing, even in cooperative games. If you reduce the martial abilities because of realism, you should use the same power level for magic. Because you find it more realistic to create a new plane of existence than jumping far in plate armor doesn't mean this would be a good game. Reduce what magic can do keeps it "realistic".


----------



## pemerton (Dec 22, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> they differ very significantly from narrative control cards in that they have to be played at a particular time by a particular character and cause that character to lose their standard action.





billd91 said:


> If the PC is spending an action and having an effect, I really want the causality to be fairly clear. I don't want a PC action to generate some other narrative effect not related to the PC's action.
> 
> If I want any actions to have a non-PC caused narrative effect, I want it to come from *the player* not from his avatar in the game setting.





billd91 said:


> I don't see it as giving narrative control cards to the player. It's giving them to the *character* and uses a character's actions to achieve an effect not directly related to any cause the character could effect.



But the decision to treat it as a PC resource and not a player resource is entirely in your hands. The action economy, likewise, including opportunity and immediate actions, is a player resource and not a PC resource - if you treat it the other way round, then immersion must be impossible, and verisimilitude lost, because you'd have to immerse yourself in an absurd stop-motion, turn-based world.



pauljathome said:


> But it is incredibly jarring that suddenly the massively intelligent wizard with a huge will who doesn't even speak my language decides to come up close and smack the big huge fighter with his dagger. That is atrocious and unbelievably bad fiction.



Has this ever happened in your game? Or anyone else's?

In my game, a massively intelligent wizard has never decided to suddenly close with the fighter to attack. But the wizard (or archer, or ...) has found himself wrongfooted by the fighter, and in melee when he didn't want to be, or has tried to fall back but found no clear path and ended up next to the fighter, or . . . 



Dausuul said:


> My point is that it's incomprehensible in terms of what's going on in the game world. You don't stop using a winning tactic because it's _boring._



_Again, martial dailies generally don't represent a winning tactic. They represent a luckier/cleverer move. Every attack the fighter makes, s/he intends to be a brutal strike. Once per day, the player can make his/her own luck and specify that an attack, if it hits, really will be a Brutal Strike and do 3x damage.



KarinsDad said:



			Other players cannot encourage the PC to get up with a shout. Why can't the Heal skill be used at range to do this?
		
Click to expand...


At the metagame level - because it's about a balanced distribution of capacities.

In the fiction - that's just how it plays out - no PC is ever roused by dreams of a non-warlord. It's like in HeroWars/Quest - everyone can have friends, but only those PCs with Relationship attributes will be able to get augments from those relationships.

As [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] said, and as I've said in the past - these powers often don't correspond to manoeuvres performed by the PC, but action/fate points expended by the player. They are player metagame resources, used to manipulate the fiction.



KarinsDad said:



			In a moment, that PC might be dead due to failing death saving throws. He goes from being dead to being "just a flesh wound" because the Warlord asks him to get back on his feet.
		
Click to expand...


Again, it's not a change in the fiction. It's a fortune-in-the-middole resolution of something as yet unsettled at the metagame level. It solidifies the fiction one way or the other.



KarinsDad said:



			The way Inspiring Word SHOULD have been worded is temporary hit points.
		
Click to expand...


This is true if you want the game to be simulationist in its mechanics. My objection to Monte's column is that he just assumes that this is how the game should be designed without even canvassing other sorts of design. Which is just bizarre, given that he's working for a company whose flagship game uses a different, non-simulationist sort of design.



KarinsDad said:



			Ah. Mind Control without a roll (pre-errata).
		
Click to expand...


Why are you interpreting what is clearly a metagame matter as if it involves ingame causation by the PC doing something?



KarinsDad said:



			You have to really stretch the fiction to get to your conclusions.
		
Click to expand...


I don't see how it's stretching the fiction to say that a PC recovers because of an inspiring dream, or seeing something inspiring through half-closed eyes.

And let me turn it around - how can a game like Runequest or even 3E replicate either of the scenes I mentioned - Aragorn recovering with a dream of Arwen, or a fallen fighter recovering from a wound/swoon as s/he first sees, and then hears, her leader calling upon her to get back up to her feet._


----------



## pemerton (Dec 22, 2011)

Tymophil said:


> In a nutshell, my point is that D&D4 has many (most) of the ingredients required to build a believable fictionnal reality... But it takes quite a fair amount of energy from the user (GM and player) to make them surface.



I agree with this. 4e needs much better advice (especially to the GM) on how to handle the story in light of the mechanics - at the moment, especially when you compare it to the terrific mechanical/tactical advice on encounter building.



Dausuul said:


> On occasion in the early days of 4E, I heard statements from the designers along the lines of, "We're not going to tell you how to flavor mechanic X. You get to do that yourself!"



Thankfully, they were mistaken. But, once again, the rulebooks don't help out in the way they should.

The anchor between mechanics and fiction is *keywords*. The flavour text at the top of a power is (in my view) really neither here nor there, but the keywords are crucial. So a deathlock wight or an enigma of vecna, when it pushes a PC with its *fear* effect, isn't literally pushing them: the forced movement corresponds to the PC fleeing out of fright. (That's what the fear keyword tells us.) Similarly, a fireball can set fire to a barn, but not freeze a puddle, while icy terrain is the opposite, because one does fire damage and the other cold damage.

Unfortunately, the rulebooks only talk explicitly about the mechanics-to-mechanics roll of keywords, not their role as a bridge between mechanics and fiction. The only place I know of in the rules where this second role is mentioned is in the discussion of object damage.



LurkAway said:


> Firstly, gameplay changed from 1st person perspective to a bird's eye view or 3/4 perspective _and someone forgot to tell me!_ It wasn't until a few years ago I suppose that I learned about non-Actor stance on Enworld. Maybe other people were always playing with a 3/4 perspective pre-4E and I was clueless otherwise. Why this focus on narrativist playstyle wasn't even mentioned in the 4E preview I have _no_ idea.



This is very interesting, because while I agree that 4e's advice/commentary could be a lot better, I thought that the way the game should be played was pretty obvious from how the mechanics were written. This is the first post I can think of where I've seen someone say not just that they don't like it, but that it wasn't clear. Yet more evidence that WotC writers need to steal more from better game manuals!

Btw, I don't think you _have_ to abandon actor stance. The player of the paladin in my game plays almost constantly in actor stance (although will talk about his PC in third person style during breaks in play), and can use metagame mechanics without breaking actor stance because he describes it in terms of what his PC ("I") am experiencing/seeing/doing. On the other hand, the player of the wizard said a few weeks ago that one thing he likes about 4e is that he can "play" his PC rather than "be" his PC, and he likes that - he said that, over the years, he has discovered that he prefers the "playing" to the "being" approach.

I think part of why the game can support this is because it entangles its player resources with PC resources (in terms of powers, hit points etc) so different players can deploy those mechanics in different ways and with different attitues. I think that, at least in this way, 4e is pluralist rather than monistic in its approach to supporting playstyles. (As [MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION] said in post #127.)



Johnny3D3D said:


> I remember one of the first games in which I went from 1-30.  Part of the campaign took the party into The Nine Hells.  I forget exactly which level it was (I've played a lot of D&D since then, so the details are fuzzy,) but there was a giant black gate which was the barrier between the level of hell we were on and the next one.  Our goal was to seek an audience with Asmodeus, so we need to walk to his layer.  Supposedly the gate was this super material we could not break -based on fluff; a few at-wills later, and the party was on the other side.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I couldn't XP your reply to my post, but wanted to respond just to this point.

My game hasn't got to Epic tier yet, so I don't have the same sort of experience you're describing here. But what your post makes me think is that something was going wrong with the fiction - the mechanics were delivering a story about a group of heroic demigods scourging the Hells, but in the fiction the PCs weren't being conceived of in that way by the participants in the game (I also get this feeling from your comparison to Frodo - Frodo was not a demigod).

I don't know if you read the latest D&D Outsider, but it talked about incorporating paragon paths and epic destinies into the fiction. This passage struck me in particular:

Demonskin adept? Hey guys, you all saw me sewing together that cloak made of demon skins, ok? Because I need those. And totally had them.​
I was struck by this because one of the PCs in my game _is_ a Demonskin Adept, and from 8th level on, every time the PCs would fight and beat demons, the player would make a point of mentioning his PC collecting the skins. And for all but one of the other PCs, there were events in play leading up to their paragon paths.

I think the game needs the GM and players to work together to produce the fiction that the mechanics reflect. If the fiction just remains at the "adventurers raiding dungeons" level, or the fiction doesn't change to reflect the PCs as paragon and then epic figures in the world, then it won't work. (I don't know if this is how your game was - it's the vibe I got from your post, but of course I could be misunderstanding.)



ExploderWizard said:


> The most sensible only if the goal of the game is collaborative storytelling.



The whole point of narrativist game design - which is what 4e is influenced by in respect of the mechanics we're discussing - is to allow a story to emerge from play _without_ collaborative storytelling. See the discussion here.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 22, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Story elements are added to the story, which can be told after play is concluded.




I would point out that this is one way to play, but hardly the only way to play.  Story elements being added during play is the meat and potatoes of a whole slew of games.  Even D&D - with Action Points being a prime example.




> Impossible. I was referring to the design of a theoretical D&D game that provided mechanics and options for both styles of play.




Honestly, I do agree with you here.  You're just not going to be able to include both sides of the coin into the same game.  Previous editions were much more on the "Story elements are added after play" and 4e has leaned a lot more on some of the more Indie games and added lots of "story elements are added during play" stuff.  Trying to reconcile the two into one game just won't work.

Someone along the line mentioned a sort of core Savage Worlds style book for the base mechanics and then two or three separate DMG's designed to speak to the different playstyles.  I do think that this is the right way to go.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 22, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> In a story, you sure as heck don't. If you give your protagonist an awesome power, and she's in a situation where that power would be just the thing, and she doesn't use that power, you give a reason why, if you don't want readers rolling their eyes and thinking, "What a moron." Do enough of that, and you start losing readers because your protagonist has the Idiot Ball chained to her leg. It's why I quit watching "Heroes."




I see this in books a lot to the point that I don't read books as often as I used to.

I roll my eyes and say "What an idiot." (I like the word idiot better than moron, I also like using the personal term Audiot due to an extremely idiotic Audi driver who ended up having my daughter spontaneously create this word with the phrase "What an Audiot!" ). The George R.R. Martin Song of Ice and Fire series comes to mind (as does the Wheel of Time series). I'm immersed in the story and suddenly a character does something either totally stupid given their abilities, or the character does something totally out of character, and I'm suddenly realizing that I am reading a book.

This can happen in movies or TV shows (Heroes is a good example) and it can definitely happen in 4E. It also happened in 3E and earlier versions of the game, but 4E is a bit more jarring about it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't see how it's stretching the fiction to say that a PC recovers because of an inspiring dream, or seeing something inspiring through half-closed eyes.




For me, it's because it's the martial power source. The martial power source should be martial. In a sense, non-magical.

The inspiring dream should be psionic or arcane or even divine.

If the "seeing something inspiring through half-closed eyes" is allowed in the game, then this non-magical inspiration should occur regardless of who above you is trying to inspire you (similar to Intimidate, anyone should be able to do it).

If Charisma can be used to fight good with a melee weapon, then it should be able to be used to encourage an ally to no longer be unconscious through "half closed eyes" by anyone.

In other words, if the narrative description is that the unconscious PC is being inspired, then any PC should be able to inspire that PC because it is not a magical or psionic dream.

Bottom line, the mechanics drive the narrative instead of the other way around. (Non-magical) healing by shouting does not make sense, so the narrative has to be changed so that it isn't actually healing so that the narrative can fit the mechanics. Otherwise, it doesn't.



pemerton said:


> And let me turn it around - how can a game like Runequest or even 3E replicate either of the scenes I mentioned - Aragorn recovering with a dream of Arwen, or a fallen fighter recovering from a wound/swoon as s/he first sees, and then hears, her leader calling upon her to get back up to her feet.




The first scene can be handled via magic easier than through non-magical descriptions, even in earlier versions of the game.

The second scene doesn't matter. It's not important. The only reason we are even talking about it is because of the illogic of non-magical healing in the game resulting in a plethora of narrative changes to what healing and hit points means.

I have never once played with a PC Warlord in the group where the narrative described "seeing through half closed eyes" was used. Instead, it was always hand-waved away. "You're healed".

I've also had a player (and separately, a DM) say "Warlord healing is magical" as part of the PC's narrative and background description, just because non-magical healing from across the room is so jarring to some people.


----------



## Pour (Dec 22, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> It's interesting that you think of this as being "tyrannized," where I see it as "supported." To me, one of the fundamental tasks of the mechanics is to inform the in-game.



I think there in lies our big difference. I believe the mechanics facilitate the game more than inform it. For that I rely on my setting expectations, my judgements in-game, and my players' actions and applications of powers and skills. I consider it a welcome freedom to be able to interpret how the mechanics affect in-game, though there are clear guides baked into any power or item. 

As was mentioned above, fireballs will not be able to freeze water, however, they could ignite material, signal a distant army to attack, and perhaps coupled with an Arcana check sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon long enough to land safely (as part of a larger skill challenge).

From my experience, the mechanics themselves are not the beating heart of the game, rather their application, and 4e really allows my group and me the ultimate freedoms to play the kinds of games we enjoy most. I never saw the mechanics too vague or overly disassociated, rather a sound framework in order to apply our own logic to the game.

There's three other editions and many a setting and module and assumption of play that goes into those assumptions and logic, the mood and feel of what it is to play D&D, colored by video games, board games, books, movies, music, history, and all our other interests, but that comes from us, not the mechanics, not the tools we use to run the game. I've run my best campaign to date in 4e.

And I completely agree with your assessment of the strengths listed. And I love 4e for them.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 22, 2011)

Pour said:


> I'm not presuming to tell your wife how to have fun, but just because of specific terminology like bloodied the immersion was ruined for her?




It was a double-blast of WTF that got her (and me a bit too).

1)  She mind blasted a skeleton, which has no mind

2) The skeleton was bloodied, though it has no blood

It was actually the first part that irked her more than the second.  I had to actually coax her to use the power, even though she kept arguing that it shouldn't have worked.  I finally just had to tell her it was a game and to just go with.  It left her unsatisfied, and she dropped out of the game shortly thereafter.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 22, 2011)

Pour said:


> As was mentioned above, fireballs will not be able to freeze water, however, they could ignite material, signal a distant army to attack, and perhaps coupled with an Arcana check sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon long enough to land safely (as part of a larger skill challenge).




This is the part of the issue that some people might be missing.

A Fireball doesn't ignite material in 4E.

It requires handwaving or house rules from the DM to allow an Arcana check to sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon. Arcana is a knowledge skill. It doesn't technically give the ability to modify spells unless the DM states that it can.

A given skill challenge might allow for it, but the power itself and the general skill rules do not.

The targets of a Fireball spell are the creatures in the area. Not paper in the area. Not a table.

In 3.5, a Fireball could ignite material.


4E has become very metagamey and rules driven and not narrative driven. It's more like a game of Monopoly than an RPG in some respects.


As a different example, there are elemental attack spells that only target enemies (e.g. Storm Pillar, Flames of Purity, Fires of Judgement, Flame Spiral, etc.). People have to narratively stretch that to say "Well, I'm summoning elemental creatures that do the damage against my enemies, that's why it doesn't target my allies", or "my god attacks only my enemies" (but that doesn't happen with other prayers), or whatever.

Say what?

The game mechanics of some elemental powers allow for them to attack only enemies, but fire and lightning and acid shouldn't have cognitive reasoning powers. They should just do elemental damage, especially at heroic levels. At Paragon and Epic levels, yeah maybe one could stretch it that the elemental powers are quasi-intelligent or totally within the control of the caster/user.

But at low level, powers should not be this precise. Blasts should be blasts that hit everyone in them. Bursts should be bursts that hit everyone in them. Especially elemental bursts and blasts.

Instead of some type of power capability based on level and based on keyword, level merely indicates how much damage something does and possibly the strength of a conditional effect. Instead of the elemental power affecting every object in the area, it only affects living creatures.

This is where the disconnect comes in for some players.

A Fireball is no longer fire. It's a multi-creature effect that doesn't really burn. Not really. Sure, fire resistance helps against it, but in a room of papers, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> This is where the disconnect comes in for some players.
> 
> A Fireball is no longer fire. It's a multi-creature effect that doesn't really burn. Not really. Sure, fire resistance helps against it, but in a room of papers, it doesn't matter.





That's more than just a disconnect for the players.  It's a jumble of disconnects for the players, the rules, and for language.


----------



## Pour (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> A Fireball is no longer fire. It's a multi-creature effect that doesn't really burn. Not really. Sure, fire resistance helps against it, but in a room of papers, it doesn't matter.




In the case of poisoning a skeleton in 3.5e, it truly would be impossible. The rules clearly state it, so don't bother. In 4e, the marrow shrivels, the bones split, and the thing collapses. This harkens to the design goals, and 4e's underlying notion of "Yes, you can." That is not a style that fits everyone, nor is it a constant in my 4e games (for instance, in my games elementals are not injured by their element, period hehe), but I think the rules lean toward creative problem solving and are open to many judgements if the DM is willing to look beyond the RAW. 

The game in its crudest form starts with a basic power block and the RAW, and for beginners and those who favor simplicity to the letter it functions well. If a DM and a group want to play a game where fireballs don't light things up, that's doable, but for many of us the RAW is taken further by the gamers: players (who use the powers) and DMs (who interpret the RAW and encourage said applications and resolutions beyond what's written, utilizing, among other things, his own logic and desire). Due to 4e's shyness toward mechanics directly correlating with the game world, this is possible in any degree we wish. 

Am I fundamentally altering 4e beyond recognition? No way. I do think it is house ruling, but hasn't that been a practice as long lived as the book rules themselves? I don't see adapting the rules beyond the page as a weakness of a system. The rules are there when I need them, and open enough to allow me to change what I want to.

The fireball can indeed ignite a room of papers if the DM allows it, and I imagine a good deal of players detonating it within a library want that very thing to happen. I'm not relying on the rules to substitute for my logic, desired playstyle, setting assumptions, or player intentions. I'm using the rules solely to offer a balanced play experience, a fair resolution. They are a suite of tools I apply as I see fit to the game world- liberating, not limiting. That doesn't make the rules arbitrary, so long as the DM's rulings are consistent.

That said, I'm not arguing some people's desire for specific rules with specific affects detailed for them. Some people like, want, and need the details. There is plenty out there for them, too.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> This is the part of the issue that some people might be missing.
> 
> A Fireball doesn't ignite material in 4E.
> <snip>
> The targets of a Fireball spell are the creatures in the area. Not paper in the area. Not a table.



Actually, what the rules say, is for the DM to make a ruling (Rules Compendium, p.107). It specifically spells it out: powers that target creatures may also target objects in the area. That's not a _houserule_, it's a _judgment call_, and one the *rules specifically tell the DM to make.* 

Find me a DM unreasonable enough to rule that a fireball won't damage a room full of paper and wooden tables.

I suspect that this clause is in the rules in order to prevent abuse, and to _reinforce _common sense, rather than fly in the face of it. As in, _"no, you can't batter down this door with your Mind Thrust!"_


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But the decision to treat it as a PC resource and not a player resource is entirely in your hands. The action economy, likewise, including opportunity and immediate actions, is a player resource and not a PC resource - if you treat it the other way round, then immersion must be impossible, and verisimilitude lost, because you'd have to immerse yourself in an absurd stop-motion, turn-based world.




Deciding to treat it as a PC resource or player resource is not entirely in the player's hands. If it takes up a PC's turn, it's a PC resource, as is the action economy. Abstracting the actions a character can take into manageable operational bits doesn't take it away from a PC resource nor force viewing the world in stop-motion.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> For me, it's because it's the martial power source. The martial power source should be martial. In a sense, non-magical.
> 
> The inspiring dream should be psionic or arcane or even divine.
> 
> ...




Did you have the same reaction in 3e with Extraordinary abilities?  Because Ex abilities are exactly the same as Martial powers.  They are not inherently magical (can't be dispelled, work in an anti-magic zone) but they are certainly not normal either.

I treat Martial powers in the same way.  Ex abilities allowed my monk to effectively Feather Fall, dodge fireballs, be immune to diseases, and actually granted me spell resistance and speak to any living creature.  Somehow my training as a monk, completely non magical, renders me immune to magic and allows me to automatically communicate with anything in the universe.

To me, there isn't a huge difference here between 3.5's Ex abilities and 4e's Martial powers.  

And, let's be honest here, the Supernatural abilities were just a patch to allow certain types of casters to bypass spell resistance.  

I've never really gotten why people have such a difficult time swallowing a fighter having powers and yet never, ever complained about, say, a monk, doing the exact same thing.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 22, 2011)

While I'm not fond of 4E's occasional dip into the narrativism pool, in fairness I should point out that things aren't as bad as people make them out to be. Otherwise I'd have quit 4E long ago. Come and Get It is an outlier; most powers can be narrated in the traditional way without trouble (and now even CaGI has been fixed). Pretty much all 4E undead have poison and disease immunity. As Nemesis Destiny has pointed out, fireballs can ignite objects at DM discretion. And Essentials has provided at least the option to have martial classes without the Vancian mechanic.

I do want to touch on Stormonu's point about terminology though. I think that's one area where 4E could be made a lot stronger with a relatively small amount of work. The words chosen to represent in-game concepts are hugely important. When they are well-chosen, they support the concept and help players grasp the underlying mechanic. When they are ill-chosen, they're a constant drag on immersion.

I honestly think the healing surge mechanic wouldn't have caused nearly as much of a ruckus if they had just called them "heroic surges" instead. "Healing surge" is an immersion-wrecker because it implies that the warlord yells at you and your wounds close. Likewise, "bloodied" could be replaced by "battered," perhaps*.

[size=-2]*Although I find myself intrigued by the idea that critters without blood could be immune to bloodying. That would both improve immersion and add a neat new mechanical ability for certain monsters.[/size]


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 22, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I honestly think the healing surge mechanic wouldn't have caused nearly as much of a ruckus if they had just called them "heroic surges" instead. "Healing surge" is an immersion-wrecker because it implies that the warlord yells at you and your wounds close. Likewise, "bloodied" could be replaced by "battered," perhaps*.
> 
> [size=-2]*Although I find myself intrigued by the idea that critters without blood could be immune to bloodying. That would both improve immersion and add a neat new mechanical ability for certain monsters.[/size]




It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.

Also, "bloodied" just means "half hit points." "Half hit points" just sounds lame and gamey.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 22, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.




Since presentation and choice of words are a large part of what sets D&D apart from a mediocre board game, I think they are quite legitimate grounds for criticism.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 22, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.
> 
> Also, "bloodied" just means "half hit points." "Half hit points" just sounds lame and gamey.



I think it's reflective of the "intuitiveness" issue that was raised earlier in the thread. In many cases, terminology was retained and it generally works, but in the (usually new) cases where it does not, it becomes non-intuitive and jarring.

"Healing" is a good example. Prior to 4E, "healing" usually only occurs through time or magic. Hence, "healing" as a term works perfectly fine when the healer is a cleric, paladin, druid, shaman, bard or ardent. Supernatural forces are at work, and whatever wounds the target might have had close instantly. 

Exactly the same _game_ effect (hit point recovery) occurs when a warlord uses _inspiring word_, or a character uses his second wind, or a character spends healing surges during a short rest. However, the use of the same term, "healing", becomes jarring in these cases because the imagery that has historically been associated with "healing" - the immediate closure of physical wounds - can no longer apply. 

Hence, this can result in extra work for players who care about "realism" in this sense - a new in-game rationale has to be developed for how non-magical "healing" works (e.g. restoration of vigor or fighting spirit) and narration of hit point loss has to be more carefully monitored to ensure that it does not include the description of "wounds" that would impair the character in ways that could not be realistically reversed or mitigated by non-magical "healing".


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 22, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> It was a double-blast of WTF that got her (and me a bit too).
> 
> 1)  She mind blasted a skeleton, which has no mind
> 
> ...



This really intrigues me...

On one hand, there have been suggestions that if it suspends belief to use a power a certain way (ie., using CaGI to 'mind control' the Planesailing Wizard to go Rarr!!! and attack with a puny dagger), then don't use it.

OTOH, as per your example above, the rules status quo seems to be: It's just a game, just use the power because you can, because the rules say so.

What if there was an Official Rule on Page 42 that states: If the power doesn't seem to make sense, don't use it. Or: the rules describe what _can_ happen, not what _must_ happen.

I know this goes completely contrary to the philosophy of Say Yes/Just Make It Work, but that's exactly part of the "realism" problem for many people. (Plus you're missing out on all the strategy and tension of the conflict between striving to do something vs a reactive contrary environment, and the drama of failure or the glory of success because of fictional positioning and not just a stupid random die roll)

So if you don't want skeletons to be poisoned and mind thrusted or immobilized foes to be CaGi'ed, then offer official Believability Override rules, which can be tweaked and toggled according to group preferences.

Maybe you have a 'plausibility+' supplement of rules that overlays over the core rules, and gives poison and mind control resistance to all undead, and bloodied has a different trigger than exactly half hit points. Maybe you have a group voting mechanism as suggested in another thread. For me, it's not as good as rules built with simulationist leanings from the bottom up, but it's a compromise to 4E's oblivousness to fictional positioning.

I love complaining as much as anyone else, but sometimes it's nice to talk about solutions too


----------



## Someone (Dec 22, 2011)

I found the article confusing. I couldn't tell if that "realism" he was talking about was the ability to simulate everyday reality, the ability to simulate a fictional reality, the ability to simulate story conventions and tropes, or just having a lot of detail.


----------



## vagabundo (Dec 22, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> It was a double-blast of WTF that got her (and me a bit too).
> 
> 1)  She mind blasted a skeleton, which has no mind
> 
> ...




We used to change the term for odd creatures that were "blooded". That skeleton would have been Deboned..  

Same with the powers, we would alter the in game fiction to suit the situation, if needed. So mind blast would interfere with what ever magical control mechanism, animated the skeleton. It's not hard to imagine that characters would alter their powers and abilities to combat different creatures.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 22, 2011)

Actually, on the subject of skeletons, it seems that 4E skeletons are not mindless. The skeletons that I looked up while performing a quick sampling check on DDI all had an Intelligence of at least 3. 

Of course, I suppose "skeletons are not mindless" can be just as jarring for some players.


----------



## Someone (Dec 22, 2011)

One of my players once insulted a skeleton so hard it died.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 22, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Actually, on the subject of skeletons, it seems that 4E skeletons are not mindless. The skeletons that I looked up while performing a quick sampling check on DDI all had an Intelligence of at least 3.
> 
> Of course, I suppose "skeletons are not mindless" can be just as jarring for some players.



Ignoring the mechanical number for a sec, I would presume that a skeleton has _artificial_ intelligence. And that artificial minds have different strengths and weaknesses than natural minds (or Far Realm minds).

Then ignoring the "realism" of that one way or another, I prefer the strategy and tension of a scissors beats papers but not rocks, instead of setting your phaser to affect anything. So if a psychic blast hurts human minds and an EMG pulse destroys mech circuits, then a mind thrust hurts living creatures but not undead. It's not just more "realistic" to me, it also makes for more compelling exciting stories.



Someone said:


> One of my players once insulted a skeleton so hard it died.



 That would never happen in my game, the group would never buy it.


----------



## avin (Dec 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Has this ever happened in your game? Or anyone else's?
> 
> In my game, a massively intelligent wizard has never decided to suddenly close with the fighter to attack. But the wizard (or archer, or ...) has found himself wrongfooted by the fighter, and in melee when he didn't want to be, or has tried to fall back but found no clear path and ended up next to the fighter, or . . .




It never happened on any 4E games I've seen because nobody cared about describing the scene. I would bet this is what happens in 90% of 4E games around the world.

Don't get me wrong, been there, had a lot of fun with 4E, still think it's a damn solid ruleset... it's just a metagame paradise with dissociated mechanics as 3.5 was munchkkin paradise 

The wizard was moving north. Then he's south. I don't know if I understood what you mean by "wrongfooted" (english's not my native language) but I can't see how that'd happen. He's moving on a straight line, no trees, no rock, he didn't want to fall back... how that happened?

Errata made it less horrible, still, CAGI it's an immersion breaker. 

As any daily or encounter martial powers.

It works nicely on mechanical therms. It sux for immersion and "realism" IMO 

But, as I've said dozen times, most people here started with D&D, I've started with GURPS so I'm biased and realism is a damn big part of roleplaying experience...


----------



## FireLance (Dec 22, 2011)

Someone said:


> One of my players once insulted a skeleton so hard it died.



It's the arcane force behind it that makes it effective! _Vicious mockery_ is to a regular insult what _shout_ is to a normal holler.


----------



## Someone (Dec 22, 2011)

FireLance said:


> It's the arcane force behind it that makes it effective! _Vicious mockery_ is to a regular insult what _shout_ is to a normal holler.




He was the bard who said "Ni"! Those who encountered him seldom lived to tell the tale.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 22, 2011)

FireLance said:


> It's the arcane force behind it that makes it effective! _Vicious mockery_ is to a regular insult what _shout_ is to a normal holler.



I know magic is magic, but if one explanation is as good as any other then...

Three skeletons risen from the dead, their bones knit together with arcane weaving, their hollow skulls lit with dim artificial intelligence. They are commanded to attack any intruders. Their weakly arcane-powered minds understand just enough to fulfill their directive. Creator = master. Creator's apprentices and pests like mice = ignore. Everything else = attack.

One day, after their creator has long died, among rat dung, decayed furnishing, moth-eaten tapestry, the three skeletons -- now covered in an inch layer of dust -- still stand there, lacking the sentience and common sense to just leave.

And then the door bursts open and 4 men enter. The skeletons animate. Combat ensues. And the bard summons magic to viciously cry out "Ni! You stupid bag of bones -- you're dead! You don't deserve the spark of life!"

[pause]

Although everyone in the room hears the cry, the spell only affects 1 target. So...

The other PCs hear it, but they're unaffected. Fortunately, this insult was not directed at them, so they're safe.

The first skeleton is unaffected because his hearing isn't so good and the warlord was also shouting at the same time. "What do you say? That I'm in bed? What's a bed? Hey warlord, can you stop shouting whatever that is, I can't hear the other guy!"

The second skeleton hears the mockery and thinks "OMG, he's right, I AM dead. What am I doing here? Oh wait.. were you talking to THAT skeleton? You weren't talking to me? Oh phew, I thought I you were talking to me. OK, never mind, carry on."

The third skeleton thinks with his dim intelligence "Man = bad, must attack. OTOH, alas, I have no purpose in life. Good bye cruel world, good bye!" and dramatically throws up a skeletal hand to his forehead and keels over.

[unpause]

DM: OK, the skeleton is dead.

Next player: Cool! I'm going to poison the next skeleton...


----------



## vagabundo (Dec 22, 2011)

4e Skeletons are immune to diseases and poisons.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 22, 2011)

Someone said:


> One of my players once insulted a skeleton so hard it died.




This is why I don't allow bards in my 4E games any more.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Did you have the same reaction in 3e with Extraordinary abilities?  Because Ex abilities are exactly the same as Martial powers.  They are not inherently magical (can't be dispelled, work in an anti-magic zone) but they are certainly not normal either.
> 
> I treat Martial powers in the same way.  Ex abilities allowed my monk to effectively Feather Fall, dodge fireballs, be immune to diseases, and actually granted me spell resistance and speak to any living creature.  Somehow my training as a monk, completely non magical, renders me immune to magic and allows me to automatically communicate with anything in the universe.
> 
> ...




Actually, I did have a bit of a problem with Extraordinary Abilities as well. There was magic, there was supernatural, there was extraordinary, and there was mundane. I never really understood why extraordinary and supernatural couldn't be the same category.

I have no problem with a supernatural power source. As an example, I consider the Primal power source to be a supernatural power source, not a natural power source (the Martial power source should be a natural power source). The ability to change yourself into a tree or an animal is "outside the laws of nature", hence, supernatural.

I do think that the power sources should be clearly defined and the Martial power source should be the "mundane" one. No healing. No teleport. No flying. Especially at heroic levels. But, the ability to kick the snot out of the bad guys with just a simple weapon. That should be the strength of the Martial power source. MARTIAL. Hit point damage on a heavier scale compare to the other power sources. But, very little in the way of effects. And the effects that do occur should be martial-like. For example, knocking a foe prone, shifting, and at higher levels, stunning a foe. But not giving buffs to allies and not giving heals to allies.

A Warlock or other Arcane or Psionic should not be able to damage foes like a Martial PC can. The Warlock should be throwing out effects more than the Martial PC can, but hit point damage should be the realm of the Martial classes. Effects should be more the realm of other Power sources.

The Arcane power source should be good at throwing out elemental effects and illusions and many other "magical effects".

The Divine power source should be good at throwing out buffs and debuffs. The gods should be assisting, not directly throwing out the mega hit point damage and mega effects.

The Psionic power source should be good at mind games and telekinesis.

And virtually no power source should be handing out teleport at low levels. Just like virtually no power source should be handing out fly or invisibility at low levels.

The power sources should open up a bit at Paragon level. The Martial characters at those levels can do the Wuxia type stuff a bit. Great leaps, hiding in shadows better, etc. But still no teleporting. At Epic, it becomes demi-god like. Still martial in tone, but able to do things that no normal man can do.

I'm ok with that.

I just have an issue with things like the Original Come and Get It that came straight out of acquiring aggro out of an MMORPG.

Supernatural taunting isn't martial. Sure, you could probably introduce it at mid-paragon, but it's game mechanics driving flavor, not the other way around.


By the way, I think that the "role" concept is what messed a lot of this up. We HAVE to have a Martial Leader who can heal like every other leader. We have to have a Martial Controller.

No. The game doesn't have to have those things. These are artificial metagame concepts that took over. Again, the game mechanics driving instead of the flavor driving.

Power sources are flavor. The flavor should be the motivating idea behind the game design because then narrative and game mechanics do not clash as often. The game mechanics should be there to allow the narrative to work, not the other way around.


Seriously. Magic isn't magic when every PC can do it. The flavor of magic is gone when every power source can do nearly every type of effect in the game system. Each power source should have clearly defined strengths and clearly defined effects that just cannot be done in the power source.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 22, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Although everyone in the room hears the cry, the spell only affects 1 target. So...



The same argument could apply to _command_, or (in previous editions) _suggestion_ and _power word: kill_. Somehow, the magic singles out just one target even though everyone (presumably) hears the words of the somatic components.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 22, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Actually, what the rules say, is for the DM to make a ruling (Rules Compendium, p.107). It specifically spells it out: powers that target creatures may also target objects in the area. That's not a _houserule_, it's a _judgment call_, and one the *rules specifically tell the DM to make.*
> 
> Find me a DM unreasonable enough to rule that a fireball won't damage a room full of paper and wooden tables.




That rule has only been around for a little over a year. For two years, that rule did not exist. It's good that WotC added that rule.

But, for two years, the lack of that rule contributed to some people feeling dissatisfied with the game because some DMs played the game according to RAW.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 22, 2011)

FireLance said:


> The same argument could apply to _command_, or (in previous editions) _suggestion_ and _power word: kill_. Somehow, the magic singles out just one target even though everyone (presumably) hears the words of the somatic components.



Perhaps, but the fact that an insult (even a magical-powered one) affects a dim-witted skeleton is adding insult to injury IMO. The classic mythologies about bards had them enchant humans and humanoids, not animated bags of bones. It's not cinematic either -- a scene like that would evoke sniggers from the audience.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Story elements being added during play is the meat and potatoes of a whole slew of games.




Totally agree. I just don't believe D&D needs to be one of them. 



Hussar said:


> Honestly, I do agree with you here. You're just not going to be able to include both sides of the coin into the same game. Previous editions were much more on the "Story elements are added after play" and 4e has leaned a lot more on some of the more Indie games and added lots of "story elements are added during play" stuff. Trying to reconcile the two into one game just won't work.




Right again. A fractured player base is inevitable at this point. This is why I think the designers should pick a direction and commit completely to it. 
A design that tries to capture both sides of the coin will more than likely be seen as too nebulous and unfocused by fans of both playstyles. 

The thing is, if they decide to go the indie storytelling route, what about the future? That style might be popular with a lot of folks right now but suppose some new style becomes all the rage with the indie crowd in the next 10-15 years. Will D&D abandon thier storytelling fans to pursue the latest trends in the industry to better fit in with all the cool kids?

That road leads to a loss of brand identity.


----------



## Someone (Dec 22, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Perhaps, but the fact that an insult (even a magical-powered one) affects a dim-witted skeleton is adding insult to injury IMO. The classic mythologies about bards had them enchant humans and humanoids, not animated bags of bones. It's not cinematic either -- a scene like that would evoke sniggers from the audience.




To be fair, the really classic myths have Orpheus playing a music so charming that even sticks and stones refused to hit him. What's magical and what's not depends on the setting, and the problem is that certain powers force certain setting and narrative elements that individual players may not like. Even then I'd argue that it does in a less heavy handed manner than previous editions, which had easy ways to measure or detect rules elements like, for example, alignment or had the default cosmology directly built into many spells. 

The thing it, people was used to that weirdness for 30 years, and when they saw it changed to a different kind of weirdness many freaked out.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 22, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Perhaps, but the fact that an insult (even a magical-powered one) affects a dim-witted skeleton is adding insult to injury IMO.



No, no, no, you've got it backwards. The magic adds injury to insult.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 22, 2011)

Someone said:


> To be fair, the really classic myths have Orpheus playing a music so charming that even sticks and stones refused to hit him.



To be possibly even more fair, Orpheus is probably the equivalent of Epic and what level can a bard take Vicious Mockery? Also, myths have a certain mythical dream quality that is rarely duplicated in D&D and certainly not with internal consistency.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, I did have a bit of a problem with Extraordinary Abilities as well.



A "bit of a problem"? My current Pathfinder PC has 3 EX abilities; she can turn the surrounding air into an invisible barrier that protects her as well as plate armor, see and hear at a distance, including around corners, as per the _clairvoyance_ and _clairaudinece_ spells, via air currents, and, 2/day, create a terrifically damaging burst of thunder --13d6-- in an area, at range, presumably by clapping her dainty hands together.

None of these abilities are magical. They don't detect as magic, function perfectly well in an anti-magic field, etc. They're as mundane as a rogue jumping out of the way of danger...

... and yet, CaGI is more problematic, and indicative of a harmful move away from be logical, consistent, "associated", or whatever, mechanics? 



> And virtually no power source should be handing out teleport at low levels.



Why is teleporting roughly as far as someone can long jump troubling, other than D&D traditionally reserves this ability for 7th-level and above casters, who can then teleport _much_ farther than a person can jump, and then continental/planar distances, respectively. 

It's a totally arbitrary approach to scaling. 



> Just like virtually no power source should be handing out fly or invisibility at low levels.



AD&D handed invisibility out to 3rd level M-U's, and it lasted all day, so long as the caster didn't attack anything. 



> I just have an issue with things like the Original Come and Get It that came straight out of acquiring aggro out of an MMORPG.



And hit points came out of an old naval battle board/war game (unless that anecdote is untrue...).



> Supernatural taunting isn't martial.



No, it isn't. But it seems to me much closer to mythology and folklore... and farther away from the more science fiction-influenced, post D&D-era fantasy fiction whose "fantastic bits" often read like mythology written by, and for, engineers and systems architects.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 22, 2011)

Mallus said:


> A "bit of a problem"? My current Pathfinder PC has 3 EX abilities; she can turn the surrounding air into an invisible barrier that protects her as well as plate armor, see and hear at a distance, including around corners, as per the _clairvoyance_ and _clairaudinece_ spells, via air currents, and, 2/day, create a terrifically damaging burst of thunder --13d6-- in an area, at range, presumably by clapping her dainty hands together.
> 
> None of these abilities are magical. They don't detect as magic, function perfectly well in an anti-magic field, etc. They're as mundane as a rogue jumping out of the way of danger...




Except that they shouldn't be mundane.

Just because someone one day farted in the elevator and suddenly shouted "Eureka. We can give supernatural abilities to normal PCs and consider them typical and status quo." doesn't mean that this is what should happen.

The definition of the word supernatural is "outside of natural".

Anything natural should be considered normal. It should be the ruler by which outside of normal abilities should be measured.


There's nothing wrong with having extraordinary abilities, but those abilites should be limited to extraordinary sources of power.

D&D shouldn't be GURPS where there is a smorgasborg of abilities. I'll take a little teleport, an invisible magical protective force field, maybe a hop over to the Feywild for a while, ooh a greatsword would be nice.



Mallus said:


> Why is teleporting roughly as far as someone can long jump troubling, other than D&D traditionally reserves this ability for 7th-level and above casters, who can then teleport _much_ farther than a person can jump, and then continental/planar distances, respectively.
> 
> It's a totally arbitrary approach to scaling.




Not arbitrary at all. Teleporting means that one can move without traveling through intervening spaces where effects and creatures can interfer.

That's a lot more potent than even shifting and this is totally obvious. Even shifting is a fairly potent ability. Try to move 15 feet past a foe in a real fight without him getting a chance to clock you along the way. It doesn't happen, hence, it is implausible. Just because some game designer thought it would be cool to have half of the PCs teleporting by level 4 doesn't mean it's a good idea from a game balance and power perspective.

Crawl before you walk, walk before you run, run before you leap.

Move before you shift, shift before you fly, fly before you teleport.

Movement powers should be scaled. Teleporting, even 25 feet is a huge advantage for a player. Do I need Athletics? Nope. I'll just teleport up. Do I need shift? Nope. I'll just teleport past. Do I need a rope to get across that ravine. Nope.

Just because people bought into the 4E "teleport is no big deal" line doesn't make it any less useful or potent.



Mallus said:


> AD&D handed invisibility out to 3rd level M-U's, and it lasted all day, so long as the caster didn't attack anything.




And now, there's very little magic that will last more than 5 minutes shy of a lengthy ritual.

Everyone is a low level hedge wizard, regardless of power source.

Magic doesn't exist anymore because everything is magic.

"Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super, [laughs maniacally] no-one will be."


There is more difference between roles these days in many cases then there is between power sources.



Mallus said:


> No, it isn't. But it seems to me much closer to mythology and folklore... and farther away from the more science fiction-influenced, post D&D-era fantasy fiction whose "fantastic bits" often read like mythology written by, and for, engineers and systems architects.




You mean like the invisible barrier that you mentioned for your Pathfinder PC where invisible barriers are more of a science fiction / comic book force field concept than it is anything out of mythology and folklore.

You appear to want your cake and eat it too. Course, a lot of people are that way. Heaven forbid that the game have a power source that is just the muscles and sinews of the PC and not wierd esoteric supernatural abilities.

Everyone wants to be a fricking mutant.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Everyone wants to be a fricking mutant.




Well 4E did change the genre from fantasy to supers so why wouldn't everyone want to be a mutant? 

Not being a mutant in 4E is like playing Jimmy Olsen in DC Heroes game.


----------



## Someone (Dec 22, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> To be possibly even more fair, Orpheus is probably the equivalent of Epic and what level can a bard take Vicious Mockery? Also, myths have a certain mythical dream quality that is rarely duplicated in D&D and certainly not with internal consistency.




Literature in general is hard to reconcile with what happens at the table. Anyway, it's true that Orpheus as described enters the realm of epic, but what I tried to add to the conversation is, how much as a supernatural thing did ancient greeks or romans saw that tale? It was like a fairy tale, or like John McClane crashing a car into a helicopter? We can roll our eyes at the shenanigans in Die Hard, but usually we don't think that McCalne did cast a Crash Car Into Helicopter spell, just made a stupidly high Drive check.

Some cultures think everything has a spirit. If rocks and sticks have spirits then is conceivable that a nonmagical song can move them to tears, even if the singer has to perform extremely well to reach a literally rock hard heart. In such a world, insulting skeletons to death is plausible; in the settings built around the 2e-3e framework that most people is used to, where nonmagical abilities normally were enhanced versions of real world abilities, that skill is absurd. These settings have also the advantage of being easily explainable as "like our world, just with wizards and dragons", while the 4e default is more complex, but in my opinion not less valid.


----------



## avin (Dec 22, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Well 4E did change the genre from fantasy to supers so why wouldn't everyone want to be a mutant?
> 
> Not being a mutant in 4E is like playing Jimmy Olsen in DC Heroes game.




Not being a mutant is 4E is like playing *BATMAN* in DC Heroes game.

See? Martial guy. No superpowers, that's what me and a lot of other people expect from martial characters.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2011)

Someone said:


> Some cultures think everything has a spirit.



Well, sure, okay, but in animist belief systems, since everything is magical, nothing is...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 22, 2011)

avin said:


> See? Martial guy. No superpowers, that's what me and a lot of other people expect from martial characters.




Me too. Thats why I prefer fantasy systems to supers.


----------



## Someone (Dec 22, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Well, sure, okay, but in animist belief systems, since everything is magical, nothing is...




Yeah, not very well explained on my part. I'll try again. 

Everyone knows at this point that 10 feet long spiders are impossible, square-cube law and all that. In your setting, are 10 feet long spiders magical, or are the laws of nature such that allow for 10 feet long spiders to live?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Well, sure, okay, but in animist belief systems, since everything is magical, nothing is...




No.  That's a function of being jaded and cynical, not the belief system.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 22, 2011)

Someone said:


> Everyone knows at this point that 10 feet long spiders are impossible, square-cube law and all that. In your setting, are 10 feet long spiders magical, or are the laws of nature such that allow for 10 feet long spiders to live?



I can't speak for anyone else, but the way I see the conventional fantasy genre, 10 foot long spiders are extraordinary yet natural to some areas (like overgrown animals in pulp fiction novels) or magically mutated -- but either way, I don't think the exact origin matters. What's more relevant to me is whether spiders act magically. If huge spiders have actual magical powers (other than the rare exception), then ya, nothing seems magical any more.

That is, my baseline for "realism" isn't the real-life world, although it is often used as reference point to various degrees. The baseline is the genre convention. What's normal for the genre is, of course, subjective. But superhero fantasy is not the genre norm I grew up with or enjoy. I'm not into roleplaying an anime fantasy, for example. People who enjoy anime fantasy are probably perfectly ok with fantasy heroes teleporting around and everyone doing colorful magic all the time. My baseline is a mishmash of LoTR, Fighting Fantasy, Legend, Conan, etc.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 22, 2011)

avin said:


> It never happened on any 4E games I've seen because nobody cared about describing the scene.



Maybe this is part of the problem with your 4e experiences? If this had happened in any game system, let alone an edition of D&D, you would probably feel the same way. And don't tell me "that would never happen/not possible, etc" because I've been in games run like that, and yes, they ARE terrible.


> I would bet this is what happens in 90% of 4E games around the world.



And I would bet that you're just flat out wrong about this. I think this goes a ways to explaining the way you feel. Like many (including myself, at first), you made some gross assumptions and jumped to some conclusions... that just happen to be incorrect.



> Don't get me wrong, been there, had a lot of fun with 4E, still think it's a damn solid ruleset... it's just a metagame paradise with dissociated mechanics as 3.5 was munchkkin paradise



 An insult wrapped in a compliment is still insulting. This is a gross generalization. It may be true in your experience, like your above statements, but I assure you it is not universal. Can 4e be a metagame paradise? Sure it can. But so can any edition, if that's how you play.

Likewise, I would be tempted to agree that 3.x was munchkin's paradise (and hell on earth to DM higher levels), because that was my experience, but lots of folks say that it isn't a problem for them, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it.


----------



## avin (Dec 22, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Maybe this is part of the problem with your 4e experiences? If this had happened in any game system, let alone an edition of D&D, you would probably feel the same way. And don't tell me "that would never happen/not possible, etc" because I've been in games run like that, and yes, they ARE terrible.




In my experience is how that happened.

But I think you are assuming I had a bad experience with 4E... at this moment, believe me, I have more 4E books on shelves than GURPS, 3.5, 2E and Papthfinder... and I didn't sold any of them.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> And I would bet that you're just flat out wrong about this. I think this goes a ways to explaining the way you feel. Like many (including myself, at first), you made some gross assumptions and jumped to some conclusions... that just happen to be incorrect.




No problem at all if you disagree with me, but I still have to see to believe.

This is going into the wrong direction... 



Nemesis Destiny said:


> An insult wrapped in a compliment is still insulting. This is a gross generalization. It may be true in your experience, like your above statements, but I assure you it is not universal. Can 4e be a metagame paradise? Sure it can. But so can any edition, if that's how you play.




Nemesis, just let me make this straight, ok? I'm not insulting ALL 4E. In my opinion it IS a metagame paradise, just it. There's no hidden bash against this edition. I was a 4E subscriber, I like 4E, but it feels to me like that. 

Not my intention bring this close to an edition war, cause I can spend a lot of time talking about how great 4E is for my DMing, even with what I consider flaws. Every system has flaws. Even GURPS 



Nemesis Destiny said:


> Likewise, I would be tempted to agree that 3.x was munchkin's paradise (and hell on earth to DM higher levels), because that was my experience, but lots of folks say that it isn't a problem for them, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it.




I never said that it could not be different for other people. 

Just pointing what I think 4E AND 3.5 flaws are, in my limited experience.

Just it. Nothing more. Still running a 4E and a PF game, with no problem at all.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 22, 2011)

I prefer games that give me a rule and are flexible enough in the flavor of said rule to let me explain it however I want. I'm not a huge fan of the idea that a rule needs to be set in place based on some random designer's random view of the universe and how it works, and if whatever else you want to do is outside of that idea then you need a new rule. 

To me, that idea seems way too overly complex for no reason aside from some people needing things to be set in stone like an instruction manual for the D&D universe.

Just give me a basic idea and my brain will run with it from there. That's part of the fun for me.

I pretty much HATE the idea of rules being looked at as a "concrete" expression of something in the game world. It's way too structured and science textbook for me, and ends up removing some of the magic of the game itself.

This is one of the reasons I like 4e. I like that the monsters behave differently then the players. I like that just because there is a class called "fighter"it doesn't mean that all things that fight need to use that as an expression of that idea.

I can build a monster, give it some fighter type powers, but also a magic spell or something to boot. When a monster approaches you don't know what to expect, and to me this only serves to heighten the "magic" feeling of the game itself.

Games that choose the other method tend to inevitably lead to someone crying foul when something seems "out of place" from their expectations about the game world. Instead of adding to the magic, out of place items just lead to long rules arguments. Instead of In Search of The Unknown, it becomes In Search of The Properly Formulated Rules Elements.

I like that the martial power source isn't strictly defined as mundane. It's a mix of mundane and magicish, just not arcane, and flexible enough to allow you to mold whatever type of fighter you want. 

Do you want to explain your fighters abilities as a sort of mystic power? Go for it... Do you want to say he's just a master manipulator able to make stuff happen that the untrained eye might think is magic? Go for it.

When I see people say something like CAGI can only be explained as magic, or that healing from a warlord can only be explained  by magic... I feel like the problem is in their own heads. It's honestly hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that there can/should be only one interpretation of how a rule "displays" itself in the game universe, and if it doesn't match their own expectations it's somehow wrong...

The idea that a named element should have only one interpretation bugs the heck out of me. 

Personally I think those people are missing what I consider the best thing about tabletop RPGs... The ability of the human mind to flex around concepts so that it matches whatever you need it to.

Shrug. Thems just muh thoughts.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2011)

Someone said:


> Yeah, not very well explained on my part. I'll try again.



No need... you made your point about animism quite well, and I agree!

I was just being sarcastic. I find the whole "if everything is magical/special, then nothing is" argument essentially ridiculous. Pithy, but ridiculous. Such an argument renders a chunk of real-world spirituality/mysticism somehow "un-special", because they posit spirits are present _everywhere_. 



> Everyone knows at this point that 10 feet long spiders are impossible, square-cube law and all that. In your setting, are 10 feet long spiders magical, or are the laws of nature such that allow for 10 feet long spiders to live?



For the record re: giant spiders...

In one of my settings, 10ft long spiders _might_ be magical. Some could be natural, others space aliens, a few products of magical/technological mutation, and at least one would _talk_, because I prefer chatty NPCs to dumb fodder. And I'd probably use the same/similar mechanics to describe them and alter the fluff as needed to fit the fiction I'm spinning.  

I'm a big fan of describing a single mechanical object/effect in many different ways, as many as needed. The fluff/verbiage is what's _real_ in my campaigns; the mechanics are just to help with task resolution.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 22, 2011)

Scribble said:


> When I see people say something like CAGI can only be explained as magic, or that healing from a warlord can only be explained  by magic... I feel like the problem is in their own heads. It's honestly hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that there can/should be only one interpretation of how a rule "displays" itself in the game universe, and if it doesn't match their own expectations it's somehow wrong...




To me, the idea that a rule "displays itself" in the game universe has it backward. The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first. The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.

In my ideal world, players should not say, "I have a fighter with Come and Get It. How do I describe this in the game world?" They should say, "I have a big guy with a sword, who likes to bait opponents into traps. What class and powers do I use to describe him in the rules?"

In practice, of course, it has never been that clear-cut. Even before 4E, players would often start with a class and then build a character concept around it. I do this as much as anyone else, especially in cases where the campaign world is fuzzy and ill-defined, offering little in the way of character inspiration. And "crunch-heavy" games like 3E push a mechanics-first approach in practice, simply because concept-first is likely to lead you into a trap where your mechanical character struggles to fulfill your vision. If your concept leads you to pick the monk class, for example, or to pick up the Toughness feat, the results are apt to be underwhelming.

But I see that aspect of 3E as a bug rather than a feature, and I'm certainly not willing to take mechanics-first as the default stance and extend it through the entire game. All else being equal, the better the game supports concept-first play, the happier I'll be.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 22, 2011)

@ Scribble


That's a perfectly viable way to play.  Personally, I too like flexibility.  However, I also like things to make some sort of sense.  When what's happening in the game seems to have no connection at all to what's happening with the rules, I enjoy the game less.  An example would be what I gave elsewhere when talking about the uber-Devils of 4E being annihilated by the party.  It doesn't make any sense that anyone in the game world would have the fear of those creatures that they are supposed to invoke if they are so easily squashed.  Likewise, while I too see the merit to having monsters and PCs designed differently, it's a little jarring when PCs can blow through a door using sparse at-wills while a powerful dragon struggles to scratch the same door.  Even if we're talking in-game 'realism' and what the characters living in the game world would know as realism, a lot of those things don't make any sense to me.

I'd like to believe there's some middle ground between where I stand and where you do.  If there's not, that's fine; I completely understand why 4th Edition wanted to be more focused and choose more of a defined direction.  A I've said elsewhere, I look back at 3rd edition and often feel that -while I did enjoy the game- it's failure was trying to be two different (conflicting) styles of game at the same time.  In that regard, I feel 4th's more defined direction is good for the game and the game's identity.  However, I feel there are a few areas in which -at least for me- 4th Edition took a few too many steps and moved outside of the ballpark in which my interests reside.   

For me, and some of the things I want a rpg to be able to do, there are often times when I feel 4th is less flexible than the other games I play.  I believe there is a certain realm of playstyles which 4th encourages, and I am aware of the ideals the game was stated to be built upon.  It's been my experience that trying to move away from those styles and ideals while still using 4th can lead to frustration and less enjoyment (unless I take the time to modify things to work significantly differently.)  In particular -while I'm perfectly fine with monsters and PCs following different rules- I'd like more consistency between how the numbers PCs can generate and their abilities interact with the game world versus what the monsters are capable of doing and how their abilities interact with the game world (my door example above...)  I want that because I feel it spins off into other problems such as what we had with the early monster books and monsters becoming bloated bags of HP because they had a ton of HP and no damage output.

Not everyone plays the game the same way.  If 5th Edition takes 4th's concepts and goes even further with them, that's perfectly fine.  I'm sure there are plenty of people (yourself included) who will love that.  It's perfectly viable for a company to want a more defined identity.  However, I'm inclined to believe that there will also be plenty of people (myself included) who will not want that product and will (like I did a few years ago) seek out a different company to satisfy my wants and needs.  I'm only one man, so I'm sure WoTC doesn't care; I have no hard feelings toward them for that.  I'm one guy expressing how I feel; how I feel right now is that I enjoy 4th, but I have no motivation to spend money on it.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Except that they shouldn't be mundane.



OK. That's fair. But they are mundane(ish) according to the d20 rule set, and the question I'm interested in is why X-Men caliber metahuman abilities in one system constitute a little problem, while powers like CaGI and Inspiring Word are big problems?

I'm trying to understand the difference some people see (it may just be taste).  



> We can give supernatural abilities to normal PCs and consider them typical and status quo." doesn't mean that this is what should happen.



Again, I'm not so interested in "should". I'm curious as to why things that seem categorically similar between 3e and 4e provoke such different reactions. 



> D&D shouldn't be GURPS where there is a smorgasborg of abilities.



If you're in the mood to place blame, blame 3e. 



> Not arbitrary at all. Teleporting means that one can move without traveling through intervening spaces where effects and creatures can interfer.



Yup, been a SF/F since early childhood... I know the definition .

What I mean be "arbitrary" is the way the ability is quantized: you can't teleport/you can teleport a few hundred yards/you can teleport anywhere in the same physical universe. 

Contrast this with the way another d20 system --M&M-- handles it. Teleportation is available at any "level". At low levels, you can teleport short distances, measured in feet. At high levels, you can teleport (literally) astronomical distances. Works like a charm. There's no reason teleportation needs to be relegated to higher levels (and there's certainly no compelling reason for its lack of granularity). 

That's what I meant by "arbitrary". 



> Movement powers should be scaled.



Wait... we agree!



> Teleporting, even 25 feet is a huge advantage for a player.



Well, on this, not so much. It wasn't problematic in the 2.5 years my 4e campaign ran. 



> Magic doesn't exist anymore because everything is magic.



On this, I definitely agree. _Everything_ is at least a little magical in 4e. 

Then again, I'm not sure how "mundane" an AD&D fighter with enough hit points to walk away from a fall off of a cliff in plate mail is, or a 3e rogue who can have a fireball erupt around her in an empty, cover-free room and somehow evade all damage -- without actually jumping clear of the blast radius... 



> "Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super, [laughs maniacally] no-one will be."



Every PC _should_ be super. It's the bulk of the supporting cast that should be mundane. 



> You mean like the invisible barrier that you mentioned for your Pathfinder PC where invisible barriers are more of a science fiction / comic book force field concept than it is anything out of mythology and folklore.



Yes, like that. 



> You appear to want your cake and eat it too.



Do I? 

If you mean, do I appreciate both the 4e _and_ Pathfinder approaches, then yes.



> Heaven forbid that the game have a power source that is just the muscles and sinews of the PC and not wierd esoteric supernatural abilities.



It's not a big deal for me. All D&D characters end up wielding their fair share of wahoo. Whether it's in the form a spell, an item, or nigh-superhuman moxie. 



> Everyone wants to be a fricking mutant.



Being a frikkin' mutant helps when you're up against dragons, giants, dinosaurs, and floating eyeballs armed with lazers...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 22, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> To me, the idea that a rule "displays itself" in the game universe has it backward. The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first. The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.
> 
> In my ideal world, players should not say, "I have a fighter with Come and Get It. How do I describe this in the game world?" They should say, "I have a big guy with a sword, who likes to bait opponents into traps. What class and powers do I use to describe him in the rules?"
> 
> In practice, of course, it has never been that clear-cut. Even before 4E, players would often start with a class and then build a character concept around it...




Our table is very much biased towards a "concept first" approach to character design. And this is a big reason why we like 4E more than 3E. That flexibility of approach that Scribble talked about is a huge part of making that possible. We *gladly* give up the idea that the "fighter" label on the mechanics relates to something in-game, in order to have more of that. In fact, we did that in 3E, as much as we could. Comes from 13 years of Fantasy Hero prior to 3E, I guess. Plus, the limit of "not every possible concept is going to work in this system" is a feature, not a bug for us. Gets the creative juices flowing.

Now, it is true that we've always started the campaign with an idea of what kind of concepts, in general terrms, would be played. That necessarily means having some idea of which system is going to support them well. And most players have several concepts in mind that they are perfectly willing to pick one from. So if several of the concepts being discussed don't map well to 4E (or map much better to another system), then we'd merely play the other system. If only one person's first choice doesn't work, he or she has several more that are nearly as good.

So many people try to "play D&D with something else" that I think we sometimes lose sight of the fact that occasionally someone tries to "play something else with D&D". 

I can see how a group that is primarily built around the idea of every player having a particular concept in mind, bringing it to the campaign which the DM has developed mainly independently, and then it all works--would find 4E very confining. I just can't imagine how 3E/3.5/PF would be much more freeing. Trying that kind of play with the idiosyncratic limits and traps in *any* d20 systems would drive me crazy (well, more crazy)--and send me straight off to GURPS or Hero.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 22, 2011)

As I see it, in 3E, "extraordinary," "supernatural," and "spell-like" are three different classes of "fantastic ability." They represent places where the fantasy world explicitly deviates from the real one. The only difference is in how they interact with other abilities.

_Anti-magic shell_ will shut down a dragon's breath but not a monk's _slow fall_. That doesn't mean the monk's _slow fall_ is a normal, mundane ability that someone in real life could do. It just means it's not in the category of stuff that's affected by _anti-magic shell_. There is a vague sense that extraordinary abilities are "mundane turned up to eleven," but that isn't a universal rule.

Also, citing monk abilities as examples of martial classes getting to do "magicky" stuff isn't quite fair, since monk is not a martial class.


----------



## Cybit (Dec 22, 2011)

It's like playing Batman in a mutant game...except your group is Thor, the Hulk, Phoenix, and Superman.  

Martial not being magical is fine, but then you run into the 3rd edition issue (and Pathfinder has the same issue) where you are chopped liver past 11th level as a martial character.  I've noticed a high correlation between folks who used to play caster-y types in older editions, and those who do not like 4th.  Magic being super kick ass is awesome...as long as you get to be the magical guy.  

That said, I approve of the dual system idea -- you have D&D, which is the base mechanics, Basic D&D, which is more 4th Edition like (Vancian Power System, simplified due to level), and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which gives the building blocks to build a world, and is more immersive in that respect.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 22, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> The definition of the word supernatural is "outside of natural".



Actually, it's "above the natural", which is kind of the problem - an assumed superiority. But this word, and this view, is something of an anachronism as regards myth and legend, in any case. It - and most of the prescriptions you place on the worlds of D&D - are heavily predicated on a world view of scientific materialism. "Martial" can only mean "what is natural and possible according to science (or, worse, "common sense") if we assume a basic correctness for the scientific world view. This may be only reasonable for the real world, where the vast preponderance of evidence suggests that this is in fact so, but for a world where "magic" (or, better said, "arcane feats") are in the realm of proven fact, it seems far less tenable.

Our medieval forbears, it seems, would not have found the idea of "living dead" with minds in the least implausible, at least in Europe/Christendom. Their image of the living dead seems to have sprung from the Bible, which said that, on Judgement Day, _*everyone*_ would rise from the grave - presumably with much the same faculties that they had in life. To be sure, if some individuals had arisen before Judgement Day it was a sure sign that something had gone seriously wrong - but that need not mean that the risen should be in any other state than would be normal and "natural" for the risen to be in...

Insisting on a basically scientific materialist world view has a certain logic - and certain merits - in a world where the players of the game are, generally, raised on the scientific materialist world-view. On the other hand, insisting that a mythic and/or legendary world conform to a scientific materialist world view contains in itself a degree of illogic, and generates certain problems.



Dausuul said:


> To me, the idea that a rule "displays itself" in the game universe has it backward. The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first. The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.



This is one way to formulate game rules, sure. If you want to prioritise anything but "immersion" and Simulationist, explorative play, however, it is a strictly inferior one for several reasons.

Where I think this approach really comes unravelled with D&D, however, is that D&D has, as core "tropes", levels, hit points and xp. If these elements of the rules really do describe real phenomenae in the game world, it is, in my experience, extraoriinarily difficult to get the game world to make any sense in an "internal consistency" way.  It just doesn't "fit"; people can't be people any more when they can wipe out armies and yet are not rulers. Rulers cannot rule in any "normal" way when unchecked peons may develop into superheroes. In short, I think "simulationist", "explorative" or "world-based" play is a chimaera in a classic D&D world setting.

Clearly, this doesn't prevent some folk pursuing such play - all I can say is "good luck with that".


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Has this ever happened in your game? Or anyone else's?
> 
> In my game, a massively intelligent wizard has never decided to suddenly close with the fighter to attack. But the wizard (or archer, or ...) has found himself wrongfooted by the fighter, and in melee when he didn't want to be, or has tried to fall back but found no clear path and ended up next to the fighter, or . . .
> .




I am completely failing to understand your point.

I (the player) am looking at the battle mat. I SEE the wizard suddenly pulled towards the fighter (who is NOT moving). How the heck can I possibly interpret that as the wizard being wrongfooted or finding no clear path or anything else?

But my main problem is that I'm trying to play the fighter and see what happens from his point of view. As the fighter, I do what, exactly? And this causes the wizard to charge at me with his dagger (NOT hit me, just charge at me) why?

My problem is immersion. I want to know what happens from my fighters point of view. The guy who CAN see the world around him.

But I think that I've said my piece now. I'll try and not reply to any more CAGI posts .


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> A "bit of a problem"? My current Pathfinder PC has 3 EX abilities; she can turn the surrounding air into an invisible barrier that protects her as well as plate armor, see and hear at a distance, including around corners, as per the _clairvoyance_ and _clairaudinece_ spells, via air currents, and, 2/day, create a terrifically damaging burst of thunder --13d6-- in an area, at range, presumably by clapping her dainty hands together.
> .




That is clearly absurd. Those should be Supernatural Abilities (if not spell like) and not Ex.

Please don't interpret my not liking CAGI as liking everything in 3.5 or PF .


----------



## pemerton (Dec 23, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> A Fireball doesn't ignite material in 4E.



This is not true. It does fire damage, and fire damage burns.



KarinsDad said:


> That rule has only been around for a little over a year. For two years, that rule did not exist.



Pages 65-66 of the 4e DMG:

Damaging Objects

Like characters, objects have hit points and defense scores (except for Will defense; see Object Immunities and Vulnerabilities, below)...

Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there are a few exceptions​
I think this makes it pretty unambigous that objects can be damaged. And the exceptions mentioned on page 66 are all to do with damage types.



KarinsDad said:


> The targets of a Fireball spell are the creatures in the area. Not paper in the area. Not a table.



Here is the wording of Fireball on page B18 of my Moldvay Basic rulebook:

This spell creates a missile of fire that explodes into a ball of fire 40' diameter when it strikes a target. The *fire ball* will cause 1-6 (1d6) points of fire damage _per level_ of the caster to all creatures within this area. If a victim of a *fire ball* saves vs. Spells, the spell will only do 1/2 damage.​
Even as a 10 year old, however, I worked out that the spell would burn objects as well as people.



KarinsDad said:


> It requires handwaving or house rules from the DM to allow an Arcana check to sustain the flight of a damaged hot air balloon.



No. It needs page 42.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 23, 2011)

Cybit said:


> It's like playing Batman in a mutant game...except your group is Thor, the Hulk, Phoenix, and Superman.



Wait, did you just imply that Batman would actually _lose_ to any of those characters 



Cybit said:


> I've noticed a high correlation between folks who used to play caster-y types in older editions, and those who do not like 4th.  Magic being super kick ass is awesome...as long as you get to be the magical guy.



I don't like 4th edition (even if I find a lot of it interesting in theory). I liked 3.X for a long time. A chunk of this was due to the magic system. When I did play 3.X, however, I played three spellcasters. One was level 2, and two were level 1. All the rest of my characters were mundane characters.

But, when I created my own SRD-based RPG, I completely ripped out the 3.X magic system and installed my own (which was toned down, though much more versatile). So, go figure. I definitely like 3.X's approach more, but that doesn't mean that the execution shouldn't be improved to fit my tastes (at least, when I'm making my own game!).

Just my thoughts though. The Batman thing just stuck out... As always, play what you like


----------



## RHGreen (Dec 23, 2011)

The problem I have with lack of D&D reality can be summed up in title "My Bard made a Gelatinious Cube cry so hard it died."

This is not only unrealistic it takes giant dump on any sort of logic possible even explained by "A wizard did it" magical logic. In fact it is this sort unrealism that makes me think the designer thought we were such a bunch of dim-witted numpties that he could knock this rubbish out in an afternoon, metaphorically spit in our faces and then take the rest of the year off snorting the white stuff of hooker's breasts using a £20 note placed in his hand by a poor, one legged beggar child with wonder in his eyes waiting to delve into a new PHB.

Anyway, OTT rant over.

As long as this level of realism is fixed I have no problem ignoring rules on how many times I need to go to the toilet. The absence of this sort of thing does not reduce realism. It simply happens in the background, unseen.

The same can happen with things like starvation and exposure for the most part. But I would like adventures designed with add-on rules that might deal with finding shelter, keeping warm, hunting/scavaging food, etc.

Terminology can make a big difference. I have no problem with Healing Surges because I can see what they are. But what they should have done is called it Endurance and then suddenly it sounds 'Realistic' rather than 'Board Gamey.'

Exactly the same mechanic but without the Coool Megablast! BS.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Cybit said:


> I've noticed a high correlation between folks who used to play caster-y types in older editions, and those who do not like 4th.  Magic being super kick ass is awesome...as long as you get to be the magical guy.




Ah, the usual "Everyone who dislikes 4E is a powergamer/munchkin defense (Which of course implies that real role players love 4E).
Haven't seen that one in a long time.

I havent read the whole threat, but I guess "Realism in a game with dragons lolololol" also already came up.

4E simply has problems with realism (or equivalent, however you want to call it. You know what I mean).
It starts with Shroedingers Wounds, continues with the difference between PCs and NPCs (Which might not be so glaring now after the feature bloat, but was very visible in the beginning) and is also obvious with many powers which simply can't be explained logically except with very outragous theories which earn you as many strange looks as the actual power itself. The classic here is the "Pull" ability from the fighter but also includes how you can stun a flying enemy by making it believe it is falling down a chasm, etc.

The problem is that while 3E was still designed with basis on realism, or more specific "How can we fit this pseudo realistic adventure into rules" (actually it was more likely just "How to port 2E to 3E, but D&D started with the idea to translate the real world+fantasy into rules). 4E on the other hand started as a mathematical construct. A board game which doesn't represent anything. "Player 1 can move 6 squares, has a 60% hit chance vs level equivalent monster B and does Y damage to be balanced". Only when that construct was finished actual labels were applied.

And this complete disregard of "reality" during 4Es design is painfully obvious and unless the design process changes for 5E it won't change.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2011)

Someone said:


> One of my players once insulted a skeleton so hard it died.




Heh, I do have some sympathy for this.  Bards drive me nuts.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Totally agree. I just don't believe D&D needs to be one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Meh, I'm not overly concerned with the slippery slope issue.

Additionally, if the game changes every 15 years to reflect how changes in the genre in general have come, then great.  At least it will attract new people.  The old crowd still have their game.  D&D has always actually changed every 10-15 years to address different playstyles anyway.

1e -> 2e saw a big shift towards story aspects and world building.  Primarily fueled by a need to distance the game from Gary Gygax and the huge popularity of things like Dragonlance.  2e->3e saw a big shift towards paying attention to what is actually happening at game tables and away from telling people how they "ought" to be playing the game.  The story aspects faded back and a huge amount of effort was expended on getting the rules "right".

3e->4e is drawing in part on the success of 3e and also the push for more egalitarian power sharing at the game table.  The players are given more authorial control because those types of mechanics have proven to be very popular in 3e.

5e will continue this evolution.  Possibly in a new direction entirely.  Something more akin to the FATE system where you can appease the Sim crowd while still maintaining authorial control with the players.  

6e?  That'll be something different entirely.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Well 4E did change the genre from fantasy to supers so why wouldn't everyone want to be a mutant?
> 
> Not being a mutant in 4E is like playing Jimmy Olsen in DC Heroes game.




Why does 4e get to wear the blame for this?  3e had this exact same criticism leveled at it ten years ago.  The whole Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit wasn't a criticism of 4e after all.

And, let's not forget that outside of fighters, every single AD&D character had access to magic/magic abilities.  Every one.  Fighters were the only class not to have magic abilities (even thieves could read scrolls for example).

Does that mean that 1e was fantasy supers?  After all, Aragorn is shooting magic missiles.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> As I see it, in 3E, "extraordinary," "supernatural," and "spell-like" are three different classes of "fantastic ability." They represent places where the fantasy world explicitly deviates from the real one. The only difference is in how they interact with other abilities.
> 
> _Anti-magic shell_ will shut down a dragon's breath but not a monk's _slow fall_. That doesn't mean the monk's _slow fall_ is a normal, mundane ability that someone in real life could do. It just means it's not in the category of stuff that's affected by _anti-magic shell_. There is a vague sense that extraordinary abilities are "mundane turned up to eleven," but that isn't a universal rule.
> 
> Also, citing monk abilities as examples of martial classes getting to do "magicky" stuff isn't quite fair, since monk is not a martial class.




The examples of Monk with Ex abilities comes from 3e where there isn't a delineation between power sources.  Is a monk a magic-using class in 3e?  The rules say no.  He has Ex abilities.  Well, that's not entirely true, some of his abilities are Su so, he's a bit of both.

But, a Rogue dodging a lightning bolt is also an Ex ability.  As is the Rogue or Ranger vanishing in broad daylight without any cover from five feet away from you (Hide in Plain Sight is an Ex ability).  

But, you are right.  The three levels of special ability are a kludgy fix on how you can have anti-magic effects without boning certain classes.  

4e simply took Su and Ex abilities, wrapped them up together and gave them the title of Martial Power.  Again, it's not all that different from the fact that Rangers gain empathic psionic powers with animals as an Ex ability, and a Druid can drink a cyanide milkshake laced with ricin and smile.  All as non-magical abilities.

The big difference between Ex and Su, at least in core 3.5 was that Ex abilities generally only had a personal effect and they were reactive.  Even a Troll's regeneration is considered non-magical despite the fact that it lets you reattach your severed head!  

Which, like others here, makes me kind of wonder why Martial healing in 4e causes such consternation when it was virtually absent in criticisms of 3e.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Which, like others here, makes me kind of wonder why Martial healing in 4e causes such consternation when it was virtually absent in criticisms of 3e.



Personally, probably because 3.X says (Ex) abilities can break the laws of physics, and thus are not necessarily entirely mundane. The Warlord seems to be defended as mundanely inspiring people. If he was literally breaking the laws of physics to heal actual injuries, I think there'd be less objections (though there'd definitely be some objections to that style of healer).

Just my thoughts. I think that's the reasoning widely used, in all likelihood. In 3.X, (Ex) doesn't mean mundane, it means non-magical. Although, certain (Ex) abilities definitely beg to be questioned, such as Evasion or Hide in Plain Sight (as you noted).

3.X also did things like make a barbarian rage a certain number of times per day with no association to the game world (for some reason). That kinda warrants an explanation beyond "game balance" too, in my mind.

At any rate, I feel like I'm mostly agreeing with you. I understand why people draw that line, because 3.X kinda covered itself with (Ex) abilities by saying, "if it doesn't make sense, it's because it doesn't need to be entirely mundane, since it can break physics." In 4e, the Warlord is defended as a mundane healer, using just inspiring words to bring allies to their feet. This gets questioned because, from what I've heard, the Warlord is rarely defended as "it doesn't have to follow the laws of physics." If that were the case, that disconnect would probably dry up.

Just my thoughts. I might be way off, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## FireLance (Dec 23, 2011)

Well, the problem with bards seems to be partly due to how the effects are flavored, and partly due to what types of creatures should be affected.

Several bardic powers deal psychic damage. This is the same kind of damage you get when a psion uses _ego whip_, or when a creature is hit by a wizard's _phantasmal killer_. Based on this, the underlying physical (or magical) law appears to be: psychic damage can be caused by any excess of emotion (such as anger or depression), not just from an excess of fear. However, it can cause problems for some players because dying from anger or depression is not as intuitive as dying from fear.

The other side of the coin is that there do not seem to be any mindless creatures in 4E (even the slimes and oozes that I've looked at have a minimum Intelligence of 1), and the underyling law appears to be that any creature that has a mind can take psychic damage. Again, this can be non-intuitive for players who have spent years thinking of skeletons and oozes as mindless, or having different types of minds from most other creatures.

Which raises another interesting point, at least with respect to this discussion: when everyone has a different concept of "realism" (insofar as it applies to a universe where magic exists and the laws of physics are different enough to allow "non-magical" feats and creatures that would not be possible in our world) _whose_ version of "realism" should be nodded to?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 23, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Which raises another interesting point, at least with respect to this discussion: when everyone has a different concept of "realism" (insofar as it applies to a universe where magic exists and the laws of physics are different enough to allow "non-magical" feats and creatures that would not be possible in our world) _whose_ version of "realism" should be nodded to?




Well, for a DDI version, it might be tenable to include keywords specifically for that, possibly dusting off the 3E "extraordinary" and "supernatural" as a couple of the categories. Every power gets one such keyword, from "mundane" to maybe "gonzo". Mundane means that this power more or less plausible in the D&D, non-magical physics. Extraordinary means that is plausible the same way, but assuming some unlikely in the real world training, genetics, etc. All right up to "gonzo," which means, "don't use this unless you want lots of gonzo; we really mean it!" 

Of course, you'd need a good cross section in the printed books, but that isn't that big of a problem if they get rid of redunant powers and don't stick to a separate list for every class. For online, it gets even easier. Merely allow filtering by keywords. If they get a few keywords off, no sweat. That is the kind of errata that doesn't really hurt anything, as all it touches is the filter. (And people using everything, not even them.) 

If careful on the keywords, you could use the same technique for other flavorings (and thus use more than one per entry, where warranted). For example, there are rare occasions when I enjoy the quasi-technical, crazy gnomish stuff, or those mad wizard devices. But usually, I don't want that in my game. But I don't want it out, either, because it is part of D&D from the very beginning, and a lot of people like it. Would be nice to exclude all that with a filter and/or two lines in a campaign document. 

But mainly, if you have that kind of system built in, you can be conservative with the keywords, but very liberal with what you include, and get the best of both worlds. Yep, right there in the weapon list are firearms and double-bladed self-maiming Dire Maul wannabee swords, but with appropriate keywords.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 23, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Deciding to treat it as a PC resource or player resource is not entirely in the player's hands. If it takes up a PC's turn, it's a PC resource, as is the action economy. Abstracting the actions a character can take into manageable operational bits doesn't take it away from a PC resource nor force viewing the world in stop-motion.



I don't agree with the last sentence. Turn-by-turn initiative isn't just an abstraction. And even if it were, there would be no inherent reason to treat the action economy as a PC rather than a player resource.



LurkAway said:


> And then the door bursts open and 4 men enter. The skeletons animate. Combat ensues. And the bard summons magic to viciously cry out "Ni! You stupid bag of bones -- you're dead! You don't deserve the spark of life!"



But this isn't what Vicious Mockery has to be. If you read some traditional myths or fairy tales, Vicious Mockery - denouncing a person, or their lineage, or their honour, or their existence - and this having a real effect, is more verisimilitudinous than fireball or magic missile.



LurkAway said:


> myths have a certain mythical dream quality that is rarely duplicated in D&D and certainly not with internal consistency.



Is this meant to mean that it's an _objection_ to a fantasy RPG ruleset that it tends to produce fiction with a certain mythical dream quality?

Personally that strikes me as very bizarre, and reinforces [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]'s comment upthread - which he's said before - that "verisimilitude" in relation to D&D fantasy often means "fantasy by engineers for engineers".



Dausuul said:


> The rules are there as a support structure to help the DM and the players agree on how events in the game universe play out.



This is one way to design an RPG, but my point is that it's only one way, and a designer (like Monte) who assumes it is the _only_ way will miss (or misunderstand) important features of 4e.

The other way is that the rules are a support structure to help the participants agree on _who gets to say how events in the game universe play out_, and also perhaps provide constraints on that narration, but leave the details of how things play out free to be specified in accordance with those constraints plus broader considerations of genre, verisimilitude etc.



Dausuul said:


> _Anti-magic shell_ will shut down a dragon's breath but not a monk's _slow fall_. That doesn't mean the monk's _slow fall_ is a normal, mundane ability that someone in real life could do. It just means it's not in the category of stuff that's affected by _anti-magic shell_.



This seems to imply, then, that "anti-magic" in 3E is as misdescribed as "healing" in 4e. Is that right?



Dausuul said:


> In my ideal world, players should not say, "I have a fighter with Come and Get It. How do I describe this in the game world?" They should say, "I have a big guy with a sword, who likes to bait opponents into traps. What class and powers do I use to describe him in the rules?"



But that's fine. In 4e, the answer is "Play a fighter and take Passing Attack, Come and Get It, Footwork Lure, etc".



KarinsDad said:


> The inspiring dream should be psionic or arcane or even divine.
> 
> The first scene can be handled via magic easier than through non-magical descriptions, even in earlier versions of the game.



The consequence of this is that someone who is in love with a wizard can have an inspiring dream of that person, but not someone who is in love with a fighter, or an ordinary person. In my view, that is breaks the verisimilitude of fantasy.

It is also a problem that the dream becomes a consequence of Arwen deliberately casting a spell, when in fact there is no evidence either that (i) she is a spell caster at all, or (ii) the dream was the result of someone's deliberate decision (contrast Saruman trying to bring down the mountain).



KarinsDad said:


> If Charisma can be used to fight good with a melee weapon, then it should be able to be used to encourage an ally to no longer be unconscious through "half closed eyes" by anyone.



Yes. That is what page 42 is for. Diplomacy in lieu of Healing, but the DC would have to be higher, and perhaps also some adverse consequence like granting CA until the start of your next turn as you stop fighting to talk to your comrade.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 23, 2011)

Originally Posted by *Cybit* 

 
_"I've  noticed a high correlation between folks who used to play caster-y  types in older editions, and those who do not like 4th.  Magic being  super kick ass is awesome...as long as you get to be the magical guy."



That hasn't been my experience, but experiences often vary considerably from table to table.  Personally -as someone who prefers story and character- I find that I had to learn to min/max more than I used to if I want to fit in with the rest of the group during a 4E game.  I find myself talking more in terms of builds and things of that nature than I do when playing other games. 


_


----------



## pemerton (Dec 23, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> I am completely failing to understand your point.
> 
> I (the player) am looking at the battle mat. I SEE the wizard suddenly pulled towards the fighter (who is NOT moving). How the heck can I possibly interpret that as the wizard being wrongfooted or finding no clear path or anything else?



If you think the fighter is not moving, then you seem to be assuming that the action economy, and turn-by-turn initiative, as depicted on the battlemap, really do correspond to a stop-motion world.

I assume that actions happen roughly simultaneously (as in real life), that the reason creatures occupy their squares isn't because they're very fat but because they're moving around in them, etc. Once you assume that the combat in the fiction looks like a real world fight rather than a chess game, it becomes fairly easy to envisage any number of reasons why the wizard suddenly and unexpectedly moves towards the fighter.


----------



## BenBrown (Dec 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> If you think the fighter is not moving, then you seem to be assuming that the action economy, and turn-by-turn initiative, as depicted on the battlemap, really do correspond to a stop-motion world.




Exactly.  If you're going to treat the battlemat as representational, you're better off not using it at all.  (and presumably, therefore, not playing WotC era D&D)


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Personally, probably because 3.X says (Ex) abilities can break the laws of physics, and thus are not necessarily entirely mundane. The Warlord seems to be defended as mundanely inspiring people. If he was literally breaking the laws of physics to heal actual injuries, I think there'd be less objections (though there'd definitely be some objections to that style of healer).
> 
> Just my thoughts. I think that's the reasoning widely used, in all likelihood. In 3.X, (Ex) doesn't mean mundane, it means non-magical. Although, certain (Ex) abilities definitely beg to be questioned, such as Evasion or Hide in Plain Sight (as you noted).
> 
> ...




Arrgh, quit agreeing with me.  

I'm not sure that's entirely true though.  I certainly don't defend warlords as being a purely "mundane" healer.  No character in 4e is purely mundane.  Every character has, to use the 3e terminology, Ex abilities and Su abilities.

If they tacked on Su onto the Warlord's healing powers everyone would be groovy?  Really?  That's the long and the short of the disagreement that's been beaten to death for the past several years?

For me, it was pretty apparent going into 4e that they'd taken Ex and Su powers, wrapped them up into one and then parcelled them out to the different power sources.  Martial Power isn't limited to Ex powers and purely mundane abilities.  What would be the point of that?  We'd be right back to the problems that some people had with 3e vis a vis caster vs non-caster.

In order to bring the martial types in line with the other power sources, some allowances had to be made.  Otherwise it just wouldn't work.  Monks could heal without divine magic in 3e.  It was an Su power.  Granted, still supernatural, but that's because in core 3e, anything that affects other people isn't an Ex power.

I'm thinking that this is one molehill that has really, really been blown way out of proportion.  After all, it's a pretty easy thing to fix.  There are ((IIRC)) some 30 classes in the DDI, including half a dozen leader classes.  If non-spell healing bothers you that much, the game hardly breaks if you don't include warlords.  Seems a pretty easy fix to me.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The original D&D game was not designed for such a goal. The biggest challenge for the designers is to decide if the game is going to be about roleplaying adventurers exploring a fantasy world or an exercise in collaborative storytelling.



Put me down for option 1. Option 2 is a natural by-product, anyway.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 23, 2011)

I good example of the "realism" argument came today as I was at a bookstore and happened to be looking at one of the Pathfinder books, and the alchemist class in particular.

It mentioned that the alchemist mixed his potions, but could only have some many on hand each day. My first question was....why? If he's just making potions, why can't he have as many as he has components for?

As I kept reading, it mentioned that the Alchemist had to put a little bit of his own personal essence into each one in order to get the desired effect.

With that one little sentence, I was completely satisfied with the flavor. Was it the perfect all encompassing answer? Nope, but it gave me enough to work with in my own mind.

I don't desire or require huge explanations on why things work in dnd. But there are those cases where the rules don't work the way my intuition would expect (and again this is partially based on my experience with past Dnd that shapes my view). In those cases, a little flavor assistance can go a long way towards making certains things acceptable to my imagination.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Arrgh, quit agreeing with me.



It's getting quite old. I apologize 



Hussar said:


> I'm not sure that's entirely true though.  I certainly don't defend warlords as being a purely "mundane" healer.  No character in 4e is purely mundane.  Every character has, to use the 3e terminology, Ex abilities and Su abilities.



See, this argument doesn't normally come up, but I did leave room for it in my post.



Hussar said:


> If they tacked on Su onto the Warlord's healing powers everyone would be groovy?  Really?  That's the long and the short of the disagreement that's been beaten to death for the past several years?



I think if it was made consistently, then it'd less of a problem, yes. Look at the Truenamer in 3.X. A ton of people love the fluff (but dislike the mechanics). Using words of power to affect reality seems to be well-received.  It'd definitely change the Warlord flavor, but I think that the problem is the commonly perceived flavor as-is.



Hussar said:


> For me, it was pretty apparent going into 4e that they'd taken Ex and Su powers, wrapped them up into one and then parcelled them out to the different power sources.  Martial Power isn't limited to Ex powers and purely mundane abilities.  What would be the point of that?  We'd be right back to the problems that some people had with 3e vis a vis caster vs non-caster.



Oh, I have no problem with them lumping the equivalent of (Ex) and (Su) abilities in the same power source. It's groovy with me. I literally have no objection.



Hussar said:


> In order to bring the martial types in line with the other power sources, some allowances had to be made.  Otherwise it just wouldn't work.  Monks could heal without divine magic in 3e.  It was an Su power.  Granted, still supernatural, but that's because in core 3e, anything that affects other people isn't an Ex power.



Monks only healed themselves. Paladins could heal others without spells, but they were a divine class. But, really, I'm not disagreeing with your point. Just pointlessly nitpicking, I suppose.



Hussar said:


> I'm thinking that this is one molehill that has really, really been blown way out of proportion.  After all, it's a pretty easy thing to fix.  There are ((IIRC)) some 30 classes in the DDI, including half a dozen leader classes.  If non-spell healing bothers you that much, the game hardly breaks if you don't include warlords.  Seems a pretty easy fix to me.



Oh, I agree. I wish it hadn't been in the core PHB I, honestly. That seemed to greatly give the impression of changing healing flavor pretty drastically (which is probably the impression they wanted to give... "Look what 4e can do!"). I can understand why they did that, and I have no problem with reflavoring personally, but when 4e is released, you didn't have much of an option when it came to alternative healers. If you're going to introduce new things, that's awesome; I just wish that the leader choices hadn't been so limited on release if you ignored this brand new approach.

Just my thoughts, as always. I do agree, it's presented as a bigger problem than it probably is. As always, play what you like


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But this isn't what Vicious Mockery has to be. If you read some traditional myths or fairy tales, Vicious Mockery - denouncing a person, or their lineage, or their honour, or their existence - and this having a real effect, is more verisimilitudinous than fireball or magic missile.



Firstly, I don't find traditional myths with their dream-like quality to be all that verisimilitudinous, ie., Thor lifting a cat disguised as the Midgard Serpent. Supposedly, Jörmungandr encircles Midgard and the world will end if it lets go. Yet a mere giant king manages to translocate Jörmungandr into a cat. The dream logic that Jörmungandr can be in two places at once (encircling the world until Ragnarok, and polymorphed by a mere giant into a cat that Thor lifts) is part of the mythic verisimilitude. Somehow it make sense in myths. Somehow it makes sense in dreams. But it doesn't make sense to me in traditional RPGs (although it could be cool if Epic tier took a crack at that, and "realism" as we know it goes out the window when PCs travel to the Astral plane and beyond).

Secondly, from my personal expectations based on the genre conventions, animated skeletons are "mindless" in one sense but not another. They have no brain. If they were real-life mindless they would be an inert object. Yet they clearly have enough intelligence to understand commands, follow commands, have excellent pattern recognition (to differentiate their creator from a tree from a mouse from an intruder) and enough intelligence to fight without any combat training. But they don't have the sentience to do anything else. There is a word for this: robots, or artificial intelligence. AIs exhibit intelligent behavior without any sentience. They have no self-esteem, no sense of self-worth. They would be immune to mockery because they have no self-awareness worth mocking.

(Or to put it mechanically, skeletons have a simulacrum of Int 3 for what they were raised to do, but Int 0 for everything else, including insults. Sentient undead like vampires, like AIs that have achieved Singularity, probably have self-awareness, but dim-witted animated skeletons don't fall into that category).

The above is not some sort of engineer rationalization that I go through to decide what is realistic for me. It's a long after-explanation for what comes intuitively to me (and clearly for others who struggle with the bard insulting the skeleton so hard that it died) from the genre movies and literature.

And I think the majority of an audience watching a D&D movie where a skeleton or ooze was insulted to death would have the same reaction -- they would laugh, because the scene is generally implausible.

Now if you saw a scene of a bard in a bar, who walks over to the bartender, asks for a glass of ale, then leans over to whisper something into the bartender's ear. We don't hear exactly what he says, but the bartender's eyes open wide, his mouth opens in shock. The bard stands back. The bartender keels over. THAT is more compelling to me.

But a bard shouting an insult in the middle of combat at an animated skeleton is waaaaay too video-game-y for me to be compelling.



> Is this meant to mean that it's an _objection_ to a fantasy RPG ruleset that it tends to produce fiction with a certain mythical dream quality?



My objection is to the _lack of consistency_ when integrating mythical dream elements into D&D. (After all, many people define unrealistic as a lack of internal consistency). And I think that lack of consistency is based on people haphazardly picking-and-choosing mythic inspiration when it suits them on a momentary need (which for me, is a short-term short-sighted way of creating compelling fiction, and will rarely yield cohesiveness in world-building).



> Personally that strikes me as very bizarre



What is bizarre about hoping for some level of cohesiveness in the game world? What is bizarre about not wanting mechanics to create fiction that is not compelling for me? What is bizarre about not liking mythic elements being translated poorly into videogame-y actions?

Just so that you don't get me wrong, I never liked the rogue who could completely dodge a fireball in a 10x10 room with no cover. Then again, anyone complaining about A doesn't mean they love everything about B.


----------



## avin (Dec 23, 2011)

Cybit said:


> It's like playing Batman in a mutant game...except your group is Thor, the Hulk, Phoenix, and Superman.




Batman would figure out a way of winning them all. Except, maybe, for Phoenix... that is a tough one... and the Swamp Thing. Nobody can win the Swamp Thing.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 23, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> It mentioned that the alchemist mixed his potions, but could only have some many on hand each day. My first question was....why? If he's just making potions, why can't he have as many as he has components for?
> 
> As I kept reading, it mentioned that the Alchemist had to put a little bit of his own personal essence into each one in order to get the desired effect.
> 
> With that one little sentence, I was completely satisfied with the flavor.



This response isn't meant at all as an objection to your view of the PF alchemist class. It's just an illustration of how there can be a different view of the role of mechanics, which is important to some if not many of those who like 4e, and which Monte Cook seems to be utterly disregarding in his columns (whether deliberately or out of ignorance).

Almost no fantasy RPG let's a PC begin the game with an unlimited amount of money (eg as the first in line to a wealthy throne). There is no ingame rationale for this - no ingame rationale why an incredibly wealthy prince is never the protagonist. It's a metagame thing - to keep the power of PC's under control. And every fantasy RPG designed for ongoing campaign play tends to give advice of some form or other about the GM rationioning loot, even though such rationing is no part at all of the genre (eg Bilbo in The Hobbit).

This is all familiar, metagame driven stuff. An alchemist who is not allowed to have more than X potions per day, or at one time, or whatever, for me would be the same thing. _In the fiction_, there is no such constraint - it's just that, for whatever reason, it never comes about that the alchemist has a larger number of potions (maybe every time s/he gets up to make another one the crystal ball rings and a new adventure is on!), just as it never comes about that the first level rogue finds the Mithril Coat, Sting and the Arkenstone.

The general point is that, in some parts of character building, it is very common across a wide range of RPGs for their to be metagame limits that do not correspond to any ingame causal limit. 4e just extends this approach to other parts of the game, both character building and action resolutoin.

(A subsidiary point: in 3E, a caster earns back those "little pieces of personal essence" by winning fights. I personally don't feel the realism, or the immersion, there - it's obviously a metagame thing - and I don't mind metagame elsewhere in the mechanics.)



LurkAway said:


> The dream logic that Jörmungandr can be in two places at once (encircling the world until Ragnarok, and polymorphed by a mere giant into a cat that Thor lifts) is part of the mythic verisimilitude. Somehow it make sense in myths. Somehow it makes sense in dreams. But it doesn't make sense to me in traditional RPGs



I tend to find that simulationist mechanics have a hard time with this sort of thing, although Runequest tries. One thing I like about 4e is that, in my experience so far, it handles it with ease.



LurkAway said:


> although it could be cool if Epic tier took a crack at that



In The Plane Above this idea is developed under the rubric "Journeying into Deep Myth", which is very similar to the idea from Glorantha-based games of Heroquesting. I'm hoping for this to be a part of my campaign once it reaches epic tier.



LurkAway said:


> AIs exhibit intelligent behavior without any sentience. They have no self-esteem, no sense of self-worth. They would be immune to mockery because they have no self-awareness worth mocking.



You don't mock the skeleton. You mock it's creator. Or Vecna (the god of undeath). Or the shadow magic that animates it and keeps it intact.



LurkAway said:


> And I think the majority of an audience watching a D&D movie where a skeleton or ooze was insulted to death would have the same reaction -- they would laugh, because the scene is generally implausible.



So would I. You don't kill an ooze by mocking _it_. You kill an ooze by mocking Juiblex.



LurkAway said:


> My objection is to the _lack of consistency_ when integrating mythical dream elements into D&D. (After all, many people define unrealistic as a lack of internal consistency). And I think that lack of consistency is based on people haphazardly picking-and-choosing mythic inspiration when it suits them on a momentary need



I generally include story elements in my game based on need, and haven't personally felt any consistency issues.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> You don't mock the skeleton. You mock it's creator. Or Vecna (the god of undeath). Or the shadow magic that animates it and keeps it intact.
> 
> So would I. You don't kill an ooze by mocking _it_. You kill an ooze by mocking Juiblex.



Sorry, it doesn't fly with me whatsoever that the oozes have an existential connection to Juiblex. If Juiblex is killed or imprisoned, all the oozes of multiple worlds live on just fine. If a bard insults Juiblex, the demon lord isn't listening and the ooze doesn't care or understand. Animated skeletons live on long after their creator has passed, so their reality doesn't depend on their creator at all. And if bards are instead mocking shadow magic itself, I guess they can mock and dispel all magic of that level -- you know, to be consistent and coherent.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Almost no fantasy RPG let's a PC begin the game with an unlimited amount of money (eg as the first in line to a wealthy throne). There is no ingame rationale for this - no ingame rationale why an incredibly wealthy prince is never the protagonist. It's a metagame thing - to keep the power of PC's under control. And every fantasy RPG designed for ongoing campaign play tends to give advice of some form or other about the GM rationioning loot, even though such rationing is no part at all of the genre (eg Bilbo in The Hobbit).
> 
> This is all familiar, metagame driven stuff. An alchemist who is not allowed to have more than X potions per day, or at one time, or whatever, for me would be the same thing. _In the fiction_, there is no such constraint - it's just that, for whatever reason, it never comes about that the alchemist has a larger number of potions (maybe every time s/he gets up to make another one the crystal ball rings and a new adventure is on!), just as it never comes about that the first level rogue finds the Mithril Coat, Sting and the Arkenstone.
> 
> The general point is that, in some parts of character building, it is very common across a wide range of RPGs for their to be metagame limits that do not correspond to any ingame causal limit. 4e just extends this approach to other parts of the game, both character building and action resolutoin.




No surprise, but I'm mainly see this the way pemerton does.  Possibly one slightly different angle in our views is that I see this kind of thing as very much prone to individual sensibility.  It's a good example, because that particular justification for alchemy bugs the heck out of me.  And that is the bad side of "nods to reality".  They are just nods.  So if you look at them close, you see them for what they are.  So you can either accept them as "enough" justification and roll with it, or see them as a purely metagaming construct.  But ever now and then, the justification is not good enough to satisfy your sensibility, but too in your face to completely file under metagaming construct and move on.  

Again, this is what Monte was talking about with the game needs to support you providing some of your own nods and/or modifying the ones that are there.


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Dausuul said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




At the risk of going off-topic, I completely disagree.  The view that the rules support the gameworld is consistent with a wide variety of play in D&D.

I think this is because you are starting with the false assumption that constructs like levels and xp "describe real phenomenae in the game world."  The whole point of gaming with rules that support the game (instead of describing the game world) is that rules don't have to represent real game world phenomenae.

Levels and xp are a structure for PCs.  There is no reason to assume that NPCs live their lives under the same set of advancement rules.  If the whole world worked under PC rules, then the GM has a choice between accepting bizarre internal inconsistencies or limiting himself to a peculiar style of gameworld in which everyone important is an ex-adventurer.

Personally, I've long since grown tired of playing in "adventurer-dominated" game worlds, but I still want a rules set that focuses on PCs.  If you want those two things (and internal consistency), you need to say: "the rules do not describe the game world -- they only describe the game."  That's true (or, at least, mostly true) irrespective of the style of game.

-KS


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Which, like others here, makes me kind of wonder why Martial healing in 4e causes such consternation when it was virtually absent in criticisms of 3e.




Pretty simple: The objection comes up when non-magical classes get access to magical abilities. The monk is and always has been a magical class. Monks aren't spellcasters, but they are explicitly granted mystical abilities. They can heal themselves and speak with any living thing and touch you in a bad, bad way so you die a week later. That right there is magic.

The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily _mundane_, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.

(Also, I challenge the assumption that everyone who objects to these issues in 4E is just totally fine with everything in 3E. I've heard plenty of griping about silly and unrealistic 3E mechanics; "Order of the Stick" has been making comedic hay out of them for years. 4E just took them to a new level.)


----------



## avin (Dec 23, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Pretty simple: The objection comes up when non-magical classes get access to magical abilities. The monk is and always has been a magical class. Monks aren't spellcasters, but they are explicitly granted mystical abilities. They can heal themselves and speak with any living thing and touch you in a bad, bad way so you die a week later. That right there is magic.
> 
> The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily _mundane_, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.




Can't give you XP, so I'm quoting.

The point was never about "martial"... it's characters with martial training and no access to a mystic source of healing, like Monks.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 23, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily _mundane_, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.



The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.

I'm not sure where the idea D&D should stick to science-fictionalized, pseudo-rational fantasy (how's that for an oxymoron, eh?) comes from. Over the years, various core books have _suggested_ the readers bone up on classic mythology/folklore.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.





 Aside from superhuman strength and using magical items what mystical powers are Perseus and Hercules using? 

IMHO they are very high level and badass but thats about it.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.



I understand the referencing to great figures in mythology as a source of inspiration, but those heroes are unique and usually epic in scale. To translate those myths into low to mid level powers is, I think, to diminish what makes the original source so compelling. I'd rather see a fighter start off mundane and achieve the status of mythic fighter at late paragon to epic tier. So I think it's comparing apples to oranges to cite Hercules, Perseus, Beowulf and Siegfried as an interpretation of all PCs of all D&D martial classes. The day that a D&D fighter can singlehandedly take down a dragon is the day I think they deserve the mantle of mythic fighter equal to the real life legends.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Aside from superhuman strength and using magical items what mystical powers are Perseus and Hercules using?
> 
> IMHO they are very high level and badass but thats about it.



Hercules? Son of Zeus? Mr. Twelve Labors? The guy who rerouted two _rivers_ in a single day to clean out the Augean stables?

He can be fighter and that's okay? But Inspiring Word employed by a Martial power source character... whole different story.

I'm trying to understand how you're constructing your position -- and I admit, I'm having difficulties.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 23, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> I understand the referencing to great figures in mythology as a source of inspiration, but those heroes are unique and usually epic in scale. To translate those myths into low to mid level powers is, I think, to diminish what makes the original source so compelling.



You're sidestepping the point I made. 

In the 2e PHB, in the section on _character creation_, which implies 1st level characters, mind you, Hercules is specifically used as an example of a _fighter_. The intent is clear. Wouldn't this is an extremely poor choice --one of several-- if the intent was to describe a class that's completely mundane? 

You're also making an erroneous comparison. First, no one suggested giving the ability to perform things like the Labors of Hercules to low-level PCs. Second, are you really saying abilities like Inspiring Word are similar in both nature and scope to the stunts pulled in the Labors are to warrant the comparison?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Hercules? Son of Zeus? Mr. Twelve Labors? The guy who rerouted two _rivers_ in a single day to clean out the Augean stables?
> 
> He can be fighter and that's okay? But Inspiring Word employed by a Martial power source character... whole different story.
> 
> I'm trying to understand how you're constructing your position -- and I admit, I'm having difficulties.




The "martial power source" is just drek. Merely a lame justification that all character types now use magical powers without having the sack to just come out and say so. Thats my position. I have no problem treating it as magic if what it accomplishes is essentially magic. 

Thus, everyone is a worker of magic in thier own way. There simply are no non-magical mundane PC types.

Earthdawn uses the concept quite well. Adventurers are all adepts that command magical powers. Nethermancers, thieves, warriors, swordmasters all use adept magic to power thier abilities. The manifestation of that magic depends on the class and talents available. Thats the way the world is flavored. 

D&D moved to this model while trying to leave the flavor of the old D&D implied world intact. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The "martial power source" is just drek. Merely a lame justification that all character types now use magical powers without having the sack to just come out and say so. Thats my position. I have no problem treating it as magic if what it accomplishes is essentially magic.
> 
> Thus, everyone is a worker of magic in thier own way. There simply are no non-magical mundane PC types.
> 
> ...



So was the 2e PHB wrong when it called Hercules a fighter?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 23, 2011)

I have Open Grave open before me and I'm going to quote some text about undead.

[sblock]*Soulless Undead*
Sentient living creatures have a body and a soul, the latter of which is the consciousness that exists in an departs from the body when it perishes.  A body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus.  The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death.  Unlike the soul, it fades from the body as the body rots.

If "revived" in the proper fashion, the animus can rouse the body in the absence of a soul.  (This phenomenon is what makes it possible for creatures that were never alive, such as constructs, to become undead.)  In some cases, the animus can even exist apart from the body as a cruel memory of life.  Such impetus can come from necromantic magic, a corrupting supernatural influence at the place of death or interment, or a locale's connection to the Shadowfell.  Strong desires, beliefs, or emotions on the part of the deceased can also tap into the magic of the world to give the animus power.

Most undead, even those that seem intelligent, are this sort of creature - driven to inhuman behaviour by lack of governance of a soul and a hunger for life that can't be sated.  Nearly mindless undead have been infused with just enough impetus to give the remains mobility but little else.  Sentient undead have a stronger animus that might even have access to the memories of the deceased, but such monstrosities have few or none of the sympathies they had in life.  A wight has a body and a feral awareness granted by the animus, but no soul.  Even the dreaded wraith is simple a soulless animus, deeply corrupted and infused with strong necromantic energy.

The Shadowfeel most often serves as the source of this impetus.  In the Shadowfell, bodiless spirits are common, as are undead.  Something within this echo-plane's dreary nature nurtures undead.  This shadowstuff can "leak" into a dying creature as that being passes away.  It can be introduced by necromantic powers or rituals.  Or it can be siphoned into areas strongly associated with death, pooling there.[/sblock]


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> So was the 2e PHB wrong when it called Hercules a fighter?




Did Hercules use spells empowered by arcane knowledge or a divine being... no.

Was Hercules able to pick locks, climb walls, etc? No.

So he wasn't a wizard and he wasn't a cleric and he wasn't a rogue...

Was he able to fight and kill things with weapons and his physical prowess? Yup. However being a fighter had no bearing on the fact that he was a demi-god though being a demi-god did make him an extraordinary fighter.

EDIT: In other words I think you are confusing the issue of Hercules being a demi-god and son of Zeus... with him being a fighter.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> You're sidestepping the point I made.



I'm not sidestepping. In this thread, I've seen several references to myths without accounting for PC level, and I find it erroneous.



> In the 2e PHB, in the section on _character creation_, which implies 1st level characters, mind you, Hercules is specifically used as an example of a _fighter_. The intent is clear. Wouldn't this is an extremely poor choice --one of several-- if the intent was to describe a class that's completely mundane?



It doesn't imply 1st level characters at all. Hercules is clearly given as an example of what fighters can achieve when they get high enough level... something to look forward to, something to work towards, something to be earned. The idea that Hercules was anything remotely comparable to 1st level would be ludicrous. The PHB could have named any ancient greek warrior as an example of a 1st level fighter... except that nobody heard of Bob the Ancient Greek fighter!



> Second, are you really saying abilities like Inspiring Word are similar in both nature and scope to the stunts pulled in the Labors are to warrant the comparison?



I didn't start the Inspiring Word sub-thread, so I don't understand what you're getting at.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 23, 2011)

The point about Hercules and Perseus still stands. _What abilities, other than magic items and incredible strength, were they using?_

Keep in mind that Hercules and Perseus are mythological figures, and as others have pointed out, myths have a much lower threshold for verisimilitude than modern gamers do. I'm not interested in quibbling over whether super-strength is _really_ enough to divert a river in a day. In the myth of Hercules, it was.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The "martial power source" is just drek. Merely a lame justification that all character types now use magical powers without having the sack to just come out and say so. Thats my position. I have no problem treating it as magic if what it accomplishes is essentially magic.
> 
> Thus, everyone is a worker of magic in thier own way. There simply are no non-magical mundane PC types.
> 
> ...





Earthdawn... the game where all the tropes of D&D make sense.  I love that game and wish it had become more popular.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I have Open Grave open before me and I'm going to quote some text about undead.
> 
> [sblock]*Soulless Undead*
> Sentient living creatures have a body and a soul, the latter of which is the consciousness that exists in an departs from the body when it perishes. A body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death. Unlike the soul, it fades from the body as the body rots.
> ...




Yeah, according to this a bard's powers (along with quite a few others) shouldn't work on certain undead. this is why I find 4e more gamist than anything... it works on undead to keep game balance functioning, not for some type of narrative or mythological justification, as so many here keep claiming... though again this will probably be chalked up to confused designers, the developers not knowing their own game or anything else that isn't the simplest answer.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> So was the 2e PHB wrong when it called Hercules a fighter?




Not really - if it was meant to represent the ideal of what a fighter _could _possibly be after a long campaign worth of successful adventures.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> If you think the fighter is not moving, then you seem to be assuming that the action economy, and turn-by-turn initiative, as depicted on the battlemap, really do correspond to a stop-motion world.
> 
> I assume that actions happen roughly simultaneously (as in real life), that the reason creatures occupy their squares isn't because they're very fat but because they're moving around in them, etc. Once you assume that the combat in the fiction looks like a real world fight rather than a chess game, it becomes fairly easy to envisage any number of reasons why the wizard suddenly and unexpectedly moves towards the fighter.




I am honestly trying to understand your point (as opposed to arguing with it or refuting it).

I should point out that the mental model I generally use is one of a film. My characters action occurs when the camera is focused on my character. Within a round things are kind of simultaneous except when ordering occurs from what we have seen.

So, if we see PC A deal damage and then get healed by PC B then the damage was dealt before the healing. 

So (to slightly extend my hypothetical example), we see the wizard blast PC 1 and start to retreat. We then see PC 2 shoot an arrow at the wizard while standing beside PC 3. We then see the wizard waving a dagger at PC 3 while charging up and see PC 3 chopping at the wizard.

How do you make that sequence make sense from either the player OR character point of view. How does that become stumbling or missteppingÉ


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 23, 2011)

BenBrown said:


> Exactly.  If you're going to treat the battlemat as representational, you're better off not using it at all.  (and presumably, therefore, not playing WotC era D&D)




I am trying to understand this, NOT argue against it.

Clearly the battle mat is not an exact representation of what is going on but surely it is meant to be a moderately accurate representation

For example, if it tells me that I cannot shoot somebody (a wall is in the way) or cannot hit somebody with my sword (he is too far away) presumably that DOES represent at least that part of reality.

In the case of CAGI, the battlemap represents the fact that the fighter cannot hit the wizard unless one of them moves.

Suddenly, CAGI occurs and the wizard is adjacent to the fighter on the battlemat while the fighter is still adjacent to the door (or whatever)

Surely that represents that the wizard moved towards the fighter

Now, obviously he might have move 8 or 14 feet instead of 10 and obviously he might have zigged and zagged a little as he moved. But surely he DID move


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, according to this a bard's powers (along with quite a few others) shouldn't work on certain undead. this is why I find 4e more gamist than anything... it works on undead to keep game balance functioning, not for some type of narrative or mythological justification, as so many here keep claiming... though again this will probably be chalked up to confused designers, the developers not knowing their own game or anything else that isn't the simplest answer.




The PH2 Bard isn't an exact match fluff-wise for earlier editions of the class.  Because WotC merged the music-fluff with the spellcasting-fluff into a single set of powers, the PH2 bard is more like a music-themed sorcerer (with melee options and leader abilities) than anything else.  A power like Vicious Mockery is obviously a magical attack (see the Arcana keyword) triggered off a clever quip.  

Putting 3x spellcasting aside, the Skald captures more of the music-powers that made the 3.5 Bard different from a half-functional sorcerer.

-KS


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Almost no fantasy RPG let's a PC begin the game with an unlimited amount of money (eg as the first in line to a wealthy throne). There is no ingame rationale for this - no ingame rationale why an incredibly wealthy prince is never the protagonist. It's a metagame thing - to keep the power of PC's under control. And every fantasy RPG designed for ongoing campaign play tends to give advice of some form or other about the GM rationioning loot, even though such rationing is no part at all of the genre (eg Bilbo in The Hobbit).





You are correct in that the wealth factor is a game driven balancing mechanic. But what I disagree with is because of that, no flavor justification is required.

If a player of mine wanted to play a 1st level wealthy prince, one of my requirements would be: "Explain to me why you don't have access to huge amount of money right now".

The rules have placed some requirements on me to keep the game balanced, one of those is control on wealth. But that doesn't mean all my players are poor "just because". Maybe they were wealthy but everything has been stolen from them. Maybe they are secretly the heir to a throne but don't know it. Or....maybe they are just poor commoners. But spoken or not....there is a flavor justification for that mechanical rule.

And I think this is the place where people's opinions are divided on the subject. The question becomes, when does a rule require system assisted flavor vs just requiring the players to generate their own?

There are some cases where a player forced to justify their flavor actually creates immersion, and other cases where the justification actually detaches from it. I think it is the ongoing process to examine the areas in our DND culture, divide them into the two camps, and then provide flavor when flavor is needed.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> The PH2 Bard isn't an exact match fluff-wise for earlier editions of the class. Because WotC merged the music-fluff with the spellcasting-fluff into a single set of powers, the PH2 bard is more like a music-themed sorcerer (with melee options and leader abilities) than anything else. A power like Vicious Mockery is obviously a magical attack (see the Arcana keyword) triggered off a clever quip.
> 
> Putting 3x spellcasting aside, the Skald captures more of the music-powers that made the 3.5 Bard different from a half-functional sorcerer.
> 
> -KS




The discussion was about the use of Vicious Mockery on a skeleton as it pertains to realism vs. game mechanics. The description for Vicious Mockery states...

_"You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic, to send the creature into a blind rage" _

Now, according to the passage that LS posted, the skeleton is little more than bones held together by an animating force... not something sentient enough to understand the taunts and jibes a Bard throws at him while using Vicious Mockery. Granted, I understand that it's magic... but it's damage type is psychic which means these are magic infused insults that are affecting a non-sentient creature... mentally. 

See that's where some of this disconnect comes in, from a realism perspective... why would even magically enhanced insults spoken to a non-sentient force consumed with hunger in any way harm it mentally or make it do anything? It's like magically insulting an animated chair to death by causing it mental anguish.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> At the risk of going off-topic, I completely disagree.  The view that the rules support the gameworld is consistent with a wide variety of play in D&D.
> 
> I think this is because you are starting with the false assumption that constructs like levels and xp "describe real phenomenae in the game world."  The whole point of gaming with rules that support the game (instead of describing the game world) is that rules don't have to represent real game world phenomenae.
> 
> ...



I'm honestly not sure how to answer this, as we seem to be saying much the same thing.

Dasuul was saying that the game world fiction _*must come first*_ - that the rules are there only to reflect what is happening in the fiction. In other words, taking the example of level, characters in the fiction get more powerful with "experience" - this is a fact in the fiction, and is thus reflected in the rules. In Dasuul's own words: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." I take this to mean that the rules only exist to reflect, define and communicate to the players what happens in the fiction. This doesn't sound much like your "rules that support the game (instead of describing the game world)", to me.

Rules that support the game is what I prefer for D&D - and I'm reading in your post that you do, too?


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Now, according to the passage that LS posted, the skeleton is little more than bones held together by an animating force... not something sentient enough to understand the taunts and jibes a Bard throws at him while using Vicious Mockery. Granted, I understand that it's magic... but it's damage type is psychic which means these are magic infused insults that are affecting a non-sentient creature... mentally.



From what LS posted I don't read that a skeleton is totally non-sentient - it has a minimal level of mentation as required to follow instructions and support instincts of "hunger". As to how Vicious Mockery attacks this - the same way it does any mind it affects, by striking the mind's weak points. In the case of the skeleton, I would guess that is the "hunger" - fire that up to overwhelming levels and make its skull explode! Very similar to working on the prejudices and anger of, say, an orc warrior.


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The discussion was about the use of Vicious Mockery on a skeleton as it pertains to realism vs. game mechanics. The description for Vicious Mockery states...
> 
> _"You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic, to send the creature into a blind rage" _
> 
> ...




Speaking just for myself, I tend to see the huge number of magical effects buzzing around 6 seconds of a D&D combat to be something those little white curses that zoom around combats in Harry Potter films.  It seems plausible to me that they hit and do damage, even if the exact effects aren't always clear.

Putting that aside, Vicious Mockery is an arcane charm that does psychic damage.  You can think an insult is a silly trigger for an arcane charm that does psychic damage, but focusing on the insult instead of the psychically damaging arcane charm is a bit like focusing on the little flying insult over the fireball that goes off when it detonates.  I think there is a legitimate criticism that "Vicious Mockery" is a stupid, immersion-breaking name because it conjures exactly the sort of the image you describe.  But there is still a reasonable in-game fiction associated with it.

Mechanically speaking, it seems like the complaint is with the skeleton, in that it's a mindless creature that has no resistance / immunity to charms or psychic damage.  Personally, it doesn't bother me that mindless creatures can be affected by mind-influencing magic.  After all, it's not like they have any resistance, and a cracked or exploding skull seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.

-KS


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I'm honestly not sure how to answer this, as we seem to be saying much the same thing.
> 
> Dasuul was saying that the game world fiction _*must come first*_ - that the rules are there only to reflect what is happening in the fiction. In other words, taking the example of level, characters in the fiction get more powerful with "experience" - this is a fact in the fiction, and is thus reflected in the rules. In Dasuul's own words: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." I take this to mean that the rules only exist to reflect, define and communicate to the players what happens in the fiction. This doesn't sound much like your "rules that support the game (instead of describing the game world)", to me.
> 
> Rules that support the game is what I prefer for D&D - and I'm reading in your post that you do, too?




Ok.  I agree with you about what's best, but I don't think you're reading Dasuul correctly.  I read: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." to mean that the rules exist to assist the game, but not to reflect, define or communicate to the players how the world works.  In other words, I read Dasuul as saying that the rules describe the game, not the game world.

So, maybe we're all in vigorous agreement?

Perhaps Dasuul will clarify...  

-KS


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Flavor Text, is used exactly for what it says - flavor.  It is not rules text.

D&D is at its core a game of imagination.  The flavor for the powers is there to help in stimulating that imaginative play.  It is not meant to restrict it.  Except of course in the most cynical and extreme of views.

This is a game, not a legal dissertation.  Flavor is meant to be malleable to whatever the player, and DM want to accomplish.

If the purpose of flavor text was to restrict the player to ONLY the action described by the text then the game would be rather bland.  Playing that way would be as boring, to me, as playing with constant "gamespeak."

How the player and DM want to describe the effects of powers is entirely open to each game table.  Some might decide to use "gamespeak" exclusively (roll - That is a 26 vs. AC - a hit), some may decide to go in the other direction (roll - I swing my sword under his defenses, slashing at the ghoul's hip), and some might have use a hybrid of some form.

Saying that the flavor text says X, and that it must mean X and X only, is a sure way to make an issue out of nothing.  It is also quite restrictive for a game of imagination.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> From what LS posted I don't read that a skeleton is totally non-sentient - it has a minimal level of mentation as required to follow instructions and support instincts of "hunger". As to how Vicious Mockery attacks this - the same way it does any mind it affects, by striking the mind's weak points. In the case of the skeleton, I would guess that is the "hunger" - fire that up to overwhelming levels and make its skull explode! Very similar to working on the prejudices and anger of, say, an orc warrior.




Where in the description of the animus is sentience even mentioned?

_ the body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death._

I see muscle movement and emotions but no type of mental sentience or ability to reason and understand on a higher level where it would even begin to understand a bard's  insult or jibe much less it's purpose.  It seems to me that in your explanation above you're ignoring the "insults" part of the fact that these are magical insults.


----------



## tuxgeo (Dec 23, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> The PH2 Bard isn't an exact match fluff-wise for earlier editions of the class.  Because WotC merged the music-fluff with the spellcasting-fluff into a single set of powers, the PH2 *bard* is more like a music-themed *sorcerer* (with melee options and leader abilities) than anything else.  A power like Vicious Mockery is obviously a magical attack (see the Arcana keyword) triggered off a clever quip.



(emphasis added) 

I personally see the PHB2 Bard as being similar to a music-themed Wizard more than being similar to a music-themed Sorcerer. 

Take "Vicious Mockery" itself: 
= Charm, Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod. damage, and the target takes -2 tohit UEOYNT. 

Now compare that to the Wizard's "Illusory Ambush": 
= Illusion, Ranged 10, single target, INT v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + INT mod. damage, and the target takes -2 tohit UEOYNT.

Differences: 
(a) One's Charm, the other's Illusion; and 
(b) One uses CHA throughout, the other uses INT in the same places. 
Basically, they're identical; and that sort of thing is why I see the 4E Bard as being closer to a 4E Wizard than to a 4E Sorcerer. 
(Besides, Bards don't get the added Striker damage that Sorcerers get from their blood style -- Chaos, Cosmic, Dragon, or Storm.)


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 23, 2011)

Not trying to derail the thread here; I've just noticed that the issue I have with 4th's plausibility seems to be a lot different from what other people have cited.  

I do not (usually) complain about terminology, so I do not feel it's a big deal for the Warlord to be martial.  Actually, in that regard; as someone who has been in combat, I'll defend the Warlord's inspiring word as being somewhat plausible.  Morale matters; I've seen soldiers push beyond their injuries and complete a mission after being encouraged by a leader.  

What usually gets me is that the fiction within the game world is not consistent with itself and the own reality it has created in the game world.  As I said previous... I find it strange that a lot of demon princes and other such creatures are feared throughout the land when they get spanked so easily by PCs.  Likewise, when a PC can blast through a door no problem, yet a BBEG monster struggles to even scratch it, it seems strange.  It's difficult for me to put myself in the mindset of someone living in that world without questioning the world around me.  I understand why monsters and pcs are built differently; I even support that as a design decision, but I feel that -even while built differently- monsters and PCs should have a more consistent way of interacting with the world around them.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Flavor Text, is used exactly for what it says - flavor.  It is not rules text.
> 
> D&D is at its core a game of imagination.  The flavor for the powers is there to help in stimulating that imaginative play.  It is not meant to restrict it.  Except of course in the most cynical and extreme of views.
> 
> ...




And yet by saying "Flavor doesn't matter" you are reducing the game to exactly this. All what is left now is "gamespeak" that you can do X damage each round with the keyword "psychic".

And then you get exactly this kind of problems that the "gamespeak" allows you to do something which, according to the flavor of the current situation, doesn't make sense and it also makes it harder to use the power creatively as the gamespeak, the only thing you have for this power, only covers combat but no other situations.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 23, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> Ok. I agree with you about what's best, but I don't think you're reading Dasuul correctly. I read: "The game universe is the Thing, the primary source. It comes first." to mean that the rules exist to assist the game, but not to reflect, define or communicate to the players how the world works. In other words, I read Dasuul as saying that the rules describe the game, not the game world.
> 
> So, maybe we're all in vigorous agreement?




I see that there is a fictional game world in our heads.  Then there are the fictional characters interacting with that world.  The game rules are a model that structures how we as players interact with those characters and the world.  Like all models, in places it does its job very well, and in others, not nearly so well.  Part of the job of the DM is to navigate the rougher patches in the model.  Depending upon the group, the players may also be expected to help somewhat with this--if only to go along with certain conventions.  

To give the model primacy over reflecting the game world, you must first determine if you will do so with processes or results.  You cannot do both.  And in either case, if you completely ignore its functions in interacting with the people, it still won't fully work.  

Saying that one aspect should receive should primacy is akin to saying that the structure of a building should *only* focus on stability or human interactions.  I don't know about anyone else, but I want my house to remain standing under reasonable conditions, and I also want it to have things in places that are convenient for me.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> Mechanically speaking, it seems like the complaint is with the skeleton, in that it's a mindless creature that has no resistance / immunity to charms or psychic damage.  Personally, it doesn't bother me that mindless creatures can be affected by mind-influencing magic.  After all, it's not like they have any resistance, and a cracked or exploding skull seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.



So you allow bards to use vicious mockery on chairs? After all, the chairs are mindless and have no resistance/immunity to charms or psychic damage, and a cracked or exploding chair seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.

Really, how far are players willing to go to justify the mechanics of a power? Will there be a new 4e-inspired Star Wars novel where Jedis use Mind Trick on chairs? Will there be a new D&D book about Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged bard who goes around insulting the universe, destroying skeletons and oozes and chairs with his mindless-shattering insults?

Will I ever see the day when a player stands up and says "Enough!" and admits the madness has gone too far and _voluntarily_ refrains from using Vicious Mockery on skeletons and oozes and chairs because, maybe, just maybe, it's better to NOT use a power in that way?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Flavor Text, is used exactly for what it says - flavor. It is not rules text.
> 
> D&D is at its core a game of imagination. The flavor for the powers is there to help in stimulating that imaginative play. It is not meant to restrict it. Except of course in the most cynical and extreme of views.
> 
> ...




This sounds like it would be great... for a game of Toon. On the other hand I feel like both flavor and mechanics should be consistent (maybe even supportive of each other) within a game or else you have no comon ground for the PC's and DM to draw on. I definitely think that neither mechanics nor flavor, within the context of the default game, should outright contradict themselves or each other.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Where in the description of the animus is sentience even mentioned?
> 
> _ the body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death._
> 
> I see muscle movement and emotions but no type of mental sentience or ability to reason and understand on a higher level where it would even begin to understand a bard's  insult or jibe much less it's purpose.  It seems to me that in your explanation above you're ignoring the "insults" part of the fact that these are magical insults.



First off there's this bit:

"Most undead, even those that seem intelligent, are this sort of creature - driven to inhuman behaviour by lack of governance of a soul and a hunger for life that can't be sated. *Nearly* mindless undead have been infused with just enough impetus to give the remains mobility but little else."

From which I take it that they have *some* degree of "mind". Add to that that, in order to follow commands, discriminate intruders from rats or masters or fellow guardians (or whatever) and in order to fight with any facility at all, they _must_ have some degree of basic understanding and instinct. Add, also, that they have the "hunger" referred to, and I see plenty for an arcane "lampoon" to work with.

I think, too, you place an inordinate stress on the word "Mockery". This is an arcane attack that works on a target's emotions - especially, but not limited to, anger. I find that 4E works poorly if you insist that the rules define the fluff that surrounds the basic principle of an attack or other power or ability. The attack form (or the form for any power or ability, in fact) is a *principle* in 4E, not a rote formula that is spammed out time after time. I find that this very concept makes for a far more believable scenario than a selection, however large, of rote moves that are repeated identically in every encounter.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> And yet by saying "Flavor doesn't matter" you are reducing the game to exactly this. All what is left now is "gamespeak" that you can do X damage each round with the keyword "psychic".
> 
> And then you get exactly this kind of problems that the "gamespeak" allows you to do something which, according to the flavor of the current situation, doesn't make sense and it also makes it harder to use the power creatively as the gamespeak, the only thing you have for this power, only covers combat but no other situations.



I think you're misreading the intent - it's not so much that _'flavour doesn't matter'_ as it is _'flavour is malleable - make it what you want/what works.'_

I think, if I read him right (and if so, I feel this way too), you aren't, and shouldn't, be restricted to describing your powers with the flavour text provided - you can change it to whatever you want - but preferably something that matches, supports, or reinforces the fiction of the game world and its events.

Maybe your magic missile looks like a butterfly farting rainbows, but it is still an Arcane attack that does Force damage as an effect.

As an example of something I've used - I had a feylock cast Witchfire that reduced an enemy to 0hp, but wanted to take the opponent alive, so to flavour it in such a way that it would be easier to swallow than getting knocked unconscious by a fireball, I described it as my character conjuring a swarm of pixies from the feywild brandishing flaming torches, who then used those torches to beat my foe unconscious. Still an Arcane attack that does Fire damage. The spell technically isn't a conjuration, but for the purposes of interacting with the rules, and the world, at that moment, it didn't matter.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> From which I take it that they have *some* degree of "mind". Add to that that, in order to follow commands, discriminate intruders from rats or masters or fellow guardians (or whatever) and in order to fight with any facility at all, they _must_ have some degree of basic understanding and instinct.



See post 226. I think you are mistaking intelligence for sentience/self-awareness. They're not the same. Robots have intelligence but not self-awareness. You have to be self-aware to understand an insult.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't have a problem making sense of Vicious Mockery; my problem with it is that it doesn't matter if you have your PC spit a curse or not, you can just say "Vicious Mockery" and proceed on with the game.  I think it would be more interesting if what you said had some kind of effect on the resolution of your action, similar to the pre-3E Command spell.

I think this makes an interesting case study for "realism."  Let's take a look at a different version of Vicious Mockery:

Vicious Mockery
Arcane * blah blah blah
Requirement: The target must be insulted by your mocking words
Attack: Cha vs Will
Hit: The DM selects one of the following based on your insult:
* Shamed, 1d6+Cha mod psychic damage and -2 to attack
* Depressed, Cha mod psychic damage and the target is Dazed
* Enraged, 1d6+Cha mod psychic damage and the target is Pulled 2 + your Cha modifier squares

(Not that I think this is a good power, but as an example it'll work.)

With this version, the DM can apply his or her own sense of what the expected reaction to such an insult would be.  What happens is as realistic as the DM is able to make it.  I always found it stupid that skeletons and zombies were able to carry out very complex commands - like _fighting_ - and yet were somehow unintelligent or mindless.  Other people seem to have no problem with that.  Leave it up to the DM and you have a rule that's realistic to multiple different groups, even if what's realistic to those groups is at odds.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> So you allow bards to use vicious mockery on chairs? After all, the chairs are mindless and have no resistance/immunity to charms or psychic damage, and a cracked or exploding chair seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage.
> 
> Really, how far are players willing to go to justify the mechanics of a power? Will there be a new 4e-inspired Star Wars novel where Jedis use Mind Trick on chairs? Will there be a new D&D book about Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged bard who goes around insulting the universe, destroying skeletons and oozes and chairs with his mindless-shattering insults?
> 
> Will I ever see the day when a player stands up and says "Enough!" and admits the madness has gone too far and _voluntarily_ refrains from using Vicious Mockery on skeletons and oozes and chairs because, maybe, just maybe, it's better to NOT use a power in that way?



Technically a chair is an object and most (if not all) objects are not subject to attacks that target Will, such as Vicious Mockery and Mind Thrust.

Also, I just did some looking, and it tuns out that many oozes and similar creatures are immune to charm, which means they cannot be insulted to death by Vicious Mockery either.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I think you're misreading the intent - it's not so much that _'flavour doesn't matter'_ as it is _'flavour is malleable - make it what you want/what works.'_




Which translates into "Flavor doesn't matter".
What remains when you make flavor "mallable" (= not fixed) is "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"

Thats all what remains and bang you have a "gamespeak" boardgame.

"You meet a Level + 1 artillery monster".
"I use At Will Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls on it"
<Insert appropriate names for monster and ability, it doesn't really matter what they are>

And that is exactly why so many people have problems with 4Es "realism".
4E was designed for balanced combat first, like a boardgame. Everyone has X powers which all have to be balanced against each other. What those powers are does not matter. All the flavor text was just added after everything was decided and the game iteslf encouraged you to not pay much/any attention to it.
Why? Because having flavor text affect the effectiveness of powers would destroy the carefully constructed balanced combat, the foundation of 4E.

For this edition it is more important that the bard can do 1d6+Cha damage to every enemy he meets than that the flavor of the power makes sense in this situation.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> See post 226. I think you are mistaking intelligence for sentience/self-awareness. They're not the same. Robots have intelligence but not self-awareness. You have to be self-aware to understand an insult.



Rather than debate the nature of artificial intelligence (which, to pass the "Turing test", would _have_ to understand insults), I'll just say that I don't regard an "insult", _per se_, as being necessary. As I said later in that same post, it's an attack against a mental weakness related to emotion - and emotion, in the form of the "hunger", the undead clearly have. Again, it's a principle, not a formula.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> And yet by saying "Flavor doesn't matter" you are reducing the game to exactly this. All what is left now is "gamespeak" that you can do X damage each round with the keyword "psychic".
> 
> And then you get exactly this kind of problems that the "gamespeak" allows you to do something which, according to the flavor of the current situation, doesn't make sense and it also makes it harder to use the power creatively as the gamespeak, the only thing you have for this power, only covers combat but no other situations.




I'm sure that at no point did I say that "Flavor doesn't matter."  What I specifically said was that Flavor is not Rules Text.  So I can use the flavor of a power to narrate my description in whatever way suits me and a DM can use it to inform the narration that is happening at the table. There is no good reason for why I would have to slavishly follow the Flavor Text, because it is not a Rules Element.

I can't choose to say that I'm going to use STR for an attack if the power is based off CHA.  That is obviously rules text.  However I can choose to describe the effects of a power by using the Flavor Text, or by making up my own Flavor Text for the situation.  

In the case of Vicious Mockery (an Arcane Power BTW) - I can describe the effect as making fun of the skeleton, or I can choose to say that the arcane mocking words tear at the necrotic forces that hold the skeleton's "unlife" together.  Because flavor text is NOT rules text, I can choose to describe in whatever way suits my fancy at the time.

I've heard the "you can't use this power, but for combat situations" before, and I totally disagree.  I've had players use Vicious Mockery in a skill challenge to have a crowd of people impede movement for some guards that were chasing them.

The DM is not a computer AI that has restricted actions, and only the ones defined in the "rules" are acceptable. 

Powers, and their implementation in game, are only as restricted as the DM and players at that particular table.  If the player can't come up with a "creative" way to use the power out of combat that is not a fault of the power but of the player, and possibly of the DM.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> Which translates into "Flavor doesn't matter".
> What remains when you make flavor "mallable" (= not fixed) is "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"
> 
> Thats all what remains and bang you have a "gamespeak" boardgame.



Unless you reflavour it yourself. Then you just have different flavour. Flavour still matters, in fact, I'd say it matters _more_, since you get to decide what it is.

It's like in AD&D when there _was_ no flavour text but what the players and the DM gave it. Back then it could just as easily be considered 'just a bunch of rules text.' In fact, I recell a passage in the DMG devoted to just that - how to come up with flavour text on the fly so that it didn't end up being all rules-speak at the table.

To me, if every power's flavour had to remain the exact same every time, I'd find it a little boring.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> First off there's this bit:
> 
> "Most undead, even those that seem intelligent, are this sort of creature - driven to inhuman behaviour by lack of governance of a soul and a hunger for life that can't be sated. *Nearly* mindless undead have been infused with just enough impetus to give the remains mobility but little else."
> 
> From which I take it that they have *some* degree of "mind". Add to that that, in order to follow commands, discriminate intruders from rats or masters or fellow guardians (or whatever) and in order to fight with any facility at all, they _must_ have some degree of basic understanding and instinct. Add, also, that they have the "hunger" referred to, and I see plenty for an arcane "lampoon" to work with.




*Definition of SENTIENT*

1*:* responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <_sentient_ beings> 

2*:* aware 

3*:* finely sensitive in perception or feeling 





My claim was that they don't have sentience... which they don't, as illustrated by the fact that the text makes a clear distinction between sentient undead and those that are not...

_" Sentient undead have a stronger animus that might even have access to the memories of the deceased, but such monstrosities have few or none of the sympathies they had in life. A wight has a body and a feral awareness granted by the animus, but no soul. Even the dreaded wraith is simple a soulless animus, deeply corrupted and infused with strong necromantic energy."_

So we are talking about undead who are neither conscious of or can sense any type of impressions and are not independently aware... yet they respond to mystically charged insults spoken to them...Yeah, ok... again you might as well insult a chair to death.





Balesir said:


> I think, too, you place an inordinate stress on the word "Mockery". This is an arcane attack that works on a target's emotions - especially, but not limited to, anger. I find that 4E works poorly if you insist that the rules define the fluff that surrounds the basic principle of an attack or other power or ability. The attack form (or the form for any power or ability, in fact) is a *principle* in 4E, not a rote formula that is spammed out time after time. I find that this very concept makes for a far more believable scenario than a selection, however large, of rote moves that are repeated identically in every encounter.




I think that many fans of 4e tend to create theories, ideas, and views for what many consider 4e's flaws. The thing is that these thoughts are rarely supported by the text or the comments and posts of the developers and designers. 

So ok, I'm game... please show me in the PHB where a power is described or even hinted at as a "principle" as opposed to a rote formula type action? I mean I'd be willing to entertain this notion if the powers had ways to modify or change their effects slightly built into them... but they don't. In fact the mechanics that always require you to do A and upon completion give effect B moreso support them as rotes than anything else. Now if you want to look at them that way in order to justify certain things...then cool, but I don't think anything in the game points to this interpretation. Though I'm willing to entertain examples.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> Which translates into "Flavor doesn't matter".
> What remains when you make flavor "mallable" (= not fixed) is "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"
> 
> Thats all what remains and bang you have a "gamespeak" boardgame.



No, you have a set of principles upon which to base and adjudicate what results arise in the fiction. Principles and routines that provide an agreed set of criteria upon which the imagination can build a vision of what is happening in the game world.

What happened to "this is a game where players use their imaginations"?


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> What happened to "this is a game where players use their imaginations"?




It got stifled by "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"

Because now you have a lot of combat only abilities which you can't even use creatively as no one knows what those abilities are (No flavor).

Unless of course you are running freeform, but why play D&D then?


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> It got stifled by "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"
> 
> Because now you have a lot of combat only abilities which you can't even use creatively as no one knows what those abilities are (No flavor).
> 
> Unless of course you are running freeform, but why play D&D then?




The cynical extreme would be to take "Flavor is Malleable" and transform it to "Flavor doesn't matter", or worse yet "No Flavor."

Everything that I've said in my comments was done in D&D, and yes I have a lot of players that have used their "combat powers" in ways outside of combat.

Saying that the 4e Powers are simply a collection of rules is pretty much an exaggeration, as what we have been discussing is the Flavor Text of 4e Powers and that is obviously not a collection of rules.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> It got stifled by "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"
> 
> Because now you have a lot of combat only abilities which you can't even use creatively as no one knows what those abilities are (No flavor).
> 
> Unless of course you are running freeform, but why play D&D then?




Good point.

In 4e how can one be creative with his or her powers in a fictional game world when said powers have one specific set of mechanics and effects but (according to many proponents of 4e on here) no concrete attachment whatsoever to the game world's fiction until you create it?

Of course whatever you flavor the power it can still only do whatever it's particular effect is.  This almost seems like a sort of hollow creativity.  

I guess you can ask the GM to let you do other things, but then what's the limit of the power in your narrative description and who decides it?  Especially taking into account that the flavor can be anything anyone wants it to be for a power.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

D'karr said:


> The cynical extreme would be to take "Flavor is Malleable" and transform it to "Flavor doesn't matter", or worse yet "No Flavor."




No, its just the logical extention of "Flavor is mallable".
Why do you say that when the flavor and rules conflict to change the flavor?

Your answer to "Insulting a skeletton doesn't make sense" is "Well change the flavor then". Why not change the rules instead?
By refusing to do that, or even accept it as possible solution, you are saying that flavor are less important, matter less, than rules.


----------



## darjr (Dec 23, 2011)

I think Derren is approaching my issues with 4e. If the flavor could be anything, then it doesn't matter what it IS. I agree that 'the flavor could be anything' is an exageration, but to me it isn't much of one.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

D'karr said:


> The cynical extreme would be to take "Flavor is Malleable" and transform it to "Flavor doesn't matter", or worse yet "No Flavor."




Then please expound... on the one hand you argue flavor can be anything you want it to be for a power... yet on the other hand you're saying flavor matters? So can you give an example or two where flavor is totally malleable but also matters?



D'karr said:


> Everything that I've said in my comments was done in D&D, and yes I have a lot of players that have used their "combat powers" in ways outside of combat.




Could you give a few examples of these as well?



D'karr said:


> Saying that the 4e Powers are simply a collection of rules is pretty much an exaggeration, as what we have been discussing is the Flavor Text of 4e Powers and that is obviously not a collection of rules.




This seems like a "I want my cake and I want to eat it too" type thing. If the 4e powers are more than a collection of finite rules bundles, then how can the flavor not matter and be malleable to whatever you want? I also don't think anyone argued the flavor was a collection of rules... only that it should matter when going for realism... but you seem to be saying it does in 4e... or are you saying something else?  I'm honestly getting a little confused as to your position.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> My claim was that they don't have sentience... which they don't, as illustrated by the fact that the text makes a clear distinction between sentient undead and those that are not...
> 
> _" Sentient undead have a stronger animus that might even have access to the memories of the deceased, but such monstrosities have few or none of the sympathies they had in life. A wight has a body and a feral awareness granted by the animus, but no soul. Even the dreaded wraith is simple a soulless animus, deeply corrupted and infused with strong necromantic energy."_
> 
> So we are talking about undead who are neither conscious of or can sense any type of impressions and are not independently aware... yet they respond to mystically charged insults spoken to them...Yeah, ok... again you might as well insult a chair to death.



If they lack sentience to this degree, how come they can detect intruders? How come they can fight? By the definition you give, non-sentient means blind, deaf, anosmic and without a sense of touch. How could such a creature move around, never mind engage in combat with weapons?  To do what the rules say they do, they *must* have _some_ degree of sentience. Just how much is for the players in any specific game to decide.



Imaro said:


> So ok, I'm game... please show me in the PHB where a power is described or even hinted at as a "principle" as opposed to a rote formula type action? I mean I'd be willing to entertain this notion if the powers had ways to modify or change their effects slightly built into them... but they don't. In fact the mechanics that always require you to do A and upon completion give effect B moreso support them as rotes than anything else. Now if you want to look at them that way in order to justify certain things...then cool, but I don't think anything in the game points to this interpretation. Though I'm willing to entertain examples.



If you want hand-holding consultancy as to how to make use of a roleplaying game, I'll charge by the hour!

Read an actual Power block in 4E. Heck, read the rules text on "reading power descriptions" (PHB page 55 or so). The description comes as a name, some "fluff" and some actual rules for using the power. The rules are intended to be fixed (unless houseruled for the specific game). The "fluff", including the name of the power, is intended to be malleable according to the tastes of a gaming group, or even an individual player.

Now read the power "Vicious Mockery". It's an At Will, Arcane power, a Bard level 1 attack with keywords Charm, Implement and Psychic. It requires a Standard action to use, and targets one creature at up to Range 10. You roll a Charisma-based attack roll to have the power "hit", and if you succeed it inflicts psychic damage and gives the target a penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.

Those are the *rules* for the power "Vicious Mockery". No mention of insults. No mention of minumum required levels of sentience (although the "psychic" keyword does imply that it will not work on "objects").

The rest is all flavour, or colour text. This, as stated on p.55 of the PHB, can be modified to suit how the player of the bard, the group at the table and/or whoever wish to envision the power's use *on this particular occasion*.

I don't see how it could be made much plainer.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> If they lack sentience to this degree, how come they can detect intruders? How come they can fight? By the definition you give, non-sentient means blind, deaf, anosmic and without a sense of touch. How could such a creature move around, never mind engage in combat with weapons?  To do what the rules say they do, they *must* have _some_ degree of sentience. Just how much is for the players in any specific game to decide.



That's not true. Earthworms are surely not sentient, but they can move, sense, and exhibit all sorts of sophisticated behavior. AIs too. There's a good sci-fi novel about an alien species that turned out to be non-sentient yet exhibited extremely high intelligence, I forget the name. There's an entire branch of animal behavior studies determining which animals seem to have a sense of self (on the white list are dolphins, apes, etc.).


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Of course whatever you flavor the power it can still only do whatever it's particular effect is.  This almost seems like a sort of hollow creativity.
> 
> I guess you can ask the GM to let you do other things, but then what's the limit of the power in your narrative description and who decides it?  Especially taking into account that the flavor can be anything anyone wants it to be for a power.




This is the kind of thought process that I saw a lot with some players in my 3.x days.  If a rule did not specifically exist, to cover a specific situation, then it couldn't even be attempted.

I honestly would not want to go back to that type of mentality.

D&D is a game of imagination.  If you can imagine it, you can attempt it.  It doesn't mean that you will be successful but you should be able to try.  In D&D you are allowed to color outside of the lines.

It will be a very sad day when the game is reduced to "you can only do what the rules say you can do."


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Then please expound... on the one hand you argue flavor can be anything you want it to be for a power... yet on the other hand you're saying flavor matters? So can you give an example or two where flavor is totally malleable but also matters?



Not to steal anyone's thunder here, but maybe the answer to that is that there is more to this game than just the rules? The rules text determines how things operate, just like they do in every RPG. Flavour determines, informs, or supports the fiction that is created every time you play.

This has been true in every edition to some degree.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> No, its just the logical extention of "Flavor is mallable".
> Why do you say that when the flavor and rules conflict to change the flavor?
> 
> Your answer to "Insulting a skeletton doesn't make sense" is "Well change the flavor then". Why not change the rules instead?
> By refusing to do that, or even accept it as possible solution, you are saying that flavor are less important, matter less, than rules.



Maybe it would help to think of it in a similar way to the development of Science.

In science, you may have a theory. Let's call this analogous to the colour/flavour. Now, you do an experiment; let's say it doesn't agree with the theory. Here's a key point in science: it's not the result of the experiment that's wrong. It's the theory that's wrong.

But, this does not mean that there is no value in theory, or that "there really isn't any such thing as a theory". It just means we have to adjust the theory to fit the facts.

4E works similarly. The rules generate the facts. If we are to understand the game setting on a "human" level, however, we need to construct theories. Sometimes these theories will need to be tweaked - but that doesn't mean they don't enable us to form a model of the game world in our minds. Which is pretty much the point of roleplaying, I think.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

D'karr said:


> D&D is a game of imagination.  If you can imagine it, you can attempt it.  It doesn't mean that you will be successful but you should be able to try.  In D&D you are allowed to color outside of the lines.




And yet no matter what you do the result will be Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> If you want hand-holding consultancy as to how to make use of a roleplaying game, I'll charge by the hour!
> 
> Read an actual Power block in 4E. Heck, read the rules text on "reading power descriptions" (PHB page 55 or so). The description comes as a name, some "fluff" and some actual rules for using the power. The rules are intended to be fixed (unless houseruled for the specific game). The "fluff", including the name of the power, is intended to be malleable according to the tastes of a gaming group, or even an individual player.
> 
> ...




I don't see how you could obfuscate any harder.  The above has noting to do with what I asked you about. 

This doesn't prove anything about whether powers are rotes or principles. (Without house rules) Their effects never change, their procedures never changes... that sounds like a rote to me. All you did was write out a long paragraph that boiled down to... "a powers appearance is malleable in 4e" that speaks to nothing about whether the designers and developers viewed the powers as rotes or principles.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> And yet no matter what you do the result will be Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls



How is this different from ANY other edition?

Fireball - range 100 yards + 10 yards per level, AoE 20' radius, everything in radius takes 1d6 damage per level (max 10d6), save for half.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

D'karr said:


> This is the kind of thought process that I saw a lot with some players in my 3.x days. If a rule did not specifically exist, to cover a specific situation, then it couldn't even be attempted.
> 
> I honestly would not want to go back to that type of mentality.
> 
> ...




Strawman...


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> How is this different from ANY other edition?
> 
> Fireball - range 100 yards + 10 yards per level, AoE 20' radius, everything in radius takes 1d6 damage per level (max 10d6), save for half.




The difference is that in previous editions the rules at least tried to work hand in hand with flavor like with fire immunity or the impotence of certain characters vs. undead. And they also didn't flat out say that the flavor is less important than rules like 4E does.

And this design attitude, that flavor is inherently less important than rules is what irks people when they talk about 4E lacking realism or that 4E is like a video game.
It goes through the entire design of 4E and it is clearly visible in such situation that 4E at is core is a mathematical construct to balance combat and that all the flavor, all what many of us associate with D&D or PnP in general is just an addon to this mathematical construct.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not really - if it was meant to represent the ideal of what a fighter _could _possibly be after a long campaign worth of successful adventures.



So you accept a fighter can enter the realms of the mythic, while still maintaining fidelity to his or her class... so we are, in essence, in agreement!


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> No, its just the logical extention of "Flavor is mallable".
> Why do you say that when the flavor and rules conflict to change the flavor?



That is actually not a logical extension because what I said in essence needed no extension.

What you are saying with your extension is that you are willing to purposely ruin your own immersion in the game world as well as the enjoyment of others that are playing with you by extending the "flavor text" into ridiculous territory, or to non-existence. Both of which are extremes.

Thankfully the game is usually played in the "middle of the road" not in the extremes that you seem to want to believe it is played.



> Your answer to "Insulting a skeletton doesn't make sense" is "Well change the flavor then". Why not change the rules instead?




What benefit would changing the rules provide?  Then we'd be back to a place where I would need a rule change for every corner case that ever existed. There is a reason that D&D is played with a DM.  So that those type of corner cases can be adjudicated if necessary.



> By refusing to do that, or even accept it as possible solution, you are saying that flavor are less important, matter less, than rules.




Never did I say that, and once again you're operating in the extremes.  Why would having malleable flavor text imply that it is less important than rules?

The fact that "flavor text" is malleable is what makes it important. Because it provides a starting point for the narration that can make sense at the table, but because of its malleability I can extend it to cover those corner cases that rules seem too inadequate to handle.

If someone at my table wanted to operate on the ludicrous fringes of narration they would be able to do so with or without flavor text, or rules.  The fact that there is a DM and other players at the table is what limits that kind of behavior, not more rules for the game.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> In other words I think you are confusing the issue of Hercules being a demi-god and son of Zeus... with him being a fighter.



I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a _fighter_.

Make of that what you will .


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I don't see how you could obfuscate any harder.  The above has noting to do with what I asked you about.



OK, maybe I have no idea what you _were_ asking about...



Imaro said:


> This doesn't prove anything about whether powers are rotes or principles. (Without house rules) Their effects never change, their procedures never changes... that sounds like a rote to me. All you did was write out a long paragraph that boiled down to... "a powers appearance is malleable in 4e" that speaks to nothing about whether the designers and developers viewed the powers as rotes or principles.



What? There is a serious disconnect in what we mean, here, I think.

The rules are not the game. There is much more to the game than the rules. The *rules* procedures and effects are fixed, yes. What these effects mean in the game world are absolutely *not* fixed.

The power "Vicious Mockery" is a principle, a _modus operandi_ in the skillset of the Bard. It's a bit like knowledge of fluid mechanics as it relates to streamlining for an engineer. Like the engineer, the Bard can use this technique in various ways to affect various entities to various ends. An engineer who tries to use fluid mechanics by rote is going to be a really poor engineer; you understand the principles, and apply them according to your best judgement to the situation before you. Same for the Bard. They have a set of principles for magically affecting emotions such that they distract and cause anguish/damage to target creatures. They don't do this the same way every time - and sometimes the way that they select does not create the desired effect (they "miss"). But when they successfully apply the technique, the game-mechanical effects on the environment are similar (as decided by the dice, representing unknown variables).


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> The difference is that in previous editions the rules at least tried to work hand in hand with flavor like with fire immunity or the impotence of certain characters vs. undead.



Fire immunity and resistance still exists, and still matters. Undead are immune to some attacks still (poison, disease), and heavily resist necrotic effects.



> And they also didn't flat out say that the flavor is less important than rules like 4E does.



Nowhere in the book does it say that. That is you making a judgement. And really, the degree to which flavour is important is and has always been up to players and DMs to decide for themselves.



> And this design attitude, that flavor is inherently less important than rules is what irks people when they talk about 4E lacking realism or that 4E is like a video game.



Again, that is you passing judgement, not something that is written in stone. I have played 4e since it was released, and haven't noticed it being any more or less realistic compared to 3.x or AD&D. My campaign world still soldiers on like it always has. It's not video gamey at all.


> It goes through the entire design of 4E and it is clearly visible in such situation that 4E at is core is a mathematical construct to balance combat and that all the flavor, all what many of us associate with D&D or PnP in general is just an addon to this mathematical construct.



Again, your judgement, your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but clearly it isn't universally held.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a _fighter_.




No, a man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is the mortal son of a god.

A man who can't cast any spells, throw lightning or heal people and instead relies on his great strength to bash peoples heads is a fighter.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> Nowhere in the book does it say that. That is you making a judgement.




Read post 282 by Balesir.
The rules say exactly that.



Balesir said:


> The rest is all flavour, or colour text. This, as stated on p.55 of the PHB, can be modified to suit how the player of the bard, the group at the table and/or whoever wish to envision the power's use *on this particular occasion*.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> How is this different from ANY other edition?
> 
> Fireball - range 100 yards + 10 yards per level, AoE 20' radius, everything in radius takes 1d6 damage per level (max 10d6), save for half.




Here's an example... in PF, outside of the above, Fireball also sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area... it can even melt metals. Thus if a player wants to set an object on fire or melt metal with it he can and using it can also have unforseen consequences (this, IMO, is what flavor that actually ties into the gameworld does).

Taking Fireball in 4e... it only affects creatures in the burst... that's it by the rules and flavor.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a _fighter_.



A man who can kill with a plasma rifle is a _fighter_. See how I can compare apples to oranges? Unless you've played D&D like a greek myth, you're mixing up 2 different mediums.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Strawman...




You always like to use that word.  I just chose to ignore the connotation because it is simply designed to be a conversation ender.  You don't have to respond to any of my posts, or you can put me on your ignore list if you don't want conversation from me.

Reading the game rules for a power, and it's associated flavor text and then saying, "that is the ONLY way that a power will ever function" totally dismisses the function of a DM in the game.

If you like that type of interaction in the game then be my guest, knock yourself out.  I won't say you are wrong, but that is not what I prefer when it comes to a game of imagination.

What I have explained is why the flavor text of a power works in the game to bridge the gap between rules and narration.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> Read post 282 by Balesir.
> The rules say exactly that.



The rules say the flavour is malleable, not that it is unimportant. It is you who are saying that because the fluff is not fixed that it is somehow less important. Again, I say that is something that is, and has always been, up to individual players to decide for themselves.



Imaro said:


> Here's an example... in PF, outside of the above, Fireball also sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area... it can even melt metals. Thus if a player wants to set an object on fire or melt metal with it he can and using it can also have unforseen consequences (this, IMO, is what flavor that actually ties into the gameworld does).
> 
> Taking Fireball in 4e... it only affects creatures in the burst... that's it by the rules and flavor.



Actually, that is not correct. There is a rule in the Rules Compendium (and previously) that specifically states that in such cases the DM is to make a judgement call - just like always. Unless there is a good in-game reason, or external pressures (i.e. lack of time or interest to deal with it), you won't find too many DMs that wouldn't say a power with the Fire keyword affects flammable objects.

I have quoted that particular passage before. In this thread.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> A man who can't cast any spells, throw lightning or heal people is a fighter.



I'll be sure to let the Dalai Llama know he's a "fighter".



Derren said:


> Read post 282 by Balesir.
> The rules say exactly that.



You are confusing the flavour/colour being "up to the players to decide" with the flavour/colour being "unimportant".

I get to decide what I wear every day; that doesn't mean that what I wear is unimportant, or that I would be just as well wearing nothing at all. I wear what makes me comfortable - but there are a myriad social and practical considerations that determine what that will be.

Just because the players (including the DM) get to decide what the in-game expression of the facts generated by the rules will be does not mean that the form of that expression is unimportant.

Quite the contrary - the form that the expression takes can be critical to our enjoyment of the game.  All the more reason not to have it dictated to us by a rules system.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Taking Fireball in 4e... it only affects creatures in the burst... that's it by the rules and flavor.




Does the power say that it WILL NOT affect any objects in the burst? No it doesn't.  So the DM can decide what the power does outside of that narrow interpretation.

For example the DM can easily decide that he'd like to have the room catch on fire because there are combustibles in the area.  The power has a keyword of Fire, after all.  And the rules do provide some guidance on how to handle attacking objects with powers.  

So in PF everything that the power does is explicitly spelled out in the power.  In 4e, the decision is explicitly left up to the DM and players.  A player can easily ask, "can I set fire to the room with the Fireball?"  Then it becomes a matter of DM adjudication. The DMG also has wonderful advice for DMs when handling these "corner cases."

In my case, I know which one provides more flexibility, the one that puts the adjudication in the hands of the person that knows that table best, the DM.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> The rules say the flavour is malleable, not that it is unimportant. It is you who are saying that because the fluff is not fixed that it is somehow less important.




Something that can be changed on a whim can't be important.
When I can change the colors or the motive in a painting at will, does it really matter what it shows?

When it doesn't matter if the bard insults someone to make his brain explode, shoots a laser beam out of his musical instrument or just simply throws a rock at the enemy then those things do not matter.
What always stays teh same and what really matters to the game is "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls"


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

You can change clothes on a whim - does that mean it doesn't matter if you wander around naked?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> What? There is a serious disconnect in what we mean, here, I think.
> 
> The rules are not the game. There is much more to the game than the rules. The *rules* procedures and effects are fixed, yes. What these effects mean in the game world are absolutely *not* fixed.
> 
> The power "Vicious Mockery" is a principle, a _modus operandi_ in the skillset of the Bard. It's a bit like knowledge of fluid mechanics as it relates to streamlining for an engineer. Like the engineer, the Bard can use this technique in various ways to affect various entities to various ends. An engineer who tries to use fluid mechanics by rote is going to be a really poor engineer; you understand the principles, and apply them according to your best judgement to the situation before you. Same for the Bard. They have a set of principles for magically affecting emotions such that they distract and cause anguish/damage to target creatures. They don't do this the same way every time - and sometimes the way that they select does not create the desired effect (they "miss"). But when they successfully apply the technique, the game-mechanical effects on the environment are similar (as decided by the dice, representing unknown variables).




Okay, technically Bards in PHB 2 cast spells and thus Vicious Mockery is an actual spell.  Spells, as far as I can tell, are a specific thing in 4e with a formula (which can be written in a spellbook, at least in the description of spells for the Wizard). I'm going to go ahead and say this is your interpretation of the rules for Bards... but not necessarily the default for the game, or even a correct one.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> Something that can be changed on a whim can't be important.



That is your judgment and opinion, but not one I share, and not one explicitly supported by the game materials.


> When I can change the colors or the motive in a painting at will, does it really matter what it shows?



I will suggest though that the flavour of a given power is less like creating a single static work of art and more like the ability to paint. Today you can decide you want to paint a portrait, tomorrow, maybe a landscape, and in a couple days, maybe you're feeling zany and will try something in an abstract style.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> You can change clothes on a whim - does that mean it doesn't matter if you wander around naked?




When all clothes fit all occasions (Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls even against skelettons) yes, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> When all clothes fit all occasions (Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls even against skelettons) yes, it doesn't matter.



Yes, it still matters. Just not in this case.

Try that on an ooze, see how far it gets you.

Hit a fire-immune creature with a fire attack.

Or conversely, use a radiant power against that same skeleton and tell me it doesn't matter.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Yes, it still matters. Just not in this case.
> 
> Try that on an ooze, see how far it gets you.
> 
> ...




Yes, those things are some of the few cases where the rules support some sort of flavor in 4E, but they are far less than in previous editions. And exactly this "less" is the problem. And there are a lot of situations in 4E where the minimal union between rules and flavor is not there even though its needed.
Also still, the flavor of the abilities do not matter. Its the power tag. it doesn't matter if I hit the ooze with a spit from a paladin or shoot lazers out of a holy symbol. Both has the exact same result.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Okay, technically Bards in PHB 2 cast spells and thus Vicious Mockery is an actual spell.  Spells, as far as I can tell, are a specific thing in 4e with a formula (which can be written in a spellbook, at least in the description of spells for the Wizard). I'm going to go ahead and say this is your interpretation of the rules for Bards... but not necessarily the default for the game, or even a correct one.




Actually this would seem to be more like your interpretation for spells, as Bards do not require books and formula or to write spells in books.

Sorcerers, also cast "spells" and none of their spells fit that description either.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> Yes, those things are some of the few cases where the rules support some sort of flavor in 4E, but they are far less than in previous editions. And exactly this "less" is the problem.



I disagree with that statement. There have been all kinds of cases in previous editions where loopholes and strange immersion-breaking things happened, to say nothing of games full of bad DM judgment calls. No ruleset (or DM for that matter) is going to be perfect.

In the end, for you flavour is less important in 4e, for others, not so much, but it doesn't mean we place any less *value *on the flavour of a power. You apparently do, but that is neither here nor there.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I disagree with that statement. There have been all kinds of cases in previous editions where loopholes and strange immersion-breaking things happened, to say nothing of games full of bad DM judgment calls. No ruleset (or DM for that matter) is going to be perfect.




There is a difference between players finding loopholes and the designers not even caring.
And the instant you say "Just change the flavor to make the rules work for you", and that is the gist of what you argue here, you place less value on flavor than on rules.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> There is a difference between players finding loopholes and the designers not even caring.



Pure hyperbole. You're not even trying anymore - just slinging mud.


> And the instant you say "Just change the flavor to make the rules work  for you", and that is the gist of what you argue here, you place less  value on flavor than on rules.



No. That may be what it means to YOU, but I am a separate thinking entity and I can make up my own mind, thanks. As I said, I do not agree with your assessment.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Okay, technically Bards in PHB 2 cast spells and thus Vicious Mockery is an actual spell.  Spells, as far as I can tell, are a specific thing in 4e with a formula (which can be written in a spellbook, at least in the description of spells for the Wizard). I'm going to go ahead and say this is your interpretation of the rules for Bards... but not necessarily the default for the game, or even a correct one.



If you want to apply additional strictures that aren't there in order not to be able to have a system work, knock yourself out. The rules say the flavour can be altered to suit those at the table, and that is a methodology that works. If you want to keep doing something else while complaining that it doesn't work, there's not much I can do to help.



Derren said:


> When all clothes fit all occasions (Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls even against skelettons) yes, it doesn't matter.



All clothes conform to certain parameters, even though they differ in colour, size and a myriad details of style. If you want to wear a tight, lime green corset and pink stockings you are free to, but don't complain to me that you don't feel comfortable in public.

More seriously, clothes have an effect on those we deal with socially or professionally. The parameters of those effects fall within a pretty predictable range; if our mode of dress caused someone to drive a car directly at us, we would be surprised (I'm guessing). The same is true of powers in the 4E paradigm. Various methods and details of technique are applied, but the general nature of the effect they cause is quite predictable. It's not certain, note - die rolls are involved both to "hit" and to determine "damage" - but it generally lies within fairly well understood bounds.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Pure hyperbole. You're not even trying anymore - just slinging mud.




Pure hyperbole. You're not even trying anymore - just slinging mud.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Does the power say that it WILL NOT affect any objects in the burst? No it doesn't. So the DM can decide what the power does outside of that narrow interpretation.
> 
> For example the DM can easily decide that he'd like to have the room catch on fire because there are combustibles in the area. The power has a keyword of Fire, after all. And the rules do provide some guidance on how to handle attacking objects with powers.




And whose right if the player says... "No, I took Fireball because it says it only targets creatures, not objects? See you're argument is basically boiling down to DM fiat can solve any problem...Hmmm, ok.




D'karr said:


> In my case, I know which one provides more flexibility, the one that puts the adjudication in the hands of the person that knows that table best, the DM.




Until the desires of the DM and the desires of the player casting fireball are at odds.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Balesir said:


> More seriously, clothes have an effect on those we deal with socially or professionally.




Sure, but as far as 4E is concerned it only matters that you wear shoes, trousers and a shirt (Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls).
What color and style the clothes have or if they fit together doesn't matter (Mockery? Lazer from instrument? Any other flavor?)


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> And whose right if the player says... "No, I took Fireball because it says it only targets creatures, not objects? See you're argument is basically boiling down to DM fiat can solve any problem...Hmmm, ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What the DM says goes, just like always.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> What the DM says goes, just like always.




Bad for the player who followed your advice and ignored flavor text because its mallable. What when the then just says "In that case its not a fireball but but several fire spirits who seek out the enemies in that area without touching anything"?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> What color and style the clothes have or if they fit together doesn't matter (Mockery? Lazer from instrument? Any other flavor?)



It matters if you decide it does. If you decide that it's important, you change the style or whatever so it doesn't clash, fits better, etc.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> It matters if you decide it does. If you decide that it's important, you change the style or whatever so it doesn't clash, fits better, etc.




Which is a house rule as the 4E rules specifically say that its not important.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> There is a difference between players finding loopholes and the designers not even caring.



There is, but what relevance has this to anything? Do you have some priviledged information on what the designers do and don't care about?



Derren said:


> And the instant you say "Just change the flavor to make the rules work for you", and that is the gist of what you argue here, you place less value on flavor than on rules.



This is a _non-sequitur_. For the avoidance of doubt, that means it does not follow, logically.

It follows that allowing freedom to reflavour means placing less value on *one, specific, prescribed bit* of flavour. But it does not follow that allowing such freedom means placing less value on flavour in general. In fact, it indicates the opposite. If I give you freedom and desist from dictating to you how something should be done, it generally means I attach far *more* value to that something rather than less. It's not universally true, but it's a fair generalisation. If I say to someone "just do X", it's generally because we just want to get it done - it's not that important. If it *is* important, *I want them to think about it for themselves*.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> Bad for the player who followed your advice and ignored flavor text because its mallable.



Where is this even coming from?

If a player tosses a fireball and the DM says, "ok, now you damaged the creatures, and also lit everything in the room on fire." That DM is doing exactly what they're supposed to do, AND following the rules.

The player may object and say, "but it says 'Creatures' not 'Objects'!!! How can the room be on fire?" but that is just a player being whiney.

I have referenced the section of Rules Compendium on page 107 TWICE in this thread now, and clearly you haven't read it, because it explicitly spells out that in such cases the DM is to make a judgment call on what happens.

The player used a Fireball, a power with the Fire keyword in a room full of flammable objects, catching anything that happened to be in his burst 3. That's how it goes. Just like every edition before it.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 23, 2011)

Derren said:


> Sure, but as far as 4E is concerned it only matters that you wear shoes, trousers and a shirt (Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls).
> What color and style the clothes have or if they fit together doesn't matter (Mockery? Lazer from instrument? Any other flavor?)



Now you're just being obtuse.

You have it the wrong way around; 4E says if you have some skill with creating a good impression with how you dress, you will be able to do it moderately well (if you make the roll - i.e. if you successfully navigate the unknown factors) and this will have a broadly predictable _result_. The precise clothes you wear will be down to your judgement and taste at the time; we assume that these are good, because you have the skill "create a good impression through how you dress".


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> The player used a Fireball, a power with the Fire keyword in a room full of flammable objects, catching anything that happened to be in his burst 3. That's how it goes. Just like every edition before it.




So? And the bard mocked a skeletton.
You have argued, together with others, that the name "Mockery" does not necessarily mean that mocks are involved.

The same way the player can argue that just because the spell is called fireball it is not a ball of fire and that according to the rules (the important things which stay fixed and can't be changed on a whim) only creatures are affected.

You seem to think that the creativity in 4E comes from the player now trying to find a spell description which lets him deal fire damage to the enemies but not ignite the room they are in. But for me this is on the same levels as players trying to find "Bag of Rats" loopholes (It is a form of creativity, but nothing I want to encourage).

For me, and likely for many people who think 4E lacks realism and left because of it, creativity means that the player now has to think of a way to attack the enemies without damaging the room they are in with the tools he has, and not to simply reshape the tools to do what he wants.

Also, by using "flavor is mallable" players can never be sure what their characters can do and what not because they only have the rules part of their powers and the constant danger of DM fiat.
Sure, you can be a "good DM" (as defined by 4E) and say yes to everything, but for me (as player) this is boring as it removes the need to be really creative as I can simply change the flavor to whatever I need and yet also frustrating because in the cases it doesn't work (DM says no) the only reason for it is DM fiat and not because I was not skilled/clever enough.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> Which is a house rule as the 4E rules specifically say that its not important.



Again, wrong. This is not a houserule. The rules explicitly tell you to alter flavour text to suit.
Q.E.D.:


			
				Rules Compendium p93 said:
			
		

> Players are free to invent their own descriptions of powers, sprinkling them with detail specific to the adventures or campaign setting.



and







			
				PHB said:
			
		

> You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what the power looks like.


----------



## Derren (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Again, wrong. This is not a houserule. The rules explicitly tell you to alter flavour text to suit.
> Q.E.D.:
> and




Again, if you can change something at will it is not important.
If the player can decide once what the power looks like and never change it, then it is important again, but you can still run in the skeletton issue here in the case that the player decided the power works how implied by the default flavor text.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> So? And the bard mocked a skeletton.
> You have argued, together with others, that the name "Mockery" does not necessarily mean that mocks are involved.
> 
> The same way the player can argue that just because the spell is called fireball it is not a ball of fire and that according to the rules (the important things which stay fixed and can't be changed on a whim) only creatures are affected.



Except it is still a ball of fire, regardless of what a player decides it looks like, and as I pointed out, the player can argue that it affects creatures only all day long, but that's not a player decision to make - it's the DMs. Just like it always has been.



> You seem to think that the creativity in 4E now comes from the player now trying to find a spell description which lets him deal fire damage to the enemies but not ignite the room they are in. But for me this is on the same levels as players trying to find "Bag of Rats" loopholes (It is a form of creativity, but nothing I want to encourage).



Except it's nothing like a bag of rats. A player can try to describe things any way they like, but the effect is still a burst 3 Arcane Fire attack, so if the DM wants to rule it catches things on fire, they can. If the social contract at that particular table is such that a description of the effect can change how the DM parses the effect in game, fine, but that is veering into houserule territory.

The reason the flavour text is malleable is to reinforce the fiction, not try to destroy it. If you're determined to make it sound silly, then the same can be done of any of our games of choice. We sit around pretending to be elves and wizards.



> For me, and likely for many people who think 4E lacks realism and left because of it, creativity means that the player now has to think of a way to attack the enemies without damaging the room they are in with the tools he has, and not to simply reshape the tools to do what he wants.



 Except that it doesn't work this way at all. You toss a fireball, you have to deal with the consequences. Nothing has changed.



> Also, by using "flavor is mallable" players can never be sure what their characters can do and what not because they only have the rules part of their powers and the constant danger of DM fiat.
> Sure, you can be a "good DM" (as defined by 4E) and say yes to everything, but for me (as player) this is boring as it removes the need to be really creative as I can simply change the flavor to whatever I need..



So, players at the mercy of the DM - juuuuuust like every other edition of the game.

And 'say yes' doesn't guarantee that things will work in a player's favour. This has also been discussed to death.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> Again, if you can change something at will it is not important.



Your opinion. Not one universally held, and certainly not a hard fact of any kind.


> If the player can decide once what the power looks like and never change it, then it is important again, but you can still run in the skeletton issue here in the case that the player decided the power works how implied by the default flavor text.



Again, this is your opinion. You are welcome to it, but it's clearly not shared by everyone.

Clearly there is some disagreement here. You aren't getting anywhere with your arguments, so what is it you're looking for, besides a pointless argument?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a _fighter_.
> 
> Make of that what you will .




Sounds perfectly fine to me. An elf fighter is different from a dwarf fighter is different from a human fighter or demigod fighter. That being a demigod brings extra stuff to the table doesn't mean Heracles isn't a fighter.


----------



## Derren (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Except it is still a ball of fire, regardless of what a player decides it looks like, and as I pointed out, the player can argue that it affects creatures only all day long, but that's not a player decision to make - it's the DMs. Just like it always has been.
> 
> Except it's nothing like a bag of rats. A player can try to describe things any way they like, but the effect is still a burst 3 Arcane Fire attack, so if the DM wants to rule it catches things on fire, they can. If the social contract at that particular table is such that a description of the effect can change how the DM parses the effect in game, fine, but that is veering into houserule territory.
> 
> ...




Why? The rules part do not mention anything of a ball of fire or collateral damage. The rules only say that creature in an area take X fire damage. And when again following Balesir's argument from Post 282 just because the Power is named Mocking insult it doesn't mean that an insult is invloved.

So why would a fireball be a ball of fire? The player can simply describe that all enemies in that area simply burn from within. 
So either the player can change on a whim the description of the powers, which means a fireball is not a fireball anymore and thus flavor doesn't matter or the player can't change the nature of the fireball no matter how  he describes it, contradicting your previous statements, and we are back to 4E allowing skelettons to be mocked to destruction.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> Your opinion. Not one universally held, and certainly not a hard fact of any kind.




When someone says to you "Do it however you want", do you get the impression that it matters to them?
When you ask someone how you should do something and they answer "However you want", do you think it is important how you do it?
When you ask someone "How should it look like?" and they answer "However you want", do you get the impression that it is important?
When a power says "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls, make it look however you want", is the look of it important?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> Why? The rules part do not mention anything of fireball or collateral damage. The rules only say that creature in an area take X fire damage. And when again following Balesir's argument from Post 282 just because the Power is named Mocking insult it doesn't mean that an insult is invloved.



Again, incorrect. The rules, as I have spelled out references to no less than FOUR times now in this thread, do specify that there may be collateral damage (in the case of fireball). DM's discretion. Just like every other edition.



> So why would a fireball be a ball of fire? The player can simply describe that all enemies in that area simply burn from within.
> So either the player can change on a whim the description of the powers, which means a fireball is not a fireball anymore and thus flavor doesn't matter or the player can't change the nature of the fireball no matter how  he describes it, contradicting your previous statements, and we are back to 4E allowing skelettons to be mocked to destruction.



A fireball is a ball of fire. An Arcane attack with the Fire keyword. Whether it only hits creatures or burns the whole dungeon to ashes, is, like I said, up to DM discretion, just like every other edition.

If the players and DM have a social contract at their game that says that how they describe their powers affects how the DM will make judgement calls, then fine. If not, then it's entirely in the DM's hands, just like always.

No matter how many times I point out to you that your grasp of the rules of 4e are less than firm, you keep arguing with me. I get that you don't like 4e, or its style of narration, and that's just ducky with me. I couldn't care less, to he honest.

If you find it so objectionable, and don't want to see such things in 5e, my suggestion to you is, go write to WotC, and tell them what you think. Vote in Monte's polls. Make your voice heard.

And if you don't care what happens in 5e, and are content to just keep playing 3.x or PF, or AD&D, or whatever - keep on doing what you love. There is no need to just argue for the sake of arguing.

The arguments I've heard so far are hardly compelling enough to make me have some kind of epiphany and decide that suddenly I've been having BadWrongFun all these years.

EDIT: 







> When someone says to you "Do it however you want", do you get the impression that it matters to them?
> When you ask someone how you should do something and they answer "However you want", do you think it is important how you do it?
> When you ask someone "How should it look like?" and they answer "However  you want", do you get the impression that it is important?
> When a power says "Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 +  CHA mod -2 to hit rolls, make it look however you want", is the look of  it important?



It matters to me. It's important to me. In fact, I relish the opportunity to make my own flavour text. It's one of those things that keeps me engaged in fiction of the game. Clearly, YMMV. And that's fine. Like I said above, if you have an issue with this, complain to WotC. If you never intend to play a hypothetical 5e, go play the way you want, and let others do the same. Neither one of us is Wrong.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> A fireball is a ball of fire. An Arcane attack with the Fire keyword. Whether it only hits creatures or burns the whole dungeon to ashes, is, like I said, up to DM discretion, just like every other edition.



What happens when the Fireball doesn't ignite the orc's wooden stockade (benefits players) but does the dungeon they are in (harms players) because the DM made an ad hoc adjudication on the nature of magical fire?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I'm not confusing anything. I'm accepting the words as written. A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a _fighter_.
> 
> Make of that what you will .



Well, I assume that for that to matter to anyone, they'd need to know who Hercules is. Knowing that, I could see how they could accept him being a Fighter, but I don't see the logical leap to "all Fighters are therefore like Hercules!"

That is, it follows that Hercules is a Fighter (they said so). That does not mean that all Fighters are Hercules (obviously). What makes Hercules unique? Well, how he was raised, his heritage, his training, his feats (not in the WotC sense), etc. A cursory glance at Hercules reveals that yes, he is indeed a Fighter, but he is also the son of the most powerful god.

I think being one does not preclude the other, nor necessarily imply it. Vecna is a wizard; that does not mean that all wizards get to be Vecna. As always, play what you like 




LurkAway said:


> A man who can kill with a plasma rifle is a _fighter_. See how I can compare apples to oranges? Unless you've played D&D like a greek myth, you're mixing up 2 different mediums.



This is a very good point.



D'karr said:


> Reading the game rules for a power, and it's associated flavor text and then saying, "that is the ONLY way that a power will ever function" totally dismisses the function of a DM in the game.



I find this to be pretty inaccurate. As a GM, I definitely do interpret the flavors or powers, or their interaction with the game world. However, if a group approaches a game where the players know exactly how their powers interact with the game world, then the GM still has incredibly important functions to fulfill. To imply that the GM's function is totally dismissed is rather... limited, in my opinion. As always, play what you like 



Derren said:


> Again, if you can change something at will it is not important.



I have to personally disagree with this statement on the plain absurdity of it. I can change who I talk to at will, so family/friends/significant others don't matter. I can walk to any part of the house right now (or anywhere outside that I can reasonably reach), so where I'm at doesn't matter.

This line of thinking just does not follow logically. Maybe you missed qualifying your statement? "If you can change flavor mechanics at will, they are not important"? If, however, you truly believe this is true in a general sense, it's no surprise that people disagree with you. As always, play what you like


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> What happens when the Fireball doesn't ignite the orc's wooden stockade (benefits players) but does the dungeon they are in (harms players) because the DM made an ad hoc adjudication on the nature of magical fire?



I don't know - ask the DM. Seriously, it's been the same since AD&D. Back then, some items made their saves, some didn't. Likewise, in 4e, you hit sometimes, others, you miss. DMs have always made ad hoc judgments in these situations. I have already spelled this out FIVE times now in this thread alone (again, in case you weren't here before Rules Compendium p107).

I find your post particularly amusing in light of your Gygax quote:







			
				EGG said:
			
		

> _From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints  comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more  good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the  environment than from textbook rules material._



Because the passage in th rulebook I keep quoting is instructing the DM to do exactly that.


----------



## Derren (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> A fireball is a ball of fire. An Arcane attack with the Fire keyword. Whether it only hits creatures or burns the whole dungeon to ashes, is, like I said, up to DM discretion, just like every other edition.




So every arcane power with the fire keyword is now a fireball? Even when described as not being one?
You can't say that a fireball is always a fireball but a mocking insult can be something totally different. Its either one or the other.

But back to the "Nod to realism"
Where in my eyes 4E fails is that balanced combat is more important than "realistic" worlds. The "Mocking a skeletton" ties into this but there are many other examples.
After 3E turned out to be rather unbalanced, 4Es prime objective and major selling point was balanced combat. To achieve that nearly everything in 4E had to obey the math, the power, the healing or the magic item prices.
All those things had to be consistent all the times and there was no room for flavor breaking the math (resulting is situations like Mocking a skeletton or shouting someone healthy). 
But all this made the game "less real" for a larger group of persons as the mechanical, gamist, construct behind the system was much more visible and required much more effort to ignore and especially in the beginning in 4E there simply were taboo topics you were simply not allowed to mention as they would expose how much had been sacrificed on the altar of balance. (Wanting to be a necromancer was such an issue).

The argument that 4E looks like a video game also comes from that. What do video games very well? Balanced tactical combat. What don't they do well? Reacting to player input in a fluid way. Yet 4E for some reason did try to compete with video games in the tactical combat department instead of concentrating on what it does better than video games. Just look at the early 4E WotC adventures. You could practically port them 1:1 into a video game as they were nothing but dungeon crawls.


----------



## Derren (Dec 24, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I have to personally disagree with this statement on the plain absurdity of it. I can change who I talk to at will, so family/friends/significant others don't matter. I can walk to any part of the house right now (or anywhere outside that I can reasonably reach), so where I'm at doesn't matter.
> 
> This line of thinking just does not follow logically. Maybe you missed qualifying your statement? "If you can change flavor mechanics at will, they are not important"? If, however, you truly believe this is true in a general sense, it's no surprise that people disagree with you. As always, play what you like




When you change the one you are talking to you get different results (= answers, etc.)
When you change the flavor text of powers the results stay exactly the same (Ranged 10, single target, CHA v WILL; on a hit, 1d6 + CHA mod -2 to hit rolls).
So yes, I guess the more correct sentence would be "When you can change something at will while always getting the same result it doesn't matter"


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> So every arcane power with the fire keyword is now a fireball? Even when described as not being one?
> You can't say that a fireball is always a fireball but a mocking insult can be something totally different. Its either one or the other.



That's because I *didn't* say that.

What it does mean, though, is that using a power with the Fire keyword may have consequences, at the DM's discretion, if you use it to target things other than creatures, or in the case of AoE powers, incidental things caught in the area. Using Fire keyword powers on flammable objects may cause them to catch fire. Using ones with other keywords may have other effects, _at the DM's discretion._ Just like using an Arcane Charm may have side effects. At the DM's discretion.



> But back to the "Nod to realism"
> Where in my eyes 4E fails is that balanced combat is more important than "realistic" worlds. The "Mocking a skeletton" ties into this but there are many other examples.
> After 3E turned out to be rather unbalanced, 4Es prime objective and major selling point was balanced combat. To achieve that nearly everything in 4E had to obey the math, the power, the healing or the magic item prices.
> All those things had to be consistent all the times and there was no room for flavor breaking the math (resulting is situations like Mocking a skeletton).
> ...



That's as valid an opinion as any other, it's just not one I share. My experience does not support your opinion, just as I'm sure your experience probably does. You are not unique in your opinion, and I am not unique in mine. I believe we have reached (finally) a point where we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I don't know - ask the DM.



"Dungeon Master, why did you tell us our magical Fireball didn't set the orc's stockade on fire because the Fireball spell only affects enemies, but now when we cast it in a confined space, you have it ignite everything around us, choking and killing us?"

In AD&D, this question doesn't come up because the Fireball spell explicitly states that it can set non-living matter on fire (subject to item saving throws). Famously, _Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ described the giant's wooden hall as too damp to able to set on fire easily (though still possible) to prevent this tactic.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> "Dungeon Master, why did you tell us our magical Fireball didn't set the orc's stockade on fire because the Fireball spell only affects enemies, but now when we cast it in a confined space, you have it ignite everything around us, choking and killing us?"
> 
> In AD&D, this question doesn't come up because the Fireball spell explicitly states that it can set non-living matter on fire (subject to item saving throws). Famously, _Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ described the giant's wooden hall as too damp to able to set on fire easily (though still possible) to prevent this tactic.



Yes, the old fireball states that it CAN set objects on fire, but as ALWAYS, this was *subject to DM fiat*, even in AD&D, and I might add *ESPECIALLY* in AD&D. DMs in AD&D are by no means _obligated_ to have things catch on fire, nothing has changed in that regard. The game still occasionally suffers from bad DM judgment, just like it always has. It is something that we as gamers must occasionally deal with.

Do I now have to spend another 5 pages of back and forth explaining why this is so? I think it would be easier if you were to just review the thread. It's already been covered.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2011)

Late to the party, so I appologise if this has been brought up. I'm still trying to catch up, by a rate of a full page of replies in like an hour it might take me a bit to reach even THIS post.



Hussar said:


> Did you have the same reaction in 3e with Extraordinary abilities?  Because Ex abilities are exactly the same as Martial powers.  They are not inherently magical (can't be dispelled, work in an anti-magic zone) but they are certainly not normal either.



Except that fighters, the quintessential martial class, don't really get Extraordinary abilities either. They get feats. We can get into the metagamyness of feats later.



> I treat Martial powers in the same way.  Ex abilities allowed my monk to effectively Feather Fall, dodge fireballs, be immune to diseases, and actually granted me spell resistance and speak to any living creature.  Somehow my training as a monk, completely non magical, renders me immune to magic and allows me to automatically communicate with anything in the universe.



These examples are all from monk, an odd example for a martial class as 4e made them psionic (iirc). Also, all those abilities are defensive in nature, not meant to hurt the enemy but meant to protect from a variety of weaknesses.



> I've never really gotten why people have such a difficult time swallowing a fighter having powers and yet never, ever complained about, say, a monk, doing the exact same thing.



Monks are weaker, in general. In 4E they aren't drawing from the same power source. In 3.5 they are but people don't have such a difficult time swallowing their powers.



Dausuul said:


> And Essentials has provided at least the option to have martial classes without the Vancian mechanic.



Essentials = 4.5 right? So a bit of a fix, not included in the standard "core" 4.0 material. I do happen to agree with you in general though.



Incenjucar said:


> It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.



Never _had_ to read the previous edition's book Cover to Cover in order to get a good handle on the rules. Never had to read it cover to cover in order to find things foolish, or to find them just. Just saying.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Yes, the old fireball states that it CAN set objects on fire, but as ALWAYS, this was *subject to DM fiat*, even in AD&D, and I might add *ESPECIALLY* in AD&D. DMs in AD&D are by no means _obligated_ to have things catch on fire, nothing has changed in that regard. The game still occasionally suffers from bad DM judgment, just like it always has. It is something that we as gamers must occasionally deal with.




Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected.​Where is the DM's fiat in this rules passage?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

The same place it is in your post upthread citing an example from Steading of the Hill Giant Chief - firmly in the DM's hands. Items burn - unless the DM says otherwise (based on circumstances, or fiat). The same thing still applies today. You even find the same philosophy in your own signature - you know, the one that tells you not to get so worked up in the "textbook rules material."

Also, you've misquoted the spell description, unless you are going from a different source than I am (2e PHB).

And neglected to mention this from the 2e DMG:


			
				2e DMG said:
			
		

> "Not all items need make a save in every instance."





It goes on to give an example of a situation in which a DM may simply  not require item saves or inflict damage on tiems. Again, judgment call.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 24, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Vecna is a wizard; that does not mean that all wizards get to be Vecna.





The _head of Vecna_ not withstanding of course.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> The same place it is in your post upthread citing an example from Steading of the Hill Giant Chief - firmly in the DM's hands. Items burn - unless the DM says otherwise (based on circumstances, or fiat).




The Steading is in a nasty damp area, where hard rain is a daily occurance and wet fogs a nightly event. All wood in the place is very damp. (Normal fires will only have a 2% chance per round of burning or setting the place afire, and even magical fires will have only an 8% chance per round of the same.) If the party should manage to set the upper works of the Steading aflame, they will be forced to wait a week before trying to discover a way into the lower (dungeon) level, for hot embers will prevent entry before this period of time. Note also that ALL loot from the upper works will be lost in such a fire, but that all giants from location 11 of the upper level will escape to safety in the lower level, going to location 26.​Where is the DM's fiat in this passage?


> Also, you've misquoted the spell description, unless you are going from a different source than I am (2e PHB).



I am. AD&D Players Handbook (1978), page 73.


> And neglected to mention this from the 2e DMG:
> It goes on to give an example of a situation in which a DM may simply  not require item saves or inflict damage on tiems. Again, judgment call.



It's talking about items carried by a character, which is the same in first edition AD&D. At any rate, my example isn't about characters' equipment but the environmental collateral effects of the magical fire produced by a Fireball spell. AD&D (both editions) give clear guidelines about the properties of this magical fire, one that DMs and players alike form expectations and take actions on. In short, magical fire acts like real world fire (it burns stuff, including stuff you don't want it to), something players can apply their own experiences to during play. There's no DM's fiat (or as some might read it _arbitrariness_) in how (magical) fire affects the environment. It's 'realistic.'


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> So yes, I guess the more correct sentence would be "When you can change something at will while always getting the same result it doesn't matter"



Your clarification makes much more sense. I still think it's probably flawed, but see not real reason to have a debate over it. Thanks for clarifying for me. As always, play what you like


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> Where is the DM's fiat in this passage?



Short answer? Wherever (s)he wants it to be. See your sig. Fudging dice, "forgetting" to roll. In AD&D terms all rules were just _guidelines_ and this is spelled out over and over in all the material that I read on it.

Besides, if it was a homebrew (as things often were), as a DM, you'd be constantly called upon to make judgments, because there is no way you could think of every possible angle a player might take with their powers/abilities/spells/items. That will require fiat.

I know. I've been there. I am very familiar with AD&D (mostly 2e, since that is when I began DMing).



> I am. AD&D Players Handbook (1978), page 73.



That explains it then. My stuff older than 2e is put away in a box. It's interesting in that in the 2e version, the word 'must' was changed. I wonder why...?


> It's talking about items carried by a character, which is the same in first edition AD&D. At any rate, my example isn't about characters' equipment but the environmental collateral effects of the magical fire produced by a Fireball spell. AD&D (both editions) give clear guidelines about the properties of this magical fire, one that DMs and players alike form expectations and take actions on. In short, magical fire acts like real world fire (it burns stuff, including stuff you don't want it to), something players can apply their own experiences to during play. There's no DM's fiat (or as some might read it _arbitrariness_) in how (magical) fire affects the environment. It's 'realistic.'



It's still up to the DM to decide to actually roll those dice and/or make those calls. They were just _guidelines_ after all. And when dealing with a lot of situations, things aren't always spelled out. There is and was always plenty of room for fiat.

I know full well that effects were spelled out in detail in AD&D, and 3.x, but I guess rather than give guidelines, 4e expects groups/DMs to apply common sense, or whatever level of "realism" they're comfortable with. It's not a stretch to know that fire burns, ice freezes, wind can blow out torches, and the like.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Short answer? Wherever (s)he wants it to be. See your sig. Fudging dice, "f
> That explains it then. My stuff older than 2e is put away in a box. It's interesting in that in the 2e version, the word 'must' was changed. I wonder why...?




1e
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered unaffected.

2e
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected, but items in possession of a creature that rolls a successful saving throw are unaffected by the fireball.​"must" vs. "require" looks the same to me


----------



## rounser (Dec 24, 2011)

Going to take a lot more than a "nod" to realism, IMO.

Place maintenance of suspension of disbelief and "simulation" on a similar footing to the pedestal on which game balance has been placed, or see people walk away again, I'd say.  Even after the huge backlash against uncompromising gamism in 4E, simulation and fidelity to genre only warrants a "nod"?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> 1e
> Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered unaffected.
> 
> 2e
> Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected, but items in possession of a creature that rolls a successful saving throw are unaffected by the fireball.​"must" vs. "require" looks the same to me



It was an idle thought and splitting hairs. Fact remains, fireballs light things on fire. Nothing has changed. Unless the DM says so, just like it always was. I don't see the problem.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I know full well that effects were spelled out in detail in AD&D, and 3.x, but I guess rather than give guidelines, 4e expects groups/DMs to apply common sense, or whatever level of "realism" they're comfortable with. It's not a stretch to know that fire burns, ice freezes, wind can blow out torches, and the like.




This goes back to the idea that everything that can happen MUST be spelled out explicitly, or it can't happen.

If a spell that does fire damage does NOT say that it catches flammable objects on fire it cannot do so, ever. I wonder if the description of a torch in any of the editions ever mentioned setting things aflame by its use when lit.  Because if it doesn't, it obviously can never set anything ablaze. Again, because it's not spelled out. That is a ridiculously absurd way of using the game rules.

I'm kind of glad that I don't play with players that have that type of mentality.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Pretty simple: The objection comes up when non-magical classes get access to magical abilities. The monk is and always has been a magical class. Monks aren't spellcasters, but they are explicitly granted mystical abilities. They can heal themselves and speak with any living thing and touch you in a bad, bad way so you die a week later. That right there is magic.
> 
> The fighter is not and has never been a magical class. So people expect their abilities to be... well, not necessarily _mundane_, but close enough to it that all they require is improbable strength, speed, toughness, and combat skill. The ability to heal yourself is going beyond those limits.
> 
> (Also, I challenge the assumption that everyone who objects to these issues in 4E is just totally fine with everything in 3E. I've heard plenty of griping about silly and unrealistic 3E mechanics; "Order of the Stick" has been making comedic hay out of them for years. 4E just took them to a new level.)




But, the problem is, the game tells me that the things you list as magical are in fact not magical.  They are Ex.  Which is specifically not magical.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> This goes back to the idea that everything that can happen MUST be spelled out explicitly, or it can't happen.
> 
> If a spell that does fire damage does NOT say that it catches flammable objects on fire it cannot do so, ever. I wonder if the description of a torch in any of the editions ever mentioned setting things aflame by its use when lit.  Because if it doesn't, it obviously can never set anything ablaze. Again, because it's not spelled out. That is a ridiculously absurd way of using the game rules.
> 
> I'm kind of glad that I don't play with players that have that type of mentality.



I think (and I may be wrong), that this "gamist" attitude began to grow during the 3.x era. Before that, I know I didn't buy that mentality, and few if any of the folks I gamed with did either.

Back in my AD&D days, DM's word was God, so if she said your spell did x, then it bloody well did, unless you want to argue pointlessly about it for hours. Likewise, I remember one of my characters using Acid Arrow to bypass a lock, and Flame Arrow - on numerous occasions - to light things on fire (even though I was using the second version), and neither of those spells specifically say they can be used for those things.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Here's an example... in PF, outside of the above, Fireball also sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area... it can even melt metals. Thus if a player wants to set an object on fire or melt metal with it he can and using it can also have unforseen consequences (this, IMO, is what flavor that actually ties into the gameworld does).
> 
> Taking Fireball in 4e... it only affects creatures in the burst... that's it by the rules and flavor.




No, it really, really isn't.  The fact that you and others would continuously state this doesn't make it true.  For one, this is SPECIFICALLY spelled out that you can, at the DM's discretion have your effects affect objects.  Additionally, the 4e DMG (pre-errata, page 66) states:



			
				4e DMG pre-errata said:
			
		

> Usually, it doesn't matter what kind of attack you make against an object:  Damage is damage.  However there are a few exceptions.
> 
> All objects are immune to poison, psychic, and necrotic damage.
> 
> Objects don't have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.




If you want to argue the specifics of an edition, actually READ the book.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> Again, if you can change something at will it is not important.
> If the player can decide once what the power looks like and never change it, then it is important again, but you can still run in the skeletton issue here in the case that the player decided the power works how implied by the default flavor text.




So, it's only important is I march lockstep with whatever flavour the game designer has deigned to grant me?

Yeah, no thanks.  

Why does being able to reflavour an ability at will suddenly make it unimportant?  Granting creative control is unimportant?  Yes, the mechanical effect will remain the same - game balance is important too.  But, allowing the players to have a great deal of say in how that effect manifests engages the player far more than simply dictating, "You will on do X in Y method.  No variations!"

Now, every single wizard casts exactly the same spells over and over and over and over again.  Every campaign, every world, every time.  Yawn.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> What happens when the Fireball doesn't ignite the orc's wooden stockade (benefits players) but does the dungeon they are in (harms players) because the DM made an ad hoc adjudication on the nature of magical fire?




How did the players react?  Are the players groovy with it?  Then no problems.  

Why should the game designer get to dictate what my table finds acceptable or not?  Why is it better for the game designer to dictate the tastes of my table rather than the me as the DM modifying my game to the tastes of my table?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Short answer? Wherever (s)he wants it to be. See your sig. Fudging dice, "forgetting" to roll. In AD&D terms all rules were just _guidelines_ and this is spelled out over and over in all the material that I read on it.



You know, I'm 100% on your side on this point. The rules weren't rules, they were guidelines. But I see them as guidelines for the referee to create their own code. Once created it cannot be broken by him or her (Not that this makes the game moral, rather that it make player - ref interaction a puzzle). 

AD&D tried to have it both ways for awhile, I think in respects of having a thriving convention and tournament community, but it doesn't really work in the end. A code requires secrecy and once it's figured out or shared more and more people know it. It becomes pointless to hide it behind a screen and so the magic's gone. Now we get rules lawyers and setting canon and endless look-ups and recitations from books 100's of pages long. Please! Not in my game, thank you. I'll live with needing to know enough about game design to create some a good code and go from there. It's similar enough anyways, but I never saw the content in the published works as "the rules", nor do I now think this means the game was unplayable, unworkable, or dysfunctional. It simply was very poorly explained.


----------



## Griego (Dec 24, 2011)

Derren said:


> Something that can be changed on a whim can't be important.




I can change my underwear on a whim, and I think that's pretty important. More notably, my friends and co-workers insist that it is _vital_ that I do so.


----------



## ashockney (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Nod To Realism)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would love for the base game to be very, very simple.  I would love for there to be "web enabled" content that is compartmentalized that can ADD ON to the game.  

For example, in most instances, it's A-ok for me to run a big "adventure" and to roll through the battles with basic and simple uses of powers.  BUT there may be the occasion that calls for a dedicated sword duel, a magi duel, a gladiator battle, etc.  I think it would be tremendously beneficial to be able to "add on" these pieces for the people who want them in their games, when it would be appropriate.  But for the rest of us, if we want to do the "giant gladiator brawl" with one big initiative, everyone taking a turn, and just beating the heck out of each other, that may be just fine too.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 24, 2011)

I come down on Imaro and Derren's side in this.  It's been my experience that, if you don't give the flavour text any weight in action resolution, then the specifics of what the characters do in the fiction tends to get ignored.  Which is a shame, because 4E's math makes it really easy to resolve all sorts of fictional actions.

I think that game design that's challenge-based, puts the fictional positioning of the characters in a privileged position with regards to action resolution, and provides acceptable (if unexpected) results through action resolution needs to rely heavily on an impartial player - the DM.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2011)

Once again, this was probably covered but it irked me SOO much I had to comment.



Mallus said:


> Hercules? Son of Zeus? Mr. Twelve Labors? The guy who rerouted two _rivers_ in a single day to clean out the Augean stables?
> 
> He can be fighter and that's okay? But Inspiring Word employed by a Martial power source character... whole different story.
> 
> I'm trying to understand how you're constructing your position -- and I admit, I'm having difficulties.




Are you comparing the son of Zeus, a demigod, to regular human fighters?

Put another way, it is okay for Hercules to do certain things because he was more than human. Indeed he was born a god, rich in super-human powers. He didn't get those powers from being a fighter, instead his being a fighter represented his training with weapons.

So, yes it does seem over the top for a class, which _used _to represent the simple talent of swinging a sword and wielding a shield effectively, to have a power source which allows them to yell at an ally and change their status from *unconscious *to *fine and able to fight some more*. The part that makes it silly, to many who think the way I do, is that they are able to do this without explicit access to magic, using a power souce which is not explicitly magical, and when the power source by convenient and conventional understanding SHOULD mean non-magical. Long and rant-ish I know.




pemerton said:


> You don't mock the skeleton. You mock it's creator. Or Vecna (the god of undeath). Or the shadow magic that animates it and keeps it intact.
> 
> So would I. You don't kill an ooze by mocking _it_. You kill an ooze by mocking Juiblex.
> 
> I generally include story elements in my game based on need, and haven't personally felt any consistency issues.




I already saw this was partially addressed.

But come on...
Mocking the master/creator, who is dead (based on the example), or plausibly not within earshot?
Mocking Vecna/Juiblex, who is a god, who is not paying attention to something so lowly AND who can take it?
Mocking the shadow magic, which is a force and incapable of emotion? Why not mock fire to make it not burn you?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I come down on Imaro and Derren's side in this.  It's been my experience that, if you don't give the flavour text any weight in action resolution, then the specifics of what the characters do in the fiction tends to get ignored.  Which is a shame, because 4E's math makes it really easy to resolve all sorts of fictional actions.
> 
> I think that game design that's challenge-based, puts the fictional positioning of the characters in a privileged position with regards to action resolution, and provides acceptable (if unexpected) results through action resolution needs to rely heavily on an impartial player - the DM.




This presumes that players can't be impartial.  I know that you've argued quite well for this point of view before, but, it's not one I subscribe to.  And, there are a number of games which don't take this point of view as well.  Any FATE system game presumes that the players will make choices that deliberately make things worse for the character - that's how you gain meta-game resources to affect the game.  

Heck even D&D has toyed with the idea of "weaknesses" from time to time which is a very, very limited, basic form of this.

Putting everything in the hands of the DM, while traditional, is not the only way of doing it.

There's nothing wrong with expecting the players to step up and actually, actively, participate in forming the narrative of the game.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Does the power say that it WILL NOT affect any objects in the burst? No it doesn't.  So the DM can decide what the power does outside of that narrow interpretation.




The difference is, in 4e they have to take that initiative and a bad DM won't.
In 3e, everyone can just follow the rules, and a bad DM can be shown they are wrong.

Before you bring up the counter-argument of good DMs - they aren't really the issue, they can spin gold from festering waste in any game/edition. In 3e the rules support the game. In 4e the rules ARE the game.

This is a perfect example of my issue with 4e, where the game has its rules put into one nice little box and its flavour in another. Yes, it means that you can/get to come up with your own flavour when the provided text isn't working for you. On the other hand it means you get to/HAVE TO do so as well.

3e imposed limitations, but they almost always had reasons. They were limitations that made the fireball more exciting or valuable in a fight. If the effect is disjoint from the flavour then the fireball may as well be iceball, or any kind of elemental-ball they fell like when casting. It means that the flavour has to be provided by the people, and, as someone else said upthread, that's what I'm paying the game developer to do for me.

The effect of "I swing my sword and stick my enemy in a weakspot near his arm" can be done with both 3e and 4e, so it is moot. The fact that a simple swing in 3e isn't so simple, or has a bunch of secondary effects, in 4e changes that dynamic in a way I dislike immensely.


[MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION]
When did the rules compendium come out? Which of the 3 "core" books is it? PHB, DMG or MM?



Nemesis Destiny said:


> Short answer? Wherever (s)he wants it to be. See your sig. Fudging dice, "forgetting" to roll. In AD&D terms all rules were just _guidelines_ and this is spelled out over and over in all the material that I read on it.
> 
> Besides, if it was a homebrew (as things often were), as a DM, you'd be constantly called upon to make judgments, because there is no way you could think of every possible angle a player might take with their powers/abilities/spells/items. That will require fiat.



I think you are confusing DM fiat - in order to get something to happen which normally wouldn't - with DM's prerogative - in which they can change whatever the hell they want.



> That explains it then. My stuff older than 2e is put away in a box. It's interesting in that in the 2e version, the word 'must' was changed. I wonder why...?



By 4th edition there is no reference to anything but _creatures_. I wonder why....? Oh wait, _maybe _it was an evolution and was left out intentionally? ..Maybe.. _Maybe _they didn't think people would need it included. _Maybe _in 4e they just wanted the spell effecting creatures and not effecting anything else, in order to make it more like a videogame. And that later someone pointed out the fallacy of fireball not catching things on fire, so when they wrote a rules compendium they decided to throw people a bone and say that _*DMs can*_ make it catch stuff on fire. A logical fix. A more logical one would be changing the spell's rules regarding it instead of making it optional in a non-core book but that (like the entire "maybe" discussion) is just conjecture.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] Why should the game designers have to tell us how a spell/effect works? Prior to 4e, I would say it is because they worked on the rules and that they designed them to function a specific way. Post 4e, I'd say you are probably right as everything is balanced so it makes very little difference anyway.

The point is, prior to 4e, if you didn't like a rule then it was simple to not use it or to modify it so it made more sense. In 4e, however, it has been said upthread that if the text doesn't make sense that it should be reskinned in favour of something that does work for you. Not that the rule should be fixed or corrected but that how it looks and how the flavour effects the spell/effect should be changed.

We saw this argument over and over with the Aragorn dream sequence suggestion from before. The same analogy should work for the little pixies that catch enemies on fire but not paper.

Personally, if something is designed a certain way and I like that design then I'll use it. If I don't like the design I won't. But using _flavour of the moment_ to alter the design to fix an illogical effect is just a step in the wrong direction. It also has the added downside of making flavour text not matter along with part of the rules text.

(I'm not going to lie, the last bit of this post got away from me, but it is well past my bed time. Also, I caught up, finally!!)


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Tovec said:


> In 3e, everyone can just follow the rules, and a bad DM can be shown they are wrong.



This is a double-edged sword though. Sometimes players take it upon themselves to "correct" even a good DM. Especially when it works in their favour, even to the detriment of other things going on in-game. This gives rise to the false belief that you must play by RAW, usually to the detriment of the game as a whole.



> This is a perfect example of my issue with 4e, where the game has its rules put into one nice little box and its flavour in another. Yes, it means that you can/get to come up with your own flavour when the provided text isn't working for you. On the other hand it means you get to/HAVE TO do so as well.



For me, this is pure bonus - I usually don't like the "default" flavour text. I actively enjoy making it up as I go, as a player or DM.



> @Nemesis Destiny
> When did the rules compendium come out? Which of the 3 "core" books is it? PHB, DMG or MM?



Rules Compendium came out Autumn 2010. It compiles all the core rules of the game, but contains no classes, races or any of that, no monsters, nor any of the DMing advice from the DMG. Just rules. I find it to be an excellent table reference.



> I think you are confusing DM fiat - in order to get something to happen which normally wouldn't - with DM's prerogative - in which they can change whatever the hell they want.



Perhaps. In any case, call it fiat or prerogative (sometimes it's the same thing), I stand by my points.



> By 4th edition there is no reference to anything but _creatures_. I wonder why....? Oh wait, _maybe _it was an evolution and was left out intentionally? ..Maybe.. _Maybe _they didn't think people would need it included. _Maybe _in 4e they just wanted the spell effecting creatures and not effecting anything else, in order to make it more like a videogame. And that later someone pointed out the fallacy of fireball not catching things on fire, so when they wrote a rules compendium they decided to throw people a bone and say that _*DMs can*_ make it catch stuff on fire. A logical fix. A more logical one would be changing the spell's rules regarding it instead of making it optional in a non-core book but that (like the entire "maybe" discussion) is just conjecture.



That rule was also in the original books, in 2008 (DMG p 65 & 66). The rules compendium version is more clearly worded, however. So, no, it wasn't left out. It wasn't written in every power for brevity's sake, but it is hard-coded into the rules that you can attack objects instead of creatures, with a few caveats (namely that objects are not subject to attacks against will, and certain damage types).



> We saw this argument over and over with the Aragorn dream sequence suggestion from before. The same analogy should work for the little pixies that catch enemies on fire but not paper.



Did I miss something? Pixies burning things? If you refer to my example with pixies, they absolutely could burn paper.

Any attack that can target a creature can target objects.

Unless against will defence, or if it uses one of several damage types which also do not affect objects.



> Personally, if something is designed a certain way and I like that design then I'll use it. If I don't like the design I won't. But using _flavour of the moment_ to alter the design to fix an illogical effect is just a step in the wrong direction. It also has the added downside of making flavour text not matter along with part of the rules text.



For what its worth, altering flavour is not exclusively or entirely to bend powers around "illogical" effects. I like having the power to pave over awful flavour text (beacuse I think most of it _sucks_). I find it engaging to do. In fact, that is the primary reason suggested in the books for doing so.

Kind of like how they suggested renaming the skills in 3.0 to suit your character. _Footpaddin'_ and all that crap (another fine example of _truly terrible _flavour text).

Could some of the interactions between keywords have been better? Sure. Every game has its warts. No edition has ever been "perfect". I'd like to see some tweaks too, and in my home game, I make some.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> LostSoul said:
> 
> 
> > I come down on Imaro and Derren's side in this.   It's been my experience that, if you don't give the flavour text any  weight in action resolution, then the specifics of what the characters  do in the fiction tends to get ignored.  Which is a shame, because 4E's  math makes it really easy to resolve all sorts of fictional  actions.
> ...



I was curious about this too, so I had put a poll here. Too bad I screwed up the poll a bit. Any ideas how to create a new poll with the right wording that will give the most meanigful result?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

So, just to be clear, by the rules for all editions (just by the rules as written, without need for a DM adjudication), if a guy is standing in a ten by ten by ten room and he is targetted by a fireball, all of the papers in the room (let's say piled around his feet) catch on fire, no ifs, ands, or buts.  The papers (not magical, just normal maps, let's say) are in the blast radius and the guy is the target, but the guy is blasted and the papers burst into flames.  Right?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG, no, you're right.  In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not.  It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.

Pre-4e, all DM's were forced by the mechanics into a single interpretation of how fireball works.

It all comes down to whether you feel the DM should be empowered to make determinations or not.  In pre-4e, those determinations were solely the realm of the rules.  The DM had no real say in the matter.  In 4e, it's up to the DM.

I can't believe that I'm arguing in favor of DM empowerment.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This presumes that players can't be impartial. I know that you've argued quite well for this point of view before, but, it's not one I subscribe to. And, there are a number of games which don't take this point of view as well. Any FATE system game presumes that the players will make choices that deliberately make things worse for the character - that's how you gain meta-game resources to affect the game.
> 
> Heck even D&D has toyed with the idea of "weaknesses" from time to time which is a very, very limited, basic form of this.
> 
> ...




Uhmmm, you seem to be either ignoring or glossing over the fact that FATE uses a bribe system in order to get those players to be impartial(something totally lacking in the rules of D&D)?  If the players were naturally impartial why is this necessary, why does the DM have to offer them a fate point in order to compel an aspect?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> No, it really, really isn't. The fact that you and others would continuously state this doesn't make it true. For one, this is SPECIFICALLY spelled out that you can, at the DM's discretion have your effects affect objects. Additionally, the 4e DMG (pre-errata, page 66) states:




This passage is about a player directly attacking an object... Not about whether a fireball used in an attack against creatures in a room full of combustibles while attacking a creature will ignite said combustibles.  You're stretching so far now it's not even funny.  

The thing is any way you slice it, it's still a DM call on whether my fireball can ignite papers or melt metal... so it is not an inherent property of the fireball power itself as it has been for the spells of previous editions.         





Hussar said:


> If you want to argue the specifics of an edition, actually READ the book.




Really?  This is the card you're trying to pull now... that I haven't read the 4e books.  I'm not even going to respond to this.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Mark CMG, no, you're right. In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not. It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.
> 
> Pre-4e, all DM's were forced by the mechanics into a single interpretation of how fireball works.
> 
> ...




Wait, did 4e invent rule zero or something? Because I remember DM's being empowered in any edition to change what they wanted to. Maybe you should actually READ the books of those editions...

As far as 4e goes it's not about DM empowerment, it's about setting a baseline of expectations for a player and the resource he has payed for and controls. As a player I'm suppose to understand the powers I have through the rules text (especially since flavor is malleable). If the rules text states that it only targets creatures... when I pick this power why should I expect or know that it targets anything outside of that? And again the passage you refer to in the DMG is about a PC specifically targeting an object not about whether a fireball can accidentally ignite things or burn things. 

From a player perspective this changes the dynamics, usage, etc. of the power from the rules I have been given for it and actually creates a situation where the effect of my resource is dependant upon the whims of the DM.  

From a character standpoint... how do I not know whether this spell burns things other than creatures? I guess I never targeted something in a room full of combustibles before? Or is it that it only has this property or doesn't at the whim of the DM... even though it's a spell my character has studied and cast before?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> This is a double-edged sword though. Sometimes players take it upon themselves to "correct" even a good DM. Especially when it works in their favour, even to the detriment of other things going on in-game. This gives rise to the false belief that you must play by RAW, usually to the detriment of the game as a whole.




And this can happen just as easily in 4e... A player that doesn't want to ignite a room on fire can just as easily cite that the rules state creatures. Now the DM can, just like in every edition, rule whatever he wants... but I don't see how 4e in any way stops the problem you've stated above.




Nemesis Destiny said:


> That rule was also in the original books, in 2008 (DMG p 65 & 66). The rules compendium version is more clearly worded, however. So, no, it wasn't left out. It wasn't written in every power for brevity's sake, but it is hard-coded into the rules that you can attack objects instead of creatures, with a few caveats (namely that objects are not subject to attacks against will, and certain damage types).







Nemesis Destiny said:


> Any attack that can target a creature can target objects.
> 
> Unless against will defence, or if it uses one of several damage types which also do not affect objects.




This isn't what we're discussing though. Mark CMG hit it on the head, if I throw a fireball at a creature (and I'm not targeting an object specifically) into a small study full of books and parchments in 4e does it or does it not ignite things in the room? According to the rules of the powers it doesn't and according to the passage in the DMG it *can* *target *an object if the player wants to but whether it does or doesn't ignite combustibles not specifically targeted by the PC is not addressed.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Balesir said:


> If you want to apply additional strictures that aren't there in order not to be able to have a system work, knock yourself out. The rules say the flavour can be altered to suit those at the table, and that is a methodology that works. If you want to keep doing something else while complaining that it doesn't work, there's not much I can do to help.




I don't think that's what I am doing at all, see below...



D'karr said:


> Actually this would seem to be more like your interpretation for spells, as Bards do not require books and formula or to write spells in books.
> 
> Sorcerers, also cast "spells" and none of their spells fit that description either.




Hmmm, that's an interesting point... so could either of you answer me this, why acccording to the Rules Compendium (pg. 136) do I have to make an Arcana check vs. a moderate difficulty to change the visible or audible qualities of my magical powers when using them? This would defintiely seem to imply that my interpretation of spells (since this rule only applies to arcane power) is correct and you all are wrong.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 24, 2011)

You know, I'm starting to think that another underlying problem behind many of these "realism" issues is the unstated assumption that the PCs are just regular (though well-trained) folks, and that the "normal" rules of the universe apply to them. Every exercise in justifying why a PC can do something then causes the laws of reality to change, and the universe to get stranger and more alien. 

However, if you start with the assumption that the PCs are exceptional in ways beyond their official game statistics (not a palatable option for some people, I know), then the question becomes "How can _this_ PC do something which most people cannot?" 

How can Hercules re-route rivers? Not because he's a fighter, but because he's a demigod.

How can this warlord heal wounds when he uses _inspiring word_? Because one of his distant ancestors was a celestial, and he is actually able to channel small amounts of divine healing power. 

How can this bard deal psychic damage to the undead? Because he laces his words with choice selections from the Malleus Mortis, the most vituperative anti-undead tract of the Church of Pelor. Since he is not a cleric, he lacks true divine authority, but he has sufficient arcane power to force an understanding of the deific menace upon even the most dimly-aware undead minds. 

How does this fighter pull his enemies close? Because he has a wild magical or psionic talent that momentarily makes him attractive to them.

This way, the laws of the universe don't need to change - the PCs are just the exceptions to the normal laws.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

FireLance said:


> You know, I'm starting to think that another underlying problem behind many of these "realism" issues is the unstated assumption that the PCs are just regular (though well-trained) folks, and that the "normal" rules of the universe apply to them. Every exercise in justifying why a PC can do something then causes the laws of reality to change, and the universe to get stranger and more alien.
> 
> However, if you start with the assumption that the PCs are exceptional in ways beyond their official game statistics (not a palatable option for some people, I know), then the question becomes "How can _this_ PC do something which most people cannot?"
> 
> ...




I agree with you and this is exactly what people were making reference to when speaking of Earthdawn... the PC's in that game are specifically called out as adepts and thus there is a built in rationale for why they can do exceptional things... another game that does this well is Exalted. No one questions the supernatural things heroes in these games do because the fiction and rules account for it.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 24, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thus, everyone is a worker of magic in thier own way. There simply are no non-magical mundane PC types.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> D&D moved to this model while trying to leave the flavor of the old D&D implied world intact. It just doesn't work.



No. It moved to non-simulationist mechanics.


Stalker0 said:


> If a player of mine wanted to play a 1st level wealthy prince, one of my requirements would be: "Explain to me why you don't have access to huge amount of money right now".
> 
> The rules have placed some requirements on me to keep the game balanced, one of those is control on wealth. But that doesn't mean all my players are poor "just because". Maybe they were wealthy but everything has been stolen from them. Maybe they are secretly the heir to a throne but don't know it. Or....maybe they are just poor commoners. But spoken or not....there is a flavor justification for that mechanical rule.



And so the player of an alchemist PC can explain why more potions aren't being made: "I ran out of time", "I ran out of stuff", "I was having a sleep", etc.

This sort of ad hoc fiction has been part of D&D at least since Gygax wrote about the rationale for XP keying of adventuring rather than training in the DMG.



Johnny3D3D said:


> What usually gets me is that the fiction within the game world is not consistent with itself and the own reality it has created in the game world.  As I said previous... I find it strange that a lot of demon princes and other such creatures are feared throughout the land when they get spanked so easily by PCs.



I responded to this upthread, with the comment that those PCs are epic demigods and so hardly common inhabitants of "the land" - and suggested that the overall fiction of the campaign should be developing to reflect this.

If "the land" is rife with heroic demigods, then I agree that demon princes would not be feared. But I assume that this is not the case. The PCs are the only ones, aren't they?



Imaro said:


> I think that many fans of 4e tend to create theories, ideas, and views for what many consider 4e's flaws. The thing is that these thoughts are rarely supported by the text or the comments and posts of the developers and designers.



And yet, they all seem to converge on a set of ideas around notions such as "metagame mechanics", "non-simulationionst action resolution", page 42 as a key focus for GM judgement calls in action resolution, etc - it's uncanny!, and almost as if Rob Henisoo wasn't lying when he said that the game design was influenced by modern indie RPGs!

(Even down to some subtleties around fictional positioning of the sort [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] is good at pointing out, which also come up in some indie RPGs.)



LurkAway said:


> Will I ever see the day when a player stands up and says "Enough!" and admits the madness has gone too far and _voluntarily_ refrains from using Vicious Mockery on skeletons and oozes and chairs because, maybe, just maybe, it's better to NOT use a power in that way?



Why would they, when their PCs can mock Juiblex and cause the cosmos to shake and oozes to collapse?

Or, to respond a different way, players did stand up against nonsense in RPGs, and dropped D&D for Runequest and Rolemaster.

Or, to respond yet a different way, when did 3E- or whatever other game is your benchmark from which 4e departs - become the poster child for "just the right amount of simulationist realism"?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> No. Who says you have to describe your stats when you tell your fellow gamers what actions your character is doing? Why should they even know your stats unless you want to tell them?



Some groups need to know so they can see if you are 'accurately portraying your character' . . .


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Why would they, when their PCs can mock Juiblex and cause the cosmos to shake and oozes to collapse?



Um, because traditional fantasy doesn't have low level heroes insulting oozes to shake the comsos because Juiblex the minor demon prince is simultaneously listening for insults thru oozes from Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged?



> Or, to respond a different way, players did stand up against nonsense in RPGs, and dropped D&D for Runequest and Rolemaster.



Or to put it another way, why does a rule that is oblivious to fictional positioning dictate the fiction in my game world?



> Or, to respond yet a different way, when did 3E- or whatever  other game is your benchmark from which 4e departs - become the poster  child for "just the right amount of simulationist realism"?



Um, when did I say that 3E or any game was my poster child for the just the right of simulationist realism?


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> According to the rules of the powers it doesn't and according to the passage in the DMG it *can* *target *an object if the player wants to but whether it does or doesn't ignite combustibles not specifically targeted by the PC is not addressed.




This would be using a parsing of the "rules" that is obtuse/narrow. If it doesn't say it, it can't happen. The other way of reading that would be more open/broad. Nothing in the power says it doesn't.  Since according to the DMG it *can*, then it can, at the discretion of the DM and players.

By using the "narrow" reading of the power what the DM is doing is narrowing the creative opportunity in the moment.  It's a way to play, but IMO rather unsatisfying.  But if that's the way the group likes to play the game, the rules surely don't prevent them from doing that.  They advice against it, but they don't prevent it.  Once again leaving the decision of what might be appropriate in a situation to the best judges of the situation, the DM and players, instead of a game designer that is not at that table.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

I think Monte's weapon damage example was misplaced. He should have cited AD&D and how weapons did different damage to 'larger than man-sized' opponents. I think that's certainly 'realistic.' 

But is it a weapon statistic worth tracking? Does that level of differentiation add to the play experience? The designers of 3e on didn't think so, and I don't think many argue with it. I personally liked it, but it's not that big a deal to me.

On weapons, I've come around to a view adopted by Gygax in LEJENDARY ADVENTURE, that in RL all weapons are roughly equally lethal when used violently (a club can kill as well as a sword, or axe). That is, the basic damage they inflict is roughly the same (LA uses d20 for all weapon damage, with some having a minimum result).

For D&D, I'd like to try something like all weapons deal the same damage (d6, d8, or whatever). Then have each weapon have some other characteristics to differentiate it; the first being a basic characteristic anyone can use, the others being available only to 'trained' users of the weapon, however that is expressed in the game. Then, add combat feats that represent 'special maneuvers.' This way, there is never a need to restrict what weapon a character class can use for balance reasons: fighter-types will naturally have a combat advantage even if everyone is using greatswords (even outside base attack bonus or whatever measures basic 'to-hit' probabilities). 

Some or all of the above may be in 4e. I've never played it, so I'm ignorant on its contents, so excuse me if it is.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> On weapons, I've come around to a view adopted by Gygax in LEJENDARY ADVENTURE, that in RL all weapons are roughly equally lethal when used violently (a club can kill as well as a sword, or axe). That is, the basic damage they inflict is roughly the same (LA uses d20 for all weapon damage, with some having a minimum result).
> 
> For D&D, I'd like to something like all weapons deal the same damage (d6, d8, or whatever). Then have each weapon have some other characteristics to differentiate it; the first being a basic characteristic anyone can use, the others being available only to 'trained' users of the weapon, however that is expressed in the game. Then, add combat feats that represent 'special maneuvers.' This way, there is never a need to restrict what weapon a character class can use for balance reasons: fighter-types will naturally have a combat advantage even if everyone is using greatswords (even outside base attack bonus or whatever measures basic 'to-hit' probabilities).
> 
> Some or all of the above may be in 4e. I've never played it, so I'm ignorant on its contents, so excuse me if it is.




In BD&D (Moldvay), I don't have my earlier copies with me, all weapons worked in a similar fashion doing the same amount of damage 1d6, but there was an optional system for having variable damage for weapons.

I think this would simplify some things significantly (die rolling), and possible speed things up.  However, I prefer the variable weapon damage.  I find it more interesting.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> This would be using a parsing of the "rules" that is obtuse/narrow. If it doesn't say it, it can't happen. The other way of reading that would be more open/broad. Nothing in the power says it doesn't. Since according to the DMG it *can*, then it can, at the discretion of the DM and players.




The section on objects says this...

"_Sometimes a Strength check isn't sufficient to damage or destroy an object, often because of the object's size, durability or both. Alternatively, a character might need to destroy an object from across the room. In such cases, attacking an object with a power can provide the answer. At the DM's discretion any power that targets one or more creatures can target one or more objects. (See "Choosing targets" page 105)" _

Ok, cool... now let's examine choosing targets on page 105...

_"Powers often involve the selection of targets. When choosing targets the *powers user* must make sure that every target meets several criteria..."_

Nowhere is the accidental targeting of anything discussed, and in fact from a reading of the rules it seems that only the power useer decides what is or isn't a target... so the DM is houseruling if he decides that a power targets the old, dry parchments in a library. In fact I would say the player has a very strong argument (rules wise) to shut a DM down who tries to cause the igniting of combustibles accidentaly to occur. This is exactly what you claimed 4e stopped.



D'karr said:


> By using the "narrow" reading of the power what the DM is doing is narrowing the creative opportunity in the moment. It's a way to play, but IMO rather unsatisfying. But if that's the way the group likes to play the game, the rules surely don't prevent them from doing that. They advice against it, but they don't prevent it. Once again leaving the decision of what might be appropriate in a situation to the best judges of the situation, the DM and players, instead of a game designer that is not at that table.




See I would say in 4e he's giving the player a consistent houserule for frame of reference for the power. The player knows that this power can accidentally set things aflame (regardless of the rules not supporting the DM's ruling and realism). I don't see creativity in leaving this nebulous... I see confusion and it creating a point of contention when one or the other (player or DM) wants it to behave in a certain way and the other doesn't. I also see 4e clearly in favor of the player's, as opposed to the DM's, determination of whether it will or will not set thigs ablaze.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> See I would say in 4e he's giving the player a consistent houserule for frame of reference for the power. The player knows that this power can accidentally set things aflame (regardless of the rules not supporting the DM's ruling and realism). I don't see creativity in leaving this nebulous... I see confusion and it creating a point of contention when one or the other (player or DM) wants it to behave in a certain way and the other doesn't. I also see 4e clearly in favor of the player's, as opposed to the DM's, determination of whether it will or will not set thigs ablaze.




Then we disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The option to set things ablaze is open to both the DM, and player.  Since the DM is the one that sets the environment he could decide to have a "gas trap" set up to detonate when a fire keyword power is used in the room. Are you honestly arguing that the DM cannot make the judgement call to say that papers in a room might get ignited by a fireball, or that a trap might detonate when a particular damage type is used?  It's not nebulous at all the rules support DM calls all the time.

If the table is full of asshat rules lawyers then they can argue the minutia of the rules page by page. Honestly, I've only run into one group that played like that and I made the best choice for me, not play with them again. It was fun for them, not for me.

This is a game that is meant to be fun. It is supposed to be a game of imagination, not a recreation of a court room. It should be fun based on the criteria of the people around the actual table, not on the criteria of some distant game designer that knows nothing about the preferences of the group.

The rules even "support" the idea that ad-hoc rulings can be easily done.  They provide a good framework for the DM that uses it.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This isn't what we're discussing though. Mark CMG hit it on the head, if I throw a fireball at a creature (and I'm not targeting an object specifically) into a small study full of books and parchments in 4e does it or does it not ignite things in the room? According to the rules of the powers it doesn't and according to the passage in the DMG it *can* *target *an object if the player wants to but whether it does or doesn't ignite combustibles not specifically targeted by the PC is not addressed.




I am sure you understand that 4E moved to a mechanic that does not necessarily simulate reality the way former editions did.
Instead, the designers took a more narrative approach. 
So the question in the example situation you mention is: Is it important that the documents catch fire on a narrative level? Are they important? If so, what are the consequences storywise if they burn? What if they do not?
I am sure that this is not something you like. But I really really do.

In very old editions of DnD there were a lot of situation in which the players and the GM at the table had to come up with rules, because rules did not exist. There were, for example, no rules for uses of skills like stealth, diplomacy, etc. So everybody had to make it work somehow. And we did, we came up with something that fit the story. Something that we thought was plausible.
I guess you do not know what playing like this was like, because if you did play older edition that lacked a lot of rules, you would be cherry picking here (having to come up with your own rules for the use of skills back then was ok, but being able to refluff a fireball narratively is somehow not), and I assume you are not cherry picking, because it is lame.

Realism can be presented by the rules in the books, by the rules the GM or the players come up with or by a situational narrative decided upon by the GM and/or the players. More than other editions, 4E caters to the latter. And a lot of people seem to have a problem with that. I am not one of them. I am very much for narrative empowerment. To quote MLK: Free at last, free at last! And I will not like any edition that takes away that power from me. If Mr. Cook, whose column I find boring most of the time, is indeed working on 5E and does not see this, he will lose me as a customer.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> See I would say in 4e he's giving the player a consistent houserule for frame of reference for the power. The player knows that this power can accidentally set things aflame (regardless of the rules not supporting the DM's ruling and realism). I don't see creativity in leaving this nebulous... I see confusion and it creating a point of contention when one or the other (player or DM) wants it to behave in a certain way and the other doesn't. I also see 4e clearly in favor of the player's, as opposed to the DM's, determination of whether it will or will not set thigs ablaze.




There is no confusion. The fireball has to be narrated in some way. If the player narrates it in a way that is cool, plausible and fits the story, it is ok if the important documents that the PCs are interested in reading do not burn completely. Same as the rogue in 3e would evade a fireball in a 10x10' room without cover. Or new swimming or haggling rules that a ruleset does not present and the group has to invent on the fly. You'd have to narrate that, too.
I understand you have a problem with this, because you would not find a fireball like this plausible. And your group would probably reach a different conclusion than mine. That is ok, really. It is a good thing.
But the question remains: should the written rules absolutely lock down a certain type of narrative interpretation of powers in a quasi simulationist kind of way? Or should they leave some room for a group-specific narrative? I would go with the latter and 4E does just that. Because in this way, I do not have to play with your narrative on my back. And you not with mine.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I am sure you understand that 4E moved to a mechanic that does not necessarily simulate reality the way former editions did.
> Instead, the designers took a more narrative approach.
> So the question in the example situation you mention is: Is it important that the documents catch fire on a narrative level? Are they important? If so, what are the consequences storywise if they burn? What if they do not?
> I am sure that this is not something you like. But I really really do.




I disagree with this. The designers, IMO, took a more gamist approach. Fireball doesn't ignite things unless the player wants it to because then it would have a disadvantage (or advantage depending on the situation) that couldn't be accounted for from a balance perspective. I would also argue, per D'karr's gas trap example, that the question in 4e would be will this create a more interesting aspect in the tactical gameplay through terrain, obstacles, etc. and how much XP should the PC's get for it.  See how easy it is to posit opinions as fact... 



TheFindus said:


> In very old editions of DnD there were a lot of situation in which the players and the GM at the table had to come up with rules, because rules did not exist. There were, for example, no rules for uses of skills like stealth, diplomacy, etc. So everybody had to make it work somehow. And we did, we came up with something that fit the story. Something that we thought was plausible.
> I guess you do not know what playing like this was like, because if you did play older edition that lacked a lot of rules, you would be cherry picking here (having to come up with your own rules for the use of skills back then was ok, but being able to refluff a fireball narratively is somehow not), and I assume you are not cherry picking, because it is lame.




You shouldn't assume anything... you know what that does. To the point of your above post... what does this have to do with anything? We're talking rules here, not flavor or fluff. you're using an example of creating houserules (skills in a skill-less game...and also assuming this was something everyone did) and then talking about refluffing. They are two different things, so I'm not even sure what your point is here. 



TheFindus said:


> Realism can be presented by the rules in the books, by the rules the GM or the players come up with or by a situational narrative decided upon by the GM and/or the players. More than other editions, 4E caters to the latter. And a lot of people seem to have a problem with that. I am not one of them. I am very much for narrative empowerment. To quote MLK: Free at last, free at last! And I will not like any edition that takes away that power from me. If Mr. Cook, whose column I find boring most of the time, is indeed working on 5E and does not see this, he will lose me as a customer.




Uhmm, you chose the latter because that's the style you want to play in... just as many people in this very thread have argued 4e instead caters to the GM or players coming up with it and another camp will argue for the gamist balance approach. So are all of those poeple wrong? which one is it and why do so many people have differing views on the premise of a game that is suppose to be so focused?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> There is no confusion. The fireball has to be narrated in some way. If the player narrates it in a way that is cool, plausible and fits the story, it is ok if the important documents that the PCs are interested in reading do not burn completely. Same as the rogue in 3e would evade a fireball in a 10x10' room without cover. Or new swimming or haggling rules that a ruleset does not present and the group has to invent on the fly. You'd have to narrate that, too.
> I understand you have a problem with this, because you would not find a fireball like this plausible. And your group would probably reach a different conclusion than mine. That is ok, really. It is a good thing.
> But the question remains: should the written rules absolutely lock down a certain type of narrative interpretation of powers in a quasi simulationist kind of way? Or should they leave some room for a group-specific narrative? I would go with the latter and 4E does just that. Because in this way, I do not have to play with your narrative on my back. And you not with mine.




You're missing the point totally. Whether it ignites things and melts metal without a player directly targeting is outside the realm of fluff and very much in the realm of rules... and that's why I'm finding it hard to follow you... you seem to make no distinction between rules and fluff while everyone else is. Refluffing a fireball is making it blue instead of red... houseruling the fireball power is making it burn things other than it's target when cast near them. It's not about narrative... it's about the effect of the fireball power... and the effect in 4e is pre-determined.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> So are all of those poeple wrong? which one is it and why do so many people have differing views on the premise of a game that is suppose to be so focused?




So is that really the crux of the argument, who is wrong?  Well no one is.  Your group can play the game is whatever manner suits your group, and the next guys group can play the game in whatever manner suits them.

Is somebody really supposed to be wrong?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Then we disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.




That's cool.



D'karr said:


> The option to set things ablaze is open to both the DM, and player. Since the DM is the one that sets the environment he could decide to have a "gas trap" set up to detonate when a fire keyword power is used in the room. Are you honestly arguing that the DM cannot make the judgement call to say that papers in a room might get ignited by a fireball, or that a trap might detonate when a particular damage type is used? It's not nebulous at all the rules support DM calls all the time.




This is a different situation alltogether. It's the "gas trap" that is igniting things, not the fireball... and I guarantee you that if you put a "gas trap" in every room with combustibles, I as a player am going to be pissed because that wasn't my understanding of the power when I selected it. I'm arguing that the DM shouldn't arbitrarily mess with the effects of a players powers like that because the player can only reference the rules when he picks them... and fireballs igniting things without the player targeting them is not part of the rules. 



D'karr said:


> If the table is full of asshat rules lawyers then they can argue the minutia of the rules page by page. Honestly, I've only run into one group that played like that and I made the best choice for me, not play with them again. It was fun for them, not for me.




Wait so aplayer, who doesn't want to set the study ablaze and calls out the rules to support it... is an asshat? Especially when it's not in the effect of his power? Huh?



D'karr said:


> This is a game that is meant to be fun. It is supposed to be a game of imagination, not a recreation of a court room. It should be fun based on the criteria of the people around the actual table, not on the criteria of some distant game designer that knows nothing about the preferences of the group.




Sometimes it's good to have an impartial arbitrater in the form of the rules... especially since we don't all think the same.



D'karr said:


> The rules even "support" the idea that ad-hoc rulings can be easily done. They provide a good framework for the DM that uses it.




Every edition has supported ad-hoc ruliings.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Refluffing a fireball is making it blue instead of red... houseruling the fireball power is making it burn things other than it's target when cast near them. It's not about narrative... it's about the effect of the fireball power... and the effect in 4e is pre-determined.




Except that it would only be house-ruling if there were no frameworks in the game for handling attacking objects.  Since there are this is just a "rules adjudication".

Yes, the power does fire damage, that is the predetermined effect.  Objects in an area can be attacked also, if the DM and players choose to.  So why is it a house rule to say that a fire effect can damage flammables in the area?

This is parsing words just for the narrow definition.  The game does not restrict anyone to that narrow definition.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> So is that really the crux of the argument, who is wrong? Well no one is. Your group can play the game is whatever manner suits your group, and the next guys group can play the game in whatever manner suits them.
> 
> Is somebody really supposed to be wrong?




D'karr... it's rhetorical.  Please go back and read the posts I was responding too.  TheFindus makes some pretty definitive claims about what 4e is, I gave counter examples precisely because I don't think 4e is definitively what he claims (which I make a point of citing as more his playstyle with 4e)... then I pose the above question.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Except that it would only be house-ruling if there were no frameworks in the game for handling attacking objects. Since there are this is just a "rules adjudication".
> 
> Yes, the power does fire damage, that is the predetermined effect. Objects in an area can be attacked also, if the DM and players choose to. So why is it a house rule to say that a fire effect can damage flammables in the area?
> 
> This is parsing words just for the narrow definition. The game does not restrict anyone to that narrow definition.




No the DM, unless using a power, does not get to decide the targets of said power.  You are purposefully ignoring the aspects of the rules that do not support your position... while simultaneously  trying to use them to support your argument.  If  a DM decides a power I am using  has targets I didn't designate... he is houseruling in 4e.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> No the DM, unless using a power, does not get to decide the targets of said power.  You are purposefully ignoring the aspects of the rules that do not support your position... while simultaneously  trying to use them to support your argument.  If  a DM decides a power I am using  has targets I didn't designate... he is houseruling in 4e.




That is one weird interpretation.  But hey if it works for you, go for it and have fun with it.  I simply don't agree.

If a DM and players want to be such sticklers as to play the game in that fashion, and it's fun for them then more power to them.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> That is one weird interpretation. But hey if it works for you, go for it and have fun with it. I simply don't agree.
> 
> If a DM and players want to be such sticklers as to play the game in that fashion, and it's fun for them then more power to them.




Wait, so your group allows the DM to dictate the targets when a player uses their powers?? Seriously?


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You're missing the point totally. Whether it ignites things and melts metal without a player directly targeting is outside the realm of fluff and very much in the realm of rules... and that's why I'm finding it hard to follow you... you seem to make no distinction between rules and fluff while everyone else is. Refluffing a fireball is making it blue instead of red... houseruling the fireball power is making it burn things other than it's target when cast near them. It's not about narrative... it's about the effect of the fireball power... and the effect in 4e is pre-determined.




Oh, this is completely about the rules. See, there seems to be an argument over what the rules say about what the fireball does. The power itself says it targets "creature" in the blast, not objects. Then again, other rules say that objects can be targeted by powers if the do not attack will or have the psionic or necrotic keyword.
So the rules are not clear.
Now, at the table, we can argue about the state of the rules, just like it happens on this thread. I instead go with the narrative: tell me how you envision the scene and play it out and then we decide if burning the documents or not burning the documents is plausible or not. Because the rules do not give a concrete answer, the narrative is the deciding factor here. This is what I want to say.

What that means, though, is that the narrative influences the rules, here fireball. And I think that is a good thing. You seem to disagree. And that is fine with me. I just think that a game system should leave the option that I like open to me, obviously.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> D'karr... it's rhetorical.  Please go back and read the posts I was responding too.  TheFindus makes some pretty definitive claims about what 4e is, I gave counter examples precisely because I don't think 4e is definitively what he claims (which I make a point of citing as more his playstyle with 4e)... then I pose the above question.




But the question still stands, does it matter if somebody is wrong?  Does anyone need to be wrong?

Because it's a game after all.  How you play your game at your table is your preference.  How is your or his preference wrong?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This passage is about a player directly attacking an object... Not about whether a fireball used in an attack against creatures in a room full of combustibles while attacking a creature will ignite said combustibles.  You're stretching so far now it's not even funny.



Nope. This rule has been clarified/updated - to make its intent more clear. The fireball doesn't specifically target *a* creature, or even a number of them, it targets _creatures in the burst_. There is an important distinction there. In this case, creatures may or may not include objects subject to fire damage. Nothing has really changed here.



> The thing is any way you slice it, it's still a DM call on whether my fireball can ignite papers or melt metal... so it is not an inherent property of the fireball power itself as it has been for the spells of previous editions.



No it's not an inherent property of the fireball, it's an inherent property of attacks with the Fire keyword, IF the DM decides that it is relevant. There are any number of reasons why a DM may choose not to have things catch fire.



> Really?  This is the card you're trying to pull now... that I haven't read the 4e books.  I'm not even going to respond to this.



There are clearly some people in this thread, arguing on the same points as you who haven't.


Imaro said:


> And this can happen just as easily in 4e... A player that doesn't want to ignite a room on fire can just as easily cite that the rules state creatures. Now the DM can, just like in every edition, rule whatever he wants... but I don't see how 4e in any way stops the problem you've stated above.



 A player can cite that all day long, but it doesn't make it _right_. For the _6th time_... Rules Compendium page 107. The game has specifically put that in the DM's hands. Like before, but with even more room to adjudicate when the rules lawyers try to object.



> This isn't what we're discussing though. Mark CMG hit it on the head, if I throw a fireball at a creature (and I'm not targeting an object specifically) into a small study full of books and parchments in 4e does it or does it not ignite things in the room? According to the rules of the powers it doesn't and according to the passage in the DMG it *can* *target *an object if the player wants to but whether it does or doesn't ignite combustibles not specifically targeted by the PC is not addressed.



Except that misses the point. You don't target a fireball at a specific creature - ever. It is an Area burst 3 - its target line affects "All Creatures in the burst," which, naturally includes any objects, if the DM decides they want to deal with that (some groups/DMs may choose not to - and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that). But you know that, because you read and understand the rules we're talking about here.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> D'karr... it's rhetorical.  Please go back and read the posts I was responding too.  TheFindus makes some pretty definitive claims about what 4e is, I gave counter examples precisely because I don't think 4e is definitively what he claims (which I make a point of citing as more his playstyle with 4e)... then I pose the above question.




You are right: I definetely think that 4E offers a more narrative approach to the use of powers than any other edition of DnD I have played. "Come and get it" makes my point.
I do not think my opinion is far fetched at all. And I am not assuming that everybody likes that or even plays this way. Which is totally ok.


----------



## ashockney (Dec 24, 2011)

Nod to realism thoughts:

I'd also like to add the discussion a thought about "tier of play" and "style of world".  

For example, heroic should ABSOLUTELY feel more difficult and gritty than Epic per se.  It's difficult to cross-over realism to "god-battling" and "world-ending" epics every time you sit down to roll dice.  

The style of play should also define this.  When you're going for anime/manga style - smash the guy into the side of a mountain, or superhero style - Xmen/Avengers/JLA, a sense of realism will more often get in the way of the storytelling.  If you want an austere retelling of a challenging adventure (think LoTR movies, recent James Bond reboot, and the new Mission Impossible reboot) there is certainly WIN in that type of story and campaign, but it's a different kind of challenge.

As I reflect on these thoughts, I'd prefer to see the "nod to realism" played out in the form of FATE aspects more than in a HUGE subset of rules for every occasion and combination.  Can't you create an infrastructure of aspects tied to locations, villains, personalities, and equipment that can be triggered to enhance the game storytelling by the DM?  This would EMPOWER the DM to INTERACT with the story, while also not requiring an if/then for EVERY possible scenario.  You can scale the aspects to your group's liking based upon the kind of story you're trying to tell.  For example, will the challenge (limited resource aspect) in ACT 2 of the scenario be rations or magical flight?


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Wait, so your group allows the DM to dictate the targets when a player uses their powers?? Seriously?




Wait, so your group doesn't allow the DM to make rules adjudications?? Seriously?

Hyperbole, I think she's listed as the mother of internet forum.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Oh, this is completely about the rules. See, there seems to be an argument over what the rules say about what the fireball does. The power itself says it targets "creature" in the blast, not objects. Then again, other rules say that objects can be targeted by powers if the do not attack will or have the psionic or necrotic keyword.
> So the rules are not clear.




The rules are clear... with the DM's discretion an object can be targeted by a player using fireball... what can't happen according to the rules is that same player accidentally setting things on fire.



TheFindus said:


> Now, at the table, we can argue about the state of the rules, just like it happens on this thread. I instead go with the narrative: tell me how you envision the scene and play it out and then we decide if burning the documents or not burning the documents is plausible or not. Because the rules do not give a concrete answer, the narrative is the deciding factor here. This is what I want to say.




Which is great, because that is the playstyle you've chosen for your game. But the rules are pretty clear and if you as DM decide the documents burn without the players consent... you haven't reskinned the power you've houseruled it's effect.



TheFindus said:


> What that means, though, is that the narrative influences the rules, here fireball. And I think that is a good thing You seem to disagree. And that is fine with me. I just think that a game system should leave the option that I like open to me, obviously.




This is a specific thing to your choice to houserule 4e though... it is not in and of itself an inherent property of 4e's rules. Of course I'm curious what happens if both you and the player have conflicting narrative desires in this situation... especially since most narrativist games have a mechanism for deciding who has narrative power at any particular moment... and 4e doesn't.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Mark CMG, no, you're right.  In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not.  It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.
> 
> Pre-4e, all DM's were forced by the mechanics into a single interpretation of how fireball works.
> 
> ...





The difference between saying it does or doesn't burn the papers isn't DM empowerment (and I suspect you know this), since if the rules say the paper burns the DM can say otherwise anyway and has Rule 0 to cite.  The difference is that to arrive at a logical situation (where papers caught in a fire burn), the DM needs to make an adjudication that actually goes against what the rules say.

Some would say that this is player empowerment because it gives the player the rule to cite that the papers wouldn't burn unless the DM says they would.  Sometimes players use rules as a cudgel, particularly in tournament play where there is additional pressure on DMs to *not* make any adjudications beyond the letter of the rules.  You can have two groups playing in a tournament where a found map can be important to moving forward quickly and if one DM adjudicates that in such circumstances a map burns, because it makes logical sense, but the rules require him to make the additional ruling, and another DM allows the RAW to stand (and so the map doesn't burn despite being engulfed in flame), where it significantly affects the outcome of the tourney.

I can't believe you think anyone believes that you're arguing in favor of DM empowerment.  




Imaro said:


> The rules are clear... with the DM's discretion an object can be targeted by a player using fireball... what can't happen according to the rules is that same player accidentally setting things on fire.




I've used a couple of posts to cut to the chase on this argument because the last few dozen posts looks like a lot of doublespeak from both sides where no one is quite getting to the heart of the issue.  It boils down to this -



Mark CMG said:


> So, just to be clear, by the rules for all editions (just by the rules as written, without need for a DM adjudication), if a guy is standing in a ten by ten by ten room and he is targetted by a fireball, all of the papers in the room (let's say piled around his feet) catch on fire, no ifs, ands, or buts.  The papers (not magical, just normal maps, let's say) are in the blast radius and the guy is the target, but the guy is blasted and the papers burst into flames.  Right?




And this -



Hussar said:


> Mark CMG, no, you're right.  In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not.  It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The rules are clear... with the DM's discretion an object can be targeted by a player using fireball... what can't happen according to the rules is that same player accidentally setting things on fire.



Again, wrong. According to those rules that you've read and understand, the player chooses the origin square of the burst. After that step, all targets in that burst are attacked. Targets include every creature, which may or may not include objects at the DM's discretion.



> Which is great, because that is the playstyle you've chosen for your game. But the rules are pretty clear and if you as DM decide the documents burn without the players consent... you haven't reskinned the power you've houseruled it's effect.



Wrong again. For reasons stated many, many times. The rules passage on damaging objects even states that the DM may rule that no attack roll is necessary when attacking objects - just apply damage and/or effects. In any case, the defences of most objects is so low that most hits will be nearly automatic.



> This is a specific thing to your choice to houserule 4e though... it is not in and of itself an inherent property of 4e's rules. Of course I'm curious what happens if both you and the player have conflicting narrative desires in this situation... especially since most narrativist games have a mechanism for deciding who has narrative power at any particular moment... and 4e doesn't.



The DM decides, as always. And it's not a houserule. As has been pointed out, shall I call this the 7th time? Maybe it's not fair to count twice in the same post.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> most narrativist games have a mechanism for deciding who has narrative power at any particular moment... and 4e doesn't.




It's called a DM.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I've used a couple of posts to cut to the chase on this argument because the last few dozen posts looks like a lot of doublespeak from both sides where no one is quite getting to the heart of the issue.  It boils down to this -
> 
> 
> 
> And this -



Here's the thing though, the RULE calls on the DM to adjudicate. Specifically.  That IS the rules as written. In previous editions, the default was "stuff burns". Now the default is, "decide if stuff burns."


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Nope. This rule has been clarified/updated - to make its intent more clear. The fireball doesn't specifically target *a* creature, or even a number of them, it targets _creatures in the burst_. There is an important distinction there. In this case, creatures may or may not include objects subject to fire damage. Nothing has really changed here.




Yep, totally agree...



Nemesis Destiny said:


> No it's not an inherent property of the fireball, it's an inherent property of attacks with the Fire keyword, IF the DM decides that it is relevant. There are any number of reasons why a DM may choose not to have things catch fire.




Never argued the DM couldn't fiat it...



Nemesis Destiny said:


> There are clearly some people in this thread, arguing on the same points as you who haven't.




Good for those people... I'm not one of them.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> A player can cite that all day long, but it doesn't make it _right_. For the _6th time_... Rules Compendium page 107. The game has specifically put that in the DM's hands. Like before, but with even more room to adjudicate when the rules lawyers try to object.




This is one of the things that makes discussing 4e so hard, the multiple rules sources. Let's examine 107...

_Targeting Objects..._

_"At the DM's discretion, a power that targets one or more creatures can target one or more objects, as long as the number of targets does not exceed the number specified by the power._

_For example, a player might want her wizard to attack a door with a thunder power that normally targets a single creature. If the DM says yes to her, she can use the spell against the door but can't use it against the door and another creature, because doing so would exceed the number of targets specified in the power. See Attacking Objects page 176, for objects' defenses, hit points and so forth. "_

Hmm, I can almost see your interpretation if this was the only paragraph about it in the RC and the one example it provides still didn't support a player pro-actively wanting to affect objects and then asking for DM ruling as opposed to a DM deciding arbitrarily that it will effect an object (is there an example of this anywhere in the actual rulebooks?)... but not quite.  The other paragraphs I have provided plus the example here all point to it being a player driven choice... not a DM one.





Nemesis Destiny said:


> Except that misses the point. You don't target a fireball at a specific creature - ever. It is an Area burst 3 - its target line affects "All Creatures in the burst," which, naturally includes any objects, if the DM decides they want to deal with that (some groups/DMs may choose not to - and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that). But you know that, because you read and understand the rules we're talking about here.




I sure did and I don't agree with your interpretation. Everything in the rules points to it being a player's choice to try and affect objects not a DM arbitrarily deciding to. If anything I'm more apt to agree with TheFindus that the rules are unclear but infer strongly it is a player who has to proactively want to affect an object with his powers.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2011)

FireLance said:


> How can Hercules re-route rivers? Not because he's a fighter, but because he's a demigod.
> 
> How can this warlord heal wounds when he uses _inspiring word_? Because one of his distant ancestors was a celestial, and he is actually able to channel small amounts of divine healing power.



Yes, Hercules did amazing things, because he was a (demi)god. 



> How can this bard deal psychic damage to the undead? Because he laces his words with choice selections from the Malleus Mortis, the most vituperative anti-undead tract of the Church of Pelor. Since he is not a cleric, he lacks true divine authority, but he has sufficient arcane power to force an understanding of the deific menace upon even the most dimly-aware undead minds.
> 
> How does this fighter pull his enemies close? Because he has a wild magical or psionic talent that momentarily makes him attractive to them.
> 
> This way, the laws of the universe don't need to change - the PCs are just the exceptions to the normal laws.



1. We have addressed the bard and his psychic mocking of a dimly-aware undead. And we've discussed their minds.
2. When did the fighter (with his martial power source) pick up said wild magical or psionic talent? Once again, fluff unsupported by the rules and pulled out of nowhere in order to justify a power. Instead, it would be nice if he had the power BECAUSE he has a psionic talent, not he has a random psionic talent because he has the power.
3. If the laws of the universe make no sense, then I think they certainly need to change. When the rules deal primarily with the PCs, they aren't exceptions to the normal laws - they ARE the normal laws. We aren't talking about powers obtained by a random NPC, we're talking about ones used by the party warlord, bard and fighter.



TheFindus said:


> I am sure you understand that 4E moved to a mechanic that does not necessarily simulate reality the way former editions did.
> Instead, the designers took a more narrative approach.



By narrative approach you mean 'make up whatever you want when it doesn't make sense'?



> In very old editions of DnD there were a lot of situation in which the players and the GM at the table had to come up with rules, because rules did not exist. There were, for example, no rules for uses of skills like stealth, diplomacy, etc. So everybody had to make it work somehow. And we did, we came up with something that fit the story. Something that we thought was plausible.



Right, those rules didn't exist. But for years in between what you are talking about and 4e, the rules DID, and they worked fine. I don't understand why progress like that needed to be thrown out in favour of "maybe or maybe not" the papers get ignited.



> I guess you do not know what playing like this was like, because if you did play older edition that lacked a lot of rules, you would be cherry picking here (having to come up with your own rules for the use of skills back then was ok, but being able to refluff a fireball narratively is somehow not), and I assume you are not cherry picking, because it is lame.



Yes, but somehow it is good to get rid of through and effort that people have put into a rules set? The _goodness_ comes from the fact you now *have to* make it up as you go, hurrah!



TheFindus said:


> There is no confusion. The fireball has to be narrated in some way. If the player narrates it in a way that is cool, plausible and fits the story, it is ok if the important documents that the PCs are interested in reading do not burn completely. Same as the rogue in 3e would evade a fireball in a 10x10' room without cover. Or new swimming or haggling rules that a ruleset does not present and the group has to invent on the fly. You'd have to narrate that, too.



I'd argue you don't HAVE TO narrate that too. In 3e for example, rules on swimming were fairly clear. Now, however you have to narrate what happens and invent a rule, or take something you feel is close and reflavour, to deal with the issue. I guess 4e does excel in making people step away from the familiar and force them to narrate, if only so that the DM can guess at a rule to cover it.

You were never forced to use material in previous editions, when the rules were presented. A rules-lawyer would certainly try and bring up a rule one way or another but rules-lawyers can do that in 4e too by saying the power doesn't state anything but creatures so that isn't anything new.

Don't forget, when you make the argument that it _can_ target non-creatures that this is a ruleset given to us by the same people who produce Magic (MtG) and that when they stated "creatures" I'm sure they meant just that. They are very clear in their other game title of what an effect targets but in DnD they apparently miss out and have to include it in a section for DM fiat if they happen to think about it or want a non-standard result.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> It's called a DM.




Actually in FATE... it's called a fate point.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Here's the thing though, the RULE calls on the DM to adjudicate. Specifically. That IS the rules as written. In previous editions, the default was "stuff burns". Now the default is, "decide if stuff burns."




That's not the RAW, it's your interpretation from only one selectively chosen paragraph (when there are numerous ones in the RC which have also been cited) in the RC... How about examining everything as a whole?

EDIT: Also even you admit this wasn't the case in the original 4e corebooks.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Here's the thing though, the RULE calls on the DM to adjudicate. Specifically.  That IS the rules as written. In previous editions, the default was "stuff burns". Now the default is, "decide if stuff burns."





Seems like a waste of effort.  Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before would stuff not burn now?  This is a bit of a trick question because it relies on you not trying to ignore the first part where it says, "Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before," while answering the part where it asks, "would stuff not burn now?"  I stress this because anyone reading the last few pages of posts would note a lot of people saying half-things and only partially addressing questions asked.


You see the point of all this seems to be that if the DM can decide if stuff burns or not in both situations (as one always could), why would anyone write a rule where stuff that should burn doesn't unless the DM says it has to burn while at the same time advocating that what is happening is definitely fire and acts just like fire against the actual target?  The default logically would be that stuff would burn (as in the ten by ten by ten room scenario above) so why do I as DM need to be empowered to adjudicate that stuf would burn in those circumstances rather than that being the default?  There must be something else in play that caused the default to be for stuff not to burn.  This is a case where designers determined that logic and thirty-five years of rules be damned, we need to put the question of paper caught in a fireball but not specifically targetted going up in flame in the hands of the DM.


Can you see how this would be a questionable design choice?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> That's not the RAW, it's your interpretation from only one selectively chosen paragraph (when there are numerous ones in the RC which have also been cited) in the RC... How about examining everything as a whole?
> 
> EDIT: Also even you admit this wasn't the case in the original 4e corebooks.



The example listed after the rules text is just that - an example of a situation. The _actual rule_ specifically allows the DM to decide whether or not objects in the burst are targetted. Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is not the issue. That is a valid interpretation, according to RAW.

What I "admit" is that the rule was clarified, to make it clear that the DM was free to decide (just like always).


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 24, 2011)

*Narrating effects*

As an example, 3/3.5E allow a psionicist to decide on the appearance of their powers, within limits.

When put together my character sheet, and the longish (about 20) list of powers, I made up a descriptions for each.

The other players thought it was a bit campy, and it didn't turn out to add much to the game.  I had a few moments of fun, but not so much the table as a whole.

I imagine that, with some DM fiat, a psi-craft check might provide a small insight about a psion, based on the effect, but otherwise, the descriptions had no in-game effect.

The detail was eventually dropped.  The cost of the extra detail just wasn't worth it.

I think that most players accept the fluff text as given, and the notion that the fluff can be ignored, or changed, really isn't how a lot of folks play.  That is definitely an opinion, but, I just can't see too many tables going too far out of the sense of the written fluff.

I imagine that a lot of folks, maybe, try to play within the fluff text, and limit their actions to what makes sense if the fluff text was prescriptive.  Those folks probably quickly come to understand that the fluff doesn't mean anything, and give up, or, the table actually make a decision to treat the fluff as more prescriptive than is normal for 4E.

TomB


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Seems like a waste of effort.  Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before would stuff not burn now?  This is a bit of a trick question because it relies on you not trying to ignore the first part where it says, "Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before," while answering the part where it asks, "would stuff not burn now?"  I stress this because anyone reading the last few pages of posts would note a lot of people saying half-things and only partially addressing questions asked.



 I suspect the reason that it is completely up to the DM to decide is for ease-of-play concerns. If a player pipes up and says, "hey, what about stuff catching on fire?" and the DM doesn't want to deal with that - they can just say, "nope. Not going to deal with that." and it's done.

Or a group doesn't want to concern themselves as much with realism, whch is no less a valid way to play, even if it's not one you personally like.




> You see the point of all this seems to be that if the DM can decide if stuff burns or not in both situations (as one always could), why would anyone write a rule where stuff that should burn doesn't unless the DM says it has to burn while at the same time advocating that what is happening is definitely fire and acts just like fire against the actual target?  The default logically would be that stuff would burn (as in the ten by ten by ten room scenario above) so why do I as DM need to be empowered to adjudicate that stuf would burn in those circumstances rather than that being the default?  There must be something else in play that caused the default to be for stuff not to burn.  This is a case where designers determined that logic and thirty-five years of rules be damned, we need to put the question of paper caught in a fireball but not specifically targetted going up in flame in the hands of the DM.



Ease of play, like I said. And to be adaptable more readily to groups that don't care without having to worry about it being rules-lawyered to death. That and most stat blocks were deliberately shortened, again for ease of play. There is no need to include that line of text if there is already a general rule saying what happens when you put fire to a flammable object. 




> Can you see how this would be a questionable design choice?



No, not really.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I suspect the reason that it is completely up to the DM to decide is for ease-of-play concerns. If a player pipes up and says, "hey, what about stuff catching on fire?" and the DM doesn't want to deal with that - they can just say, "nope. Not going to deal with that." and it's done.



Because before, when the rules did say that it caught stuff on fire the DM couldn't say "nope. Not going to deal with that." [/sarcasm] They needed an actual lack of ruling on the subject and to add something in later (couple years wasn't it?) to say that the DM _could _allow it.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> The example listed after the rules text is just that - an example of a situation. The _actual rule_ specifically allows the DM to decide whether or not objects in the burst are targetted. Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is not the issue. That is a valid interpretation, according to RAW.
> 
> What I "admit" is that the rule was clarified, to make it clear that the DM was free to decide (just like always).





I disagree with the design choice.  If the player is able to target specific objects and it isn't, per se, a fireball (an uncontrolled fire spell) then it is the player who should determine how the flame manifests and what is affected by that flame.  If it is a fireball that manifests in a given area, then it is neither up to the player nor the DM and simply a matter of whether or not something is in the area of the fireball, though the DM might have some say over whether an object near the edge is actually within the area of effect.

I do something different for my G&G game whereby the player is the crafter of the magic and determines how it manifests situationally.  A player might use a single factor (one die of damage) and have a small line of fire run across the floor and ignite all of the paper and allow the ensuing fire to harm the person standing in the middle if they weren't smart enough to get out.  A player could use six factors (6 dice of damage) to either send a big fireball sweeping down a long passage or target an individual and have that single person immolated by flame.  The player decides how his magic manifests though the GM does get to cap just how much can be done (this balance is something individual campaigns get to work out though some guidelines are in place).


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Tovec said:


> Because before, when the rules did say that it caught stuff on fire the DM couldn't say "nope. Not going to deal with that." [/sarcasm] They needed an actual lack of ruling on the subject and to add something in later (couple years wasn't it?) to say that the DM _could _allow it.



To clarify that the DM could allow it. It was never not the case, it was just not always crystal clear.

And your first point is quite valid indeed. I played with many groups in AD&D that never bothered with the collateral damage of violent spellcasting.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> (. . .) even if it's not one you personally like.





I play a lot of different games.  This doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a good design choice to say that something is fire except in instances where we want to put additional levels of adjudication on the DM.  FWIW, your "ease of play" argument is not flying since, again, it adds additional adjudication not less.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I disagree with the design choice.



Feel free. Certainly nobody is stopping you 


> I do something different for my G&G game whereby the player is the crafter of the magic and determines how it manifests situationally.  A player might use a single factor (one die of damage) and have a small line of fire run across the floor and ignite all of the paper and allow the ensuing fire to harm the person standing in the middle if they weren't smart enough to get out.  A player could use six factors (6 dice of damage) to either send a big fireball sweeping down a long passage or target an individual and have that single person immolated by flame.  The player decides how his magic manifests though the GM does get to cap just how much can be done (this balance is something individual campaigns get to work out though some guidelines are in place).



An interesting mechanic.

I also have a mechanic in my home games that allows players to do things that are outside the descriptions of their powers. I lifted the concept from someone in the 4e section, and basically it is an encounter power that is called "Do Something Cool" which allows for precisely the kind of tricks you mentioned (subject to any DM-imposed limits, naturally).


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I play a lot of different games.  This doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a good design choice to say that something is fire except in instances where we want to put additional levels of adjudication on the DM.  FWIW, your "ease of play" argument is not flying since, again, it adds additional adjudication not less.



It only adds additional adjudication if the DM wants it to. And ease of play also includes things like making it less subject to rules-lawyering, which the DM-call-as-rule certainly does.

I still hold that reinforcing choice is not bad design.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> "Do Something Cool"





I like that to be the norm rather than the exception.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I like that to be the norm rather than the exception.



I do too, but some of my players need some encouragement to "think outside the box," or rather to "think outside the stat-block."


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> It only adds additional adjudication if the DM wants it to.





"The DM decides" requires an addional decision to be made, or as you put it forth in your example, the players asks the DM to make the decision and the DM not wanting to be bothered makes the decision to not make the decision.  In a game where it is automatic, the question of making a decision doesn't arise.  The ten by ten by ten room is toast.




Nemesis Destiny said:


> And ease of play also includes things like making it less subject to rules-lawyering, which the DM-call-as-rule certainly does.





That's the opposite since as I point out in the tourney situation above, the added decision-point creates problems whereby one DM might rule one way and another the opposite on a question that never need some up in the first place.  Again, an added decision that need never have been written into the rules.  This is not ease of play.




Nemesis Destiny said:


> I still hold that reinforcing choice is not bad design.





The choice came when the player decided to throw the fireball.  Adding new ambiguity to the situation through requiring additional adjudication is bad design.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I do too, but some of my players need some encouragement to "think outside the box," or rather to "think outside the stat-block."




In my games that is the "rule" rather than the exception, and the main reason why I created that particular "metagame construct."  I'm glad someone is using it.

You can read all about it here, and the reason for actually creating the "powers". If you like them enough you can download them from there.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> "The DM decides" requires an addional decision to be made, or as you put it forth in your example, the players asks the DM to make the decision and the DM not wanting to be bothered makes the decision to not make the decision.  In a game where it is automatic, the question of making a decision doesn't arise.  The ten by ten by ten room is toast.



It's just as easy to say that now - takes 5 seconds.



> That's the opposite since as I point out in the tourney situation above, the added decision-point creates problems whereby one DM might rule one way and another the opposite on a question that never need some up in the first place.  Again, an added decision that need never have been written into the rules.  This is not ease of play.



I find it eases play to have the final decision rest in my hands. Clearly, this is not universal. I suspect that in a tourney situation, or LFR, it will just be skipped over.



> The choice came when the player decided to throw the fireball.  Adding new ambiguity to the situation through requiring additional adjudication is bad design.



I disagree. I think that having the freedom to decide what happens on an individual basis hardcoded into the rules is excellent design.


----------



## ashockney (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Feel free. Certainly nobody is stopping you
> An interesting mechanic.
> 
> I also have a mechanic in my home games that allows players to do things that are outside the descriptions of their powers. I lifted the concept from someone in the 4e section, and basically it is an encounter power that is called "Do Something Cool" which allows for precisely the kind of tricks you mentioned (subject to any DM-imposed limits, naturally).




I think what you're calling out here is EXACTLY what I'd like to see in a future edition.  An add-on component to the core raw which you can flex to your taste, that gives the DM the right to affect the narration, and in turn the players earn benefits that allow them to affect the narration or combat (like AP's).  This seems to play itself out in very interesting ways in the FATE system.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> "The DM decides" requires an addional decision to be made, or as you put it forth in your example, the players asks the DM to make the decision and the DM not wanting to be bothered makes the decision to not make the decision.  In a game where it is automatic, the question of making a decision doesn't arise.  The ten by ten by ten room is toast.




That might be true because there is a decision to be made, a simple one btw. However by using the more restrictive reading of a spell, then only the things that the spells "spells out" (no pun intended) can happen.

If there is another spell that doesn't say that it sets things ablaze, then it never can, except with a DM decision, as that is always an option.

I don't see the more restrictive reading as a desired feature, exactly because of the opposite effect it engenders.

I made an comment before of a torch.  Does the description of the torch ever mention that it can set things ablaze?  If it doesn't then the DM has one of several options, he can decide that because the torch does not mention it sets things ablaze, it can't.  Or he can use some common sense and make a rules adjudication that makes sense for that table at that moment.

The DM is not an computer game AI that can't think outside the written word.

A rules lawyer has no leg to stand on if the DM decides that a torch sets a curtain on fire if the description of the torch is totally mute about it.  The decision is entirely on the hands of the DM.

I prefer the design that leaves the door open for the DM rather than the one that boxes him to the rules as written.

More rules is not the solution for poor DMing.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I made an comment before of a torch.  Does the description of the torch ever mention that it can set things ablaze?  If it doesn't then the DM has one of several options, he can decide that because the torch does not mention it sets things ablaze, it can't.  Or he can use some common sense and make a rules adjudication that makes sense for that table at that moment.



I didn't find the previous reference to a torch, but think it really depends on the wording of the rule.

1) Torches = 1d4 fire damage to 1 creature
2) Torches = 1d4 fire damage

Why must the fireball specify x damage to all creatures in a burst, instead of x damage in a burst? I suppose it seems to be a purposeful way of avoiding ick messy questions of fictional positioning. But so many groups seem to take the RAW so seriously, it seems to be becomes the de facto standard to ignore fictional positioning.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I think that having the freedom to decide what happens on an individual basis hardcoded into the rules is excellent design.






D'karr said:


> I prefer the design that leaves the door open for the DM rather than the one that boxes him to the rules as written.





Except that it hardcodes ambiguity whereas choice was already a part of the game without the hardcoding.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> The example listed after the rules text is just that - an example of a situation. The _actual rule_ specifically allows the DM to decide whether or not objects in the burst are targetted. Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is not the issue. That is a valid interpretation, according to RAW.
> 
> What I "admit" is that the rule was clarified, to make it clear that the DM was free to decide (just like always).




You know upon further reflection I agree... your interpretation is perfectly valid and, the more I think about the design of 4e, almost necessary.

I'll explain... 4e has so many powers with effects that activate with either a successful hit or,even if the hit isn't successful, the power being used with a valid target that the balance would be thrown out of whack if powers were granted the object as a universally valid target... or even if players could designate an objedct as a valid target on their own.

You'd end up with the bag o' rats problem only times 1,000. So yes I do agree that this is the way it's done in 4e and for good reason, though I don't agree about the reasoning being suggested by most...

Given the interaction of powers it isn't simpler or less to adjudicate and I don't think it was done for narrative reasons because it is always a DM call. It was done so that the game could function smoothly and with a greater degree of balance. 

Edit: It's really starting to become apparent to me that it is the gamist design of 4e that I don't like. I play narrative games and I play simulationist games but I have never been a fan of more gamist systems. I guess this is also why I have such a problem when people claim 4e is narrative... it just doesn't strike those same chords for me as a game like Legends of Anglerre does, without me overlaying narrative conventions onto it. Very little in it's mechanics remind me of the narrative games I am familiar with but it's mechanics almost always scream gamist to me. This is all IMO and all that...


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I responded to this upthread, with the comment that those PCs are epic demigods and so hardly common inhabitants of "the land" - and suggested that the overall fiction of the campaign should be developing to reflect this.




A fair assessment, but...

While it may not have been demon lords, my experience has been the PCs marauding over the enemy from about level 12 onward.  In other threads I have said there were even times in Heroic Tier when it happens, but I've also seen Heroic Tier go the complete other way, so I'll chalk that up to skill of play.

Also, what I said was a poor way of getting at a related point.  Upthread somewhere I used the example of PCs being able to easily blow through a door with at-wills while the BBEG and his uber-minions struggle to scratch it.  To me, there's a disconnect between how the PCs interact with the world versus how everything else interacts with the world.  I'm perfectly fine with different rules for building PCs and build monsters, but I'd prefer there to be some consistency to how those two branches of the rules interact with the 'physics engine' (so to speak) which the 4E world is built upon.

An item which showcases this would be Dimensional Shackles.  A PC would have some chance of getting out of them.  It's been my experience that placing a pair on even the most powerful of enemies tends to mean the fight is over.  The guy who usually DMs for the Saturday D&D group I game with has banned them from his game for that reason.  

I suppose part of my point is that there seem to be two different conflicting realities within the game.  One or the other existing would be fine. (Though, due to my preferences, I'd honestly prefer something more toned down than the default PC level of 4th.)  Having both exist side beside -at times- creates situations which my brain finds strange.  What I would prefer to see is for the 'physics engine' of the game world to be used as one place where both realities conform to the same rules and form a connecting bridge of consistency between the two branches of the rules.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> I didn't find the previous reference to a torch, but think it really depends on the wording of the rule.
> 
> 1) Torches = 1d4 fire damage to 1 creature
> 2) Torches = 1d4 fire damage
> ...




And that's where I think that the disconnect happens.  Should a measure of common sense (this is a fantasy RPG after all) be set aside by the DM because a "rule" says one specific thing, and it can't really do anything else?

If the torch rule says 1d4 damage 1 creature, and the rules already specify that the DM is responsible for the "environment".  What is it that prevents the DM from saying that the creature now catches on fire and takes 5 points of ongoing damage, or that a nearby curtain also catches on fire as the torch hits the creature?

It seems like some want to look at the rules as the be-all, end-all for the parameters of the game.  If it's not written, it can never happen. In a game of imagination that is highly restricting, because no matter how many rules designers provide, they will always miss something.  Either the players want to get creative, or the DM does, and when that happens the rules are insufficient.

The best moderator(s) of the rules, and their interaction within the game and the game world are the DM and players actually playing the game.

The 4e DMG has a lot of good advice for DMs (new and old) about how to run the game.  Everytime I see these parsing of rules arguments it makes me really sad.  

When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?





(Strikethrough = mine) That's the very definition of standard and it's the default for how tournament play needs to be handled.  It's also how most people will play the game except in cases where they disagree with how the rules are written, which is more rare than regular, hence the definition of standard.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?




I think this is hyperbole... you know like you called me on earlier 

However, with 4e I'm probably not paying for fluff, since it's totally maleable... so in a game like 4e really, all I am paying for is the rules. I think playing in a "rules as written only" way isn't necessarily the best... but I don't ascribe to "just make it all up" as the answer to everything either, otherwise what am I paying for?


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?



I don't know, but it seems to be a common playstyle. If D&D was a game for hippies and revolutionaries, I am sure it wouldn't be so common. But D&D seems to be a game where many groups play by the RAW and take the metagame very seriously as well. I think part of that has to do with a general tendency to take game rules (whether sports or board games) seriously in order to maintain a fair playing field (and the assumption that the game will break if the group goes beyond the province of the rules). I think another part of it is the 4E being very specific that the default rule is independant of fictional positioning. And I think another part of it is that many players (of any D&D edition) don't care about whether papers are burning up in a fireball.. they don't think about it because they don't want a nod to realism, they have other goals for D&D.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Edit: It's really starting to become apparent to me that it is the gamist design of 4e that I don't like. I play narrative games and I play simulationist games but I have never been a fan of more gamist systems. I guess this is also why I have such a problem when people claim 4e is narrative... it just doesn't strike those same chords for me as a game like Legends of Anglerre does, without me overlaying narrative conventions onto it. Very little in it's mechanics remind me of the narrative games I am familiar with but it's mechanics almost always scream gamist to me. This is all IMO and all that...



Yeah, I can see how you arrived at this conclusion, and it's good that you recognize what you like, instead of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Here is the funny part though - for my group (and I may or may not speak for all of them - I don't know), the gamist elements of 4e only appear sometimes, and for the rest, the narrative just takes over and mechanics take a back seat to the RP and story, just like, for us, they always have.

I think part of what makes this appealing for us, is that we like some variety in our experience. Sometimes, we want to sit down and have a tactical skirmish. Other times, we want to spend a whole session without rolling any dice. Other times we enjoy adding in houseruled things like Do Something Cool, ad-hoc Action Points, and other such. And we do even like to add elements of realism to the game - I've houseruled in things for drinking contests, forced marches, (slightly) more realistic healing, and a way to smooth over the mental issues some people had with Martial Daily powers (I use a recharge mechanic that allows characters to spend surges to regain powers - it is costly and it works for any character/power source).

I'm glad that we seem to have finally arrived at understanding, if not agreement, on our respective points of view. I don't want to force everyone to see things my way (i.e. One True Way), but I do try to dispel as many misconceptions as possible (Many True Ways, pick what works for you).


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> (Strikethrough = mine) That's the very definition of standard and it's the default for how tournament play needs to be handled.  It's also how most people will play the game except in cases where they disagree with how the rules are written, which is more rare than regular, hence the definition of standard.




Tournament play?  What tournament is that?  I didn't know the players were in some kind of competition.

The "standard" specifically allows for the DM to make judgement calls, as a matter of fact the DMG specifically encourages the DM to make judgement calls that will make the game more fun for those at the table. 

So the "standard" is heavily influenced by what the DM and the players view as the most fun for them.  That is the "standard", make it fun for those at the table.

If a player is going to use a fire effect and I, as the DM, know that he will set the room on fire, then I inform him of it, so he can make an informed decision.  The DMG encourages the DM to do that.  It doesn't encourage the DM to get into a "gotcha" game with the players.  Obviously that usually leads to less fun.  That is also part of the "standard" keep your players informed.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> If a player is going to use a fire effect and I, as the DM, know that he will set the room on fire, then I inform him of it, so he can make an informed decision.  The DMG encourages the DM to do that.



Why doesn't the game encourage the DM *more* to do that, by listing fireball as causing x damage in a burst (with no mention of creatures).  Then maybe a separate "fire" entry which states that "For game balance purposes, we suggest fire causes damage to creatures only, but may affect objects and catch fire as per DM discretion". If you do that, you're compromising between both schools of thought. What exactly do you think is the problem with the above suggestion, and why do you think that 4E didn't do it that way from the beginning?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Yeah, I can see how you arrived at this conclusion, and it's good that you recognize what you like, instead of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
> 
> Here is the funny part though - for my group (and I may or may not speak for all of them - I don't know), the gamist elements of 4e only appear sometimes, and for the rest, the narrative just takes over and mechanics take a back seat to the RP and story, just like, for us, they always have.
> 
> ...




Cool, and don't get me wrong I don't dislike 4e as a whole and am even running and playing in a game of it (along with a Pathfinder game) now.  It's just some of it's gamist elements do rub me the wrong way and it's narrative mechanics, IMO, seem more like outliers or accidents than a true effort to make them game support a narrative style in play.  All IMO, of course.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Tournament play?





A broad term meant to encompass games at conventions, gamedays, Encounters, Organized Play, etc.  The rules as written are the standard by which they are all adjudicated.  (In many such instances, groups compete against one another to do better in a tourney adventure than other groups do.)  A player going to such a game cannot expect that the organizers/judges/DMs/GMs will adopt the house rules of that player's home DM, any more than if the player goes from one home group to another.  There are groups where several people DM and where those various DMs do not even use the same house rules.  In all instances, the rules as written are the standard, sans DM house rules or additions (and despite some rulesets allowing DMs/GMs to overturn rules as written in the name of fun).


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think this is hyperbole... you know like you called me on earlier




I don't think so, but opinions, etc...



> However, with 4e I'm probably not paying for fluff, since it's totally maleable... so in a game like 4e really, all I am paying for is the rules. I think playing in a "rules as written only" way isn't necessarily the best... but I don't ascribe to "just make it all up" as the answer to everything either, otherwise what am I paying for?




But that's the other extreme, "make it all up", is just as extreme as "only what the book says."  

Very few players ever game only at those two extremes.  There is a whole lot of land in the middle of those two poles.  Most games operate in that very workable middle ground.

When I bought the books I paid for both fluff, which the rules explicitly encourage to be malleable by the players and DM, and for rules, that are usually pretty well balanced and work well.  When they don't, the rules also encourage the DM to adjudicate.  The books even provide the DM a very solid framework for making those rules adjudications, as well as providing a very good framework for making ad-hoc rulings.  So the books cover all these aspects.

What the books don't cover is how each table will end up using the materials provided, but even then the DMG gives a lot of good advice to a DM on how to do so.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 24, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Why doesn't the game encourage the DM *more* to do that, by listing fireball as causing x damage in a burst (with no mention of creatures). Then maybe a separate "fire" entry which states that "For game balance purposes, we suggest fire causes damage to creatures only, but may affect objects and catch fire as per DM discretion". If you do that, you're compromising between both schools of thought. What exactly do you think is the problem with the above suggestion, and why do you think that 4E didn't do it that way from the beginning?




This would have been so much more transparent and IMO is exactly how it should have been done... but, IMO, then they would have to take a definite stand on exactly what playstyle 4e was designed to support.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> When did the "rules as written is the only way to go" become the standard by which the game has to be played at the table?




As pointed out on several message boards during the 3e era, house rules and fiat are perfectly fine at individual tables. However, when discussing rules, "rules as written" is the common basis we all have to work when discussing the game (House rules are fine when discussing how to fix an issue or otherwise tailor the game). (Edit: It is also a common basis for tournament play as pointed out by Mark and for players moving between groups unless house rules state otherwise).

Along with the above comes the Oberoni Fallacy:  Because you fixed a problem with a house rule or fiat does not mean that the problem does not still exist  as RAW.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 24, 2011)

I think there's an interesting question of how to design "realism" in the game.

One way: Robust mechanical models of fictional elements.  eg. The description of Fireball lists which materials it will set on fire, those it will melt, and those that will not be affected.

Another way: You give fictional positioning mechanical weight and assign the responsibility for adjudicating that weight in some way around the table.  (DM judgement calls, a metagame bidding process, FATE points, etc.)


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Why doesn't the game encourage the DM *more* to do that, by listing fireball as causing x damage in a burst (with no mention of creatures).  Then maybe a separate "fire" entry which states that "For game balance purposes, we suggest fire causes damage to creatures only, but may affect objects and catch fire as per DM discretion". If you do that, you're compromising between both schools of thought. What exactly do you think is the problem with the above suggestion, and why do you think that 4E didn't do it that way from the beginning?




If you want every power to be much longer, with possible side explanations of every nuance of its use that might work.  The problem is that the rules are finite, the imagination not so much.  What happens when a player wants to do something the power doesn't explicitly cover?

The more restrictive that the rules become the smaller the box to play with, because any interaction of the imagination cannot be covered by the rules. Since this is not a CRPG, I guess the designers decided that what happens at the table is best handled by the people at the table.

I think the designers figured that DMs and players don't need to check their common sense, and a sense of fair play at the door when making rules adjudications or playing the game.  But I can't speak for the designers intent except as it's spelled in the books.  And the DMG is pretty explicit with that intent, make the game fun at the table.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> If you want every power to be much longer, with possible side explanations of every nuance of its use that might work.



But I never suggested side explanations of every nuance of its use.



> What happens when a player wants to do something the power doesn't explicitly cover?



Whatever solution you use now in 4E when a player wants to do something the power doesn't explicitly cover.



> The more restrictive that the rules become the smaller the box to play with, because any interaction of the imagination cannot be covered by the rules. Since this is not a CRPG, I guess the designers decided that what happens at the table is best handled by the people at the table.



But my suggestion _empowers_ DMs and players to use their imagination to handle it. You don't agree that it's good to word the rules to empower the group to feel that this is true?


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> A broad term meant to encompass games at conventions, gamedays, Encounters, Organized Play, etc.  The rules as written are the standard by which they are all adjudicated.  (In many such instances, groups compete against one another to do better in a tourney adventure than other groups do.)  A player going to such a game cannot expect that the organizers/judges/DMs/GMs will adopt the house rules of that player's home DM, any more than if the player goes from one home group to another.  There are groups where several people DM and where those various DMs do not even use the same house rules.  In all instances, the rules as written are the standard, sans DM house rules or additions (and despite some rulesets allowing DMs/GMs to overturn rules as written in the name of fun).




I could not even begin to come up with numbers but it seems to me like conventions, gamedays, encounters, Organized Play, might be a lot of players, but still a much smaller group than all those that play at home with out ever a thought of "tournament play."

Since DM adjudication is still a part of the "standard" rules then it is incorporated into the thought that it would be used at "tournament play."


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I could not even begin to come up with numbers but it seems to me like conventions, gamedays, encounters, Organized Play, might be a lot of players, but still a much smaller group than all those that play at home with out ever a thought of "tournament play."
> 
> Since DM adjudication is still a part of the "standard" rules then it is incorporated into the thought that it would be used at "tournament play."





You're confusing the difference between what the standard rules are and what the rules allow individual DMs to do in addition to the standard.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Why doesn't the game encourage the DM *more* to do that, by listing fireball as causing x damage in a burst (with no mention of creatures).  Then maybe a separate "fire" entry which states that "For game balance purposes, we suggest fire causes damage to creatures only, but may affect objects and catch fire as per DM discretion". If you do that, you're compromising between both schools of thought.



I could get behind an idea like this, but I would want to see it broken down by keyword, and moved into a section of the general rules, rather than listed by every specific power or ability. Specific powers or abilities could list exceptions to the general rule.

I would also want to see a bit more clarification of how that is intended to be used, as you suggest, with more ample DM advice.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Greg K said:


> As pointed out on several message boards during the 3e era, house rules and fiat are perfectly fine at individual tables. However, when discussing rules, "rules as written" is the common basis we all have to work when discussing the game (House rules are fine when discussing how to fix an issue).
> 
> Along with the above comes the Oberoni Fallacy:  Because you fixed a problem with a house rule or fiat does not mean that the problem does not still exist  as RAW.




Yeah, and in these discussions it is so very easy to discard the RAW that gives moderator/adjudication control to the DM.

It's an interesting argument given the Monte Cook quotes on your signature.



> "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
> 
> " If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
> 
> "Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 24, 2011)

Tovec said:


> By narrative approach you mean 'make up whatever you want when it doesn't make sense'?



No, I do not. What makes sense to me in a game and a narrative might not make sense to you. And the other way around. Why not let a ruleset leave some way to let the players and the Dm decide narratively what they assume to be a plausible way of how a power might work? 
You see: you will play the game in a different way than I do, and it is ok if the rules accommodate to that? 4E, in my opinion, leaves more room for that than other edition. It is, again in my opinion, one of the main reasons why some people are so opposed to playing it. As I said upthread: 4E has basically left the simulationist train and gave more power to interpret the rules through a narrative approach by the the GM and, more importantly, the players.



> Right, those rules didn't exist. But for years in between what you are talking about and 4e, the rules DID, and they worked fine. I don't understand why progress like that needed to be thrown out in favour of "maybe or maybe not" the papers get ignited.



Really? I have spent the last one and a half years in a group that took too much time to read through pages and pages of 3e spells to find out what a spell did, what special rules in which book governed which situation, etc. That took a lot of time and in the end bored me to death because we did not tell a story. We just read books.
Now, I understand that this is a problem in one very specific group. But I have not encountered this problem in 4E games because the rules give a lot of power to the players to narrate the game.



> Yes, but somehow it is good to get rid of through and effort that people have put into a rules set? The _goodness_ comes from the fact you now *have to* make it up as you go, hurrah!



What you are trying to say is (I guess) that the rules should cover all situations and cater to all tastes of simulation for everybody. Well, as this thread makes clear, tastes differ and sometimes differ a lot.
So I prefer a ruleset that allows for some narrative to fill in the blanks and actually leave that power to the players and the GM. 



> I'd argue you don't HAVE TO narrate that too. In 3e for example, rules on swimming were fairly clear. Now, however you have to narrate what happens and invent a rule, or take something you feel is close and reflavour, to deal with the issue. I guess 4e does excel in making people step away from the familiar and force them to narrate, if only so that the DM can guess at a rule to cover it.



You are exaggerating to make a point, I see. There are swimming rules in 4E and they work just fine. But powers can be used in all different kind of situations. Sometimes they are not easy to handle. And as I have said before, putting the narrative first helps a lot. I feel that 4 E allows for ths more than 3e or any other edition before.



> Don't forget, when you make the argument that it _can_ target non-creatures that this is a ruleset given to us by the same people who produce Magic (MtG) and that when they stated "creatures" I'm sure they meant just that. They are very clear in their other game title of what an effect targets but in DnD they apparently miss out and have to include it in a section for DM fiat if they happen to think about it or want a non-standard result.



That is because Magic the Gathering is a different game. It is nor a RPG. It works differently. I do know why you are bringing this up, though. At least I think I know. Do you really think that 4E and MtG are similar?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> You're confusing the difference between what the standard rules are and what the rules allow individual DMs to do in addition to the standard.



Yeah, I have to say, I agree here. There needs to be a bog-standard tournament rule for every option that is clear as day and easy to adjudicate.

So far, the best example I have seen of this while still allowing for flexibility is in 2e, where rules are indicated in shaded text and specified that they are for tournament use, or optional, or whatnot.

A hypothetical 5e could expand on this idea by including entries for "simplified rule," a middle ground "standard" rule, and an advanced, more in-depth "simulation" rule.

The core book could pick a default, probably either the middle ground or the simple rule, then include the others in supplements, just to keep bloat down. If they could manage to pack it all into one book, so much the better.

So that way, in a given organized play situation, you could spell out that you're using "tournament" and "simplified", or "optionals x, y, z" and "simulation".

You could even mix and match on a per-rule basis for home play. This may be what they were getting at in these columns with respect to complexity dials.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> You're confusing the difference between what the standard rules are and what the rules allow individual DMs to do in addition to the standard.




I think that you're discounting the amazingly large influence the DM has on the game, specially in "tournament play".

At GenCon this past year I was discussing this exact "conundrum" with some guys over breakfast.  At one time in organized play the pendulum had swung in the direction of a DM as simply a judge, and rules adjudicator, he is not the guy actually running a game at that table, he is the computer AI that in rote parses rules and the adventure. This was done for the "mythical" goal of standardization.  Well, with the release of the new organized play campaign that pendulum swung back to the original purpose of a DM, to be a Dungeon Master and provide the most fun at that particular table.

Unfortunately some of the worst Organized Play DMs are the ones that are stuck on the idea that they are judges.

If you have a wonderful experience at an Organized Play table, thank that DM.  If you have a lousy experience at that table, thank that DM.

Table play is almost entirely regulated by the DM, and instead of producing more rules the game should be geared to help that DM become better at his role.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> But my suggestion _empowers_ DMs and players to use their imagination to handle it. You don't agree that it's good to word the rules to empower the group to feel that this is true?




I misread your initial post.  I agree inasmuch as these things are provided as additional optional guidelines.  As soon as they become the "standard" the box starts to narrow beyond a point I appreciate in the game.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> No, I do not. What makes sense to me in a game and a narrative might not make sense to you. And the other way around. Why not let a ruleset leave some way to let the players and the Dm decide narratively what they assume to be a plausible way of how a power might work?



That isn't really what the system currently allows, any more than any other edition did. Reflavouring should be changing the fireball to be a burst of fire-fairies that burn everything in their path. Not a DM's choice if that burst of fire damages paper.
Put another way, I wouldn't mind seeing limitations (assuming they follow the power's text) that an unconscious person doesn't benefit from the warlord's cry. I can still choose to "dm's fiat" or ignore the rule but limitations are good to understand what the rule is intended to do and what it isn't. It is good to understand what the rule excels at and what fails to provide. That is totally different from what the others are describing, I'm still not sure if you see things their way.



> Really? I have spent the last one and a half years in a group that took too much time to read through pages and pages of 3e spells to find out what a spell did, what special rules in which book governed which situation, etc. That took a lot of time and in the end bored me to death because we did not tell a story. We just read books.
> Now, I understand that this is a problem in one very specific group. But I have not encountered this problem in 4E games because the rules give a lot of power to the players to narrate the game.



Narration of the game has always existed, but limitations are good too, instead of reskinning something beyond what was intended. If something doesn't work then Rule 0 it. That hasn't changed in any edition. 3e provided a firmer framework on how things, in the game world, should act. 4e went in the opposite direction, in favour of balanced mechanic, saying that you get to make up whatever you want. They go so far as to say DM's CAN allow paper to burn in that fiery burst spell, not saying that paper does burn but that DM's can choose to allow it. Either way, the DM can say if it does but I don't understand why a logical explanation in the form of a rule is so feared in this regard.



> What you are trying to say is (I guess) that the rules should cover all situations and cater to all tastes of simulation for everybody. Well, as this thread makes clear, tastes differ and sometimes differ a lot.
> So I prefer a ruleset that allows for some narrative to fill in the blanks and actually leave that power to the players and the GM.



No, that's not really what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say the rules should cover how an effect works, then when people have differing tastes they can feel free to use them and ignore or follow the rules as much as they want. I think my game should give me all the tools, as well as the rationale of how they got there, for the situation. I think that 3e excelled at this and 4e is ignores it entirely.



> That is because Magic the Gathering is a different game. It is nor a RPG. It works differently. I do know why you are bringing this up, though. At least I think I know. Do you really think that 4E and MtG are similar?



I think they are similar in the fact they are produced by the same company. I think they are similar in the way they are both games with clear design goals as far as construction of said rules.

I think they are dissimilar in that they are different kinds of games. I think, that in the fact they are being produced by the same company, they are dissimilar if one explicitly says a rule works a certain way and the other says a rule works a certain way but the DM has the option of changing it.

For this specific argument, it comes down to:
3e - fireball causes flammable stuff to burn (if unattended)
4e - fireball targets creatures, the DM CAN also allow it to target flammable stuff, and they can do so each time it comes up, no rule needed - just reflavour

In 3e we almost never had it actually catch stuff on fire, it was a common choice and houserule instituted in our games that the "sets stuff on fire" effect wasn't activated by fireballs. But it was in the rules and not flavour of the text. It was our choice to ignore the rule, it wasn't up the DM to decide that this time it burns stuff and another time it doesn't. It worked on way or it worked another, it didn't change each time for fun.
This is what I meant earlier when I said, "If I liked it, I'd use it and if I didn't I wouldn't."



D'karr said:


> I misread your initial post.  I agree inasmuch as these things are provided as additional optional guidelines.  As soon as they become the "standard" the box starts to narrow beyond a point I appreciate in the game.




So, you dislike the game when it starts to give you standard (based on Nemesis Destiny above) middle of the road mechanics? I can certainly see why you would prefer to argue that the 4e rulings are better when you get to make up whatever flavour text you want.

In 4e I wouldn't have minded seeing a modular system with a solid CORE ruleset and several optional subset expansions. The problem is that this is nowhere near what we ended up with. We got 16 different books with 16 mildly different (reflavoured?) things in them, which provide a balanced approach to combat.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> It's an interesting argument given the Monte Cook quotes on your signature.




Not at all.  
1. There are many things that I don't like being told by designers (e.g., wealth by level, free multi-classing as default) or being included  in core D&D books (a default pantheon (except in an appendix), tanglefoot bags, sunrods, halfling riding dogs, spiked chains, etc.)

2. As someone that house ruled the hell out of 3e (and prior editions), I put there to show that designers can have issues with things that they design so RAW should not be held as the end all be all and encourage house ruling.  

Yet, despite the above, I recognize the importance of RAW as providing a common framework for discussing the game away from individual tables.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2011)

Good food for thought, both of you, and thanks for acknowledging my point and both building on it and taking it seriously.  I appreciate  it.  I'll incorporate much of what you have both posted into my future understanding of the topic.  Sadly, I have XPed you both too recently to allow me to do so again right away.  If you wonder why I am XPing you seemingly randomly in the near future, remember these posts. 




Nemesis Destiny said:


> Yeah, I have to say, I agree here. There needs to be a bog-standard tournament rule for every option that is clear as day and easy to adjudicate.
> 
> So far, the best example I have seen of this while still allowing for flexibility is in 2e, where rules are indicated in shaded text and specified that they are for tournament use, or optional, or whatnot.
> 
> ...








D'karr said:


> I think that you're discounting the amazingly large influence the DM has on the game, specially in "tournament play".
> 
> At GenCon this past year I was discussing this exact "conundrum" with some guys over breakfast.  At one time in organized play the pendulum had swung in the direction of a DM as simply a judge, and rules adjudicator, he is not the guy actually running a game at that table, he is the computer AI that in rote parses rules and the adventure. This was done for the "mythical" goal of standardization.  Well, with the release of the new organized play campaign that pendulum swung back to the original purpose of a DM, to be a Dungeon Master and provide the most fun at that particular table.
> 
> ...


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Tovec said:


> So, you dislike the game when it starts to give you standard (based on Nemesis Destiny above) middle of the road mechanics? I can certainly see why you would prefer to argue that the 4e rulings are better when you get to make up whatever flavour text you want.




No, I dislike the game when its rules start to encroach. Middle of the road is usually fine, it's absolutes that I don't prefer.

For example in the case of fireball I have no problem if the rule says that the effect "may" set ablaze flammable objects, or if the "rules" for fire effects adds it as a an optional guideline.  

I have a problem when the rule starts giving me a laundry list of things it affects.  Because if the rule is giving me a laundry list it, by definition, is making a determination of things that would be excluded. That type of "absolute" determination is better left on the hands of the DM, and players.

In addition, the more rules that there are to reference the longer it can take for a DM to make a ruling, because he might want to be sure of what the actual "rules" say.  The rules should provide me, the DM, with a framework to make quick and mostly balanced/fair rulings/adjudications, not with a list of rules to check for compliance.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2011)

D'karr said:


> No, I dislike the game when its rules start to encroach. Middle of the road is usually fine, it's absolutes that I don't prefer.
> 
> For example in the case of fireball I have no problem if the rule says that the effect "may" set ablaze flammable objects, or if the "rules" for fire effects adds it as a an optional guideline.
> 
> ...



To the first, those rules are there if you are unfamiliar enough not to know what you are doing or if you want something other than a "I say so" rule of why something exists (in 3e). You are under no further obligation in 3e than in 4e to follow those rules or to go looking for them, they are an option. In 4e however these "optional" rules are for common things that have always been included or which make sense.

On this last note, I think we agree. But in many ways I feel 4e simply doesn't give me that ruling or framework at all. To me, it says "we came up with these rules because they are balanced. That is what you want, balance, right? If we didn't think of it, then it is _your job_ to think of it and put it into your game." and that is a very sloppy, illogical, and inexact use of the rules.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2011)

Tovec said:


> To the first, those rules are there if you are unfamiliar enough not to know what you are doing or if you want something other than a "I say so" rule of why something exists (in 3e). You are under no further obligation in 3e than in 4e to follow those rules or to go looking for them, they are an option. In 4e however these "optional" rules are for common things that have always been included or which make sense.




Intent and reality did not match up on that.  I have quite a storied experience with 3.x, and yes I agree that the rules are optional.  That is how I've always played it.  The fact that we are having discussion of RAW right now leads me to believe that the optionality of those rules is not as sacrosanct as you intimate.



> On this last note, I think we agree. But in many ways I feel 4e simply doesn't give me that ruling or framework at all. To me, it says "we came up with these rules because they are balanced. That is what you want, balance, right? If we didn't think of it, then it is _your job_ to think of it and put it into your game." and that is a very sloppy, illogical, and inexact use of the rules.




Your and my experience running 4e obviously differ.

I've been running 4e games since DDXP of 2008 (Jan/Feb), in that time I've hardly had to go reference a rule.  As a matter of fact since the DM screen came out I don't even have any books open at the table. Since every table that I would need to come up with a "balanced/fair" ruling is pretty much right there.

I ran 3.x games since it came out until January of 2011, I can hardly recount how many times I was "forced" to look up a rule.  If you look at spell like abilities you'll see what I mean.  Each of them references a spell, but how does that particular spell work?  Running ad-hoc games with just a monster manual in front of me was an exercise in futility.  So I reverted to simply making stuff up.

Yes it seems we agree on the optionality of rules, I want the game to keep that in mind when I'm running it, not to pay lip service to the concept.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 25, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I misread your initial post.  I agree inasmuch as these things are provided as additional optional guidelines.  As soon as they become the "standard" the box starts to narrow beyond a point I appreciate in the game.



Agreed. If I've learned anything on Enworld and Legends and Lore, it's that D&D isn't going back to a crunch-heavy RAW core in the foreseeable future.

So under a theoretical 4.5E or 5E "fire" keyword entry, I'd like to see:

Core/tactical/tournament play: For simplicity and game balance purposes [this is to be transparently open and honest like Rich Baker on Rule-of-Three about the function of the rules vs fiction], we suggest fire causes damage to creatures only. Fire may affect objects and catch fire as per DM discretion -- if so, players should receive cues in advance that using powers with fire keyword may have unexpected effects [so that the players are privy to what would be obvious to the PCs in-game ("Player: what? the papers are catching fire too? DM: Duh, you're in a library! Player: But fireballs never affected objects before?")].

Optional play: [guidelines and suggestions to handle above more systematically, in terms of story and game balance too]

Plus when you have slots open for optional gameplay like that, you've opened up a niche market for future supplements and/or 3rd party publishers to add extra layers of complexity.

I would also like to see some support for optional gameplay that nods to "realism", and not just adventure design that assumes that everyone is roleplaying the "for tactical game balance, we suggest..." play style.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 25, 2011)

Tovec said:


> Narration of the game has always existed, but limitations are good too, instead of reskinning something beyond what was intended. If something doesn't work then Rule 0 it. That hasn't changed in any edition. 3e provided a firmer framework on how things, in the game world, should act. 4e went in the opposite direction, in favour of balanced mechanic, saying that you get to make up whatever you want. They go so far as to say DM's CAN allow paper to burn in that fiery burst spell, not saying that paper does burn but that DM's can choose to allow it. Either way, the DM can say if it does but I don't understand why a logical explanation in the form of a rule is so feared in this regard.



The 3.5 rules for the spell fireball describe explicitely what kind of sound the fireball creates, that it creates no pressure, what the hand movement of the wizard looks like, that it starts out as a pea-sized bead and then stretches out, etc., that you have to make a touch attack in certain situations and on and on.
Oh, and it says that unattended objects will burn. If an attended object is concerned, I guess we have to look up a different rule in a different book.

Do you really think all of this is neccessary, that a rule like that for a spell is somehow better than the 4E version, which states the raw numbers and then presents us with a flavor text as a basic guideline?
Why not let the players (or the GM, which I think is the default) narrate what the smell, the sound, the gestures are? And fall back on a basic guideline for all powers when a specific question pops up, such as: does the fireball burn the paper in the room?
As somebody else upthread has already mentioned, 4E requires less books at the table because it was designed that way. Less talk about rules, even less time spent searching for a specific rule.



> No, that's not really what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say the rules should cover how an effect works, then when people have differing tastes they can feel free to use them and ignore or follow the rules as much as they want. I think my game should give me all the tools, as well as the rationale of how they got there, for the situation. I think that 3e excelled at this and 4e is ignores it entirely.



Using the word "excelled" makes it sound so positive when in my experience it was certainly not. Because what a rule like the 3.5 fireball spell does is take away room for an individual narrative because it sets a more in depth default line from which it is harder to part. Want a louder version than a "low roar"? Want more pressure? Want a different hand movement? In 3e you cannot just "reflavour", because all these things are set into a rule that is part of the crunch of the spell description. And then you might end up with more talk at the table, because you just cannot change the crunch, can you? It is hard for some people to change that because it is crunch. In 4E on the other hand, it is flavor to begin with, and that is easy to change.
The basic setup of 4E is that there are general rules, which are overruled by specific rules that you find in the power description. And a lot of times the rules say: you decide on how to play this in the situation when this comes up. Page 42 sets a clear example for this: basic, but very enjoyable and playable rules that can apply to a certain narrative. I do not recall something like this in 3e. THIS is what 4E excels at.



> I think they are similar in the fact they are produced by the same company. I think they are similar in the way they are both games with clear design goals as far as construction of said rules.



I think it is a good thing that you can have the powers on cards (like Magic), because that makes the game at my table easier for everybody. You know, read what is on the card and then discard it after you used the power. It makes the game easier. I like the fact that there are general rules in one rules compendium and specific rules for individual powers on these cards (like Magic). Other than that, two seperate games.



> In 4e I wouldn't have minded seeing a modular system with a solid CORE ruleset and several optional subset expansions. The problem is that this is nowhere near what we ended up with. We got 16 different books with 16 mildly different (reflavoured?) things in them, which provide a balanced approach to combat.



What does balance have to do with this? The question of how much narrative is prescribed in a rule text is not about balance. A more narrative game can just be as unbalanced as 3e was and still is.
But to leave those things out that obviously can be subject to different narratives for different people in different groups, even in small ways, and to focus on what is really important for a power to work in which way, which is numbers and keywords and a basic description, empowers the players to fit the power to what kind of narrative they like to play with.


----------



## Derren (Dec 25, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> The 3.5 rules for the spell fireball describe explicitely what kind of sound the fireball creates, that it creates no pressure, what the hand movement of the wizard looks like, that it starts out as a pea-sized bead and then stretches out, etc., that you have to make a touch attack in certain situations and on and on.
> Oh, and it says that unattended objects will burn. If an attended object is concerned, I guess we have to look up a different rule in a different book.
> 
> Do you really think all of this is neccessary, that a rule like that for a spell is somehow better than the 4E version, which states the raw numbers and then presents us with a flavor text as a basic guideline?




If all that matters in your game is that fireball does X damage to creatures in Y damage then this is enough.
But what when the "flavor" of the spell, that it creates no pressure or ignites unattended objects does become important, maybe because of creative spell usage outside of combat (yes, I know, a strange idea) or because you really don't want to set the room aflame?

In prvious editions this was just another layer of challenge for the players. In 4E all this gets handwaved away as the player can simply say that it happens.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 25, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> The 3.5 rules for the spell fireball describe explicitely what kind of sound the fireball creates, that it creates no pressure, what the hand movement of the wizard looks like, that it starts out as a pea-sized bead and then stretches out, etc., that you have to make a touch attack in certain situations and on and on.
> Oh, and it says that unattended objects will burn. If an attended object is concerned, I guess we have to look up a different rule in a different book.




I put the SRD's description of 3.5 fireball at the bottom, just to help you out.
No references to sound but in that way I guess it could be soundless.
It does reference "almost no pressure" but I assume that has more to do with the fact that it doesn't shift you in any feet in a given direction (we're supposed to call them squares now?)
Where does it show the gestures? How would it show the gestures. As part of the casting requirements it does say somatic gestures are required but it doesn't give what they look like.
It also says "pea-sized" in order to give you a greater idea of what it looks like when it is cast.
As far as the "an attended object" isn't another book. It's the same one and has to do with the nature of reflex saves.
Also, no touch attack required. But I don't see how many of these things are different in 4e rules text.

Indeed, the description could just give the most basic information and then said "make it up" but, as I have said, it isn't what rules should do. The RULE should give information on how the mechanic is designed to work. If the "pea-sized" aspect doesn't work for you then change it. Rule 0.



TheFindus said:


> Do you really think all of this is neccessary, that a rule like that for a spell is somehow better than the 4E version, which states the raw numbers and then presents us with a flavor text as a basic guideline?
> Why not let the players (or the GM, which I think is the default) narrate what the smell, the sound, the gestures are? And fall back on a basic guideline for all powers when a specific question pops up, such as: does the fireball burn the paper in the room?
> As somebody else upthread has already mentioned, 4E requires less books at the table because it was designed that way. Less talk about rules, even less time spent searching for a specific rule.




I guess it depends on your definition of necessary.
Do I think its necessary that the rules provide us with the structure so questions have answers? Yes.
Do I think its necessary that we be bound by the text? No.
I DO think that a basic guideline isn't enough.
Why not let players (or the GM) narrate what the smell, sound, gestures are? Who's saying they can't? I'm not. I'm saying that if they have no idea what would be a good idea on what it ... well not smells, sounds or gestures but those other things should be, then it's good if the game tells you these things - even if you disagree and change it.
3e only requires more books when you are adding on a rare/mysterious/unique/hard to remember/misc. class/race/ability/feat/misc. to a character. It isn't required when you need to know if fire from a fireball burns paper.
Besides the phenomenon of "adding on a rare/mysterious/unique/hard to remember/misc. class/race/ability/feat/misc. to a character" isn't unique to 3e, 4e does it too.
My entire career of DMing 3.5 - I only ever owned the core 3 and that was because I was the DM and needed more info than the party.



> Using the word "excelled" makes it sound so positive when in my experience it was certainly not. Because what a rule like the 3.5 fireball spell does is take away room for an individual narrative because it sets a more in depth default line from which it is harder to part. Want a louder version than a "low roar"? Want more pressure? Want a different hand movement? In 3e you cannot just "reflavour", because all these things are set into a rule that is part of the crunch of the spell description. And then you might end up with more talk at the table, because you just cannot change the crunch, can you? It is hard for some people to change that because it is crunch. In 4E on the other hand, it is flavor to begin with, and that is easy to change.




You can actually, they're called houserules and they don't change every time the spell appears based on DM's whim. They mean that if the fireball doesn't set paper on fire this time then logically it shouldn't next time. (To be fair, I consider _flavour_ and _rules _to be the same thing, as they are both included in the same core rule book and both give information on how the rules apply to the spell.)



> The basic setup of 4E is that there are general rules, which are overruled by specific rules that you find in the power description. And a lot of times the rules say: you decide on how to play this in the situation when this comes up. Page 42 sets a clear example for this: basic, but very enjoyable and playable rules that can apply to a certain narrative. I do not recall something like this in 3e. THIS is what 4E excels at.






> I think it is a good thing that you can have the powers on cards (like Magic), because that makes the game at my table easier for everybody. You know, read what is on the card and then discard it after you used the power. It makes the game easier. I like the fact that there are general rules in one rules compendium and specific rules for individual powers on these cards (like Magic). Other than that, two seperate games.



Uh-huh... I'm not saying they're the same game. I'm saying they are similar in some ways and that this might be due to the fact they are produced by the same company. Like when Hanna Barbera animates something that the characters are going to look similar with similar technology, not that the characters, story or shows will be the same.



> What does balance have to do with this? The question of how much narrative is prescribed in a rule text is not about balance. A more narrative game can just be as unbalanced as 3e was and still is.



4e was built with balance in mind, that was my only point. I'm not saying that a game can't be unbalanced.

Oh and \/ fireball \/


			
				Fireball;SRD said:
			
		

> Evocation [Fire]
> Level:	Sor/Wiz 3
> Components:	V, S, M
> Casting Time:	1 standard action
> ...







Derren said:


> If all that matters in your game is that fireball does X damage to creatures in Y damage then this is enough.
> But what when the "flavor" of the spell, that it creates no pressure or ignites unattended objects does become important, maybe because of creative spell usage outside of combat (yes, I know, a strange idea) or because you really don't want to set the room aflame?
> 
> In prvious editions this was just another layer of challenge for the players. In 4E all this gets handwaved away as the player can simply say that it happens.




Can't XP you anymore. But this.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2011)

Tovec - Open up your 3.5 PHB to see what is missing from the SRD description.  The SRD, by it's nature, does not include any flavour text.  However, the SRD is not the PHB and the PHB always trumps the SRD.




Derren said:


> If all that matters in your game is that fireball does X damage to creatures in Y damage then this is enough.
> But what when the "flavor" of the spell, that it creates no pressure or ignites unattended objects does become important, maybe because of creative spell usage outside of combat (yes, I know, a strange idea) or because you really don't want to set the room aflame?
> 
> In prvious editions this was just another layer of challenge for the players. In 4E all this gets handwaved away as the player can simply say that it happens.




Again, this is why I said upthread about actually reading the rules because this is flat out wrong.  The player doesn't "simply say it happens".  The DM can, at his discretion, allow it to happen or not.  The rules specifically tell him to make this adjudication.

In earlier editions, the adjudication was taken out of his hands and wrapped up in the rules.  Yes, the rules say that the DM can deviate through Rule 0, but, the baseline is that the rules stand unless the DM says otherwise.

In 4e, the baseline is the DM.  The DM determines whether the paper in the room burn or not.  Not the player.  The player could probably try to target objects in the area of affect, and then make attacks.  Most DM's would likely allow that without any difficulty I think.  But, again, specifically empowered by the rules, the DM can also determine that all objects in the area are also targeted.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that I'm arguing in favour of DM empowerment against people.  It's blowing my mind.  For YEARS people bitched about how 3e took all the authority away from the DM.  Here we have a very clear cut case of the rules taking all the authority and dumping it straight into the DM's lap, 100% lock, stock and barrel.  And people are still bitching about it.  

I really don't get it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Yes. That is what page 42 is for. Diplomacy in lieu of Healing, but the DC would have to be higher, and perhaps also some adverse consequence like granting CA until the start of your next turn as you stop fighting to talk to your comrade.




Why?

Why shouldn't it just be the Heal skill? Why all of the restrictions?

Is it because that would make the Warlord too worthless of a healer, or is it because it would make everyone else too powerful?

The problem with nonsensical rationales is that they tend to hoist one by their own petard when logic is applied to them.

And the "well, that's the way it is" rationale is just as bad.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In earlier editions, the adjudication was taken out of his hands and wrapped up in the rules. Yes, the rules say that the DM can deviate through Rule 0, but, the baseline is that the rules stand unless the DM says otherwise.




Adjudication was not taken out of his hands, the rules had a different baseline but the DM was free to adjudicate just as much as he can in 4e. And the baseline is always that the rules stand unless the DM says otherwise... even in 4e.



Hussar said:


> In 4e, the baseline is the DM. The DM determines whether the paper in the room burn or not. Not the player. The player could probably try to target objects in the area of affect, and then make attacks. Most DM's would likely allow that without any difficulty I think. But, again, specifically empowered by the rules, the DM can also determine that all objects in the area are also targeted.




The DM isn't the baseline though, the description of the power is. It still has restrictions and rules... but beause of the interactions of powers, effects and targets it is necessary (from a balance and consistency PoV) not to have a general rule or even a specific one of powers auto-targeting objects... again to avoid the "bag of rats" problem... where you can attack a chair and trigger the effects of powers.



Hussar said:


> I'm absolutely flabbergasted that I'm arguing in favour of DM empowerment against people. It's blowing my mind. For YEARS people bitched about how 3e took all the authority away from the DM. Here we have a very clear cut case of the rules taking all the authority and dumping it straight into the DM's lap, 100% lock, stock and barrel. And people are still bitching about it.
> 
> I really don't get it.




You don't get it because in alot of people's opinion you're not arguing for DM empowerment because it was never missing, it's been there in every edition, supported by the text and up to each individual DM as far as how much, when , etc. to adjudicate things. All 4e did was, therough the way it was designed, force adjudication to perserve balance in certain instances where for previous editions a common sense rule sufficed for many DM's.

The problem is only *some* people had this problem, other people had no problem rule zeroing in earlier editions and thus always had DM empowerment. The problem with many of your arguments, IMO, is you assume particular things that don't hold true for many if not the majority of players and DM's. This argument reminds me of the new edition argument where the answer is always did the new edition invalidate your old books... Only now you're arguing that the corebooks of previous editions in some way brainwashed or forced DM's not to adjudicate, houserule, etc. You're blaming a failing of people to read or apply what they read in the text as opposed to placing the blame on the people who ignored or didn't use their power to adjudicate. I never had this problem running 3.5 and I don't have it running PF or 4e. 

So honestly, I'm really not getting it as far as where you're coming from.


----------



## Derren (Dec 26, 2011)

DM power in previous editions:
Fireball creates a ball of fire without blast and ignites burnable items. (The DM might rule otherwise)

DM power in 4E:
Fireball does X damage to enemies in area Y. Everything else is decided by the player unless the DM thinks otherwise.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm absolutely flabbergasted that I'm arguing in favour of DM empowerment against people.  It's blowing my mind.  For YEARS people bitched about how 3e took all the authority away from the DM.  Here we have a very clear cut case of the rules taking all the authority and dumping it straight into the DM's lap, 100% lock, stock and barrel.  And people are still bitching about it.
> I really don't get it.




People should have read the DMG.  As pointed out several times on these boards -twice by myself with quotes- anyone that bitched that 3e took away all the authority from the DM was wrong(at least in 3.0 since I never owned the 3.5 DMG).  Monte wrote in the DMG that it is the DM's game. The DM was in charge of how the game was played, the rules used and that they should change the rules if they or the group dislike them.  He even provided numerous options or suggestions on how to tailor the game throughout the rules.  In addition, DCs were not level based. The DM often made calls as to what they felt were appropriate by difficulty of the circumstances and/or could apply modifiers ranging from 2-20.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2011)

If anything, from the line below found in the 4e RC (The most up to date source for rules) 4e is empowering the roll of the dice as to how the power (at least spells) are described... Wow these books can be confusing and contradictory when it comes to 

_Improvising with Arcana (Page 136)_

_-Change the visible or audio qualities of one's magical powers when using them (moderate DC)_

Wow can these rules be confusing and contradictory when reading through 4e... I wonder why every other power source can reskin freely... but actual rules are given if you wish to reskin spells??


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 26, 2011)

If you haven't done so already, please cast your vote on this poll.

Although the poll is flawed (I've admitted as much in the OP, and I'd like to reboot it in the future), it may suggest the possibility that a majority of 4E Enworld users prioritize metagame success over (their subjective interpretation of) in-game "realism". If that's true, any arguments against Vicious Mockery vs skeletons, Come and Get, fireballs not setting objects on fire, and other pleas for "nods to realism" are a moot point for a majority of 4E players. I doubt the numbers are statistically significant, but I've been checking daily, and the ratios have been approx the same day-to-day.

The stats for non-4E players are waaaay to small to be meaningful, so please cast your vote, thanks!


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 26, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> If you haven't done so already, please cast your vote on this poll.
> 
> Although the poll is flawed (I've admitted as much in the OP, and I'd like to reboot it in the future), it may suggest the possibility that a majority of 4E Enworld users prioritize metagame success over (their subjective interpretation of) in-game "realism". If that's true, any arguments against Vicious Mockery vs skeletons, Come and Get, fireballs not setting objects on fire, and other pleas for "nods to realism" are a moot point for a majority of 4E players. I doubt the numbers are statistically significant, but I've been checking daily, and the ratios have been approx the same day-to-day.
> 
> The stats for non-4E players are waaaay to small to be meaningful, so please cast your vote, thanks!



I didn't (and won't) vote in your poll because of its flaws, chief among those being that it doesn't have an answer I can say describes my position. I thought it was worded in such a way that made it pretty obvious that you were only looking for ammunition to support your argument.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 26, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I didn't (and won't) vote in your poll because of its flaws, chief among those being that it doesn't have an answer I can say describes my position. I thought it was worded in such a way that made it pretty obvious that you were only looking for ammunition to support your argument.



Sorry, upthread I asked if anyone knew a better way to word it, but nobody responded.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 26, 2011)

Tovec said:


> I put the SRD's description of 3.5 fireball at the bottom, just to help you out.
> No references to sound but in that way I guess it could be soundless.
> It does reference "almost no pressure" but I assume that has more to do with the fact that it doesn't shift you in any feet in a given direction (we're supposed to call them squares now?)
> Where does it show the gestures? How would it show the gestures. As part of the casting requirements it does say somatic gestures are required but it doesn't give what they look like.
> ...



There is a reference to sound, namely a low roar. People will play with that and wonder what the Listen DC is.
The gesture is that you point your finger and the fireball is pea-sized. People will play with that. They will not create a big ball of fire between their hands in front of their chests which then hurls (as a big ball, mind you) toward the enemy. Why does all of that need to be in the description? Do Cook, Tweet and Williams think I am stupid, that I cannot come up with my own stuff? No, of course they don't, but they are prescribing THEIR visual version of the spell to the reader. 4E is different in this way, it gives this power to the players and mostly the GM as a default. Page 42 and "say yes!" proof my point. In 3e, and as a german I can say it seems to be true for almost anything, the default is what is written in the rules, not something like: well, the rule says this, but just forget about it if you don't like it.



> Indeed, the description could just give the most basic information and then said "make it up" but, as I have said, it isn't what rules should do. The RULE should give information on how the mechanic is designed to work. If the "pea-sized" aspect doesn't work for you then change it. Rule 0.



And I did change it (and now I finally know what "Rule 0" means, thank you). But in my opinion most people play with what the rules say. "I want my fireball to look like a dragon's head that flies toward my opponent", "No, it says here that it is a pea-sized thing, not a small dragon head, cannot do that". 4E encourages players and DMs much more than 3e to narrate their own stuff, to make the powers their own. Sure, the side effect is that not as many things are explained in the texts for the powers as there were in 3e. But I consider this a good thing. 



> I guess it depends on your definition of necessary.
> Do I think its necessary that the rules provide us with the structure so questions have answers? Yes.
> Do I think its necessary that we be bound by the text? No.
> I DO think that a basic guideline isn't enough.
> Why not let players (or the GM) narrate what the smell, sound, gestures are? Who's saying they can't? I'm not. I'm saying that if they have no idea what would be a good idea on what it ... well not smells, sounds or gestures but those other things should be, then it's good if the game tells you these things - even if you disagree and change it.



I do think that basic rules that cover, well, the basics, are enough. I do not think that new players and GMs have to be "protected" and shown the way spells in their campaign work in such detail by rules that cover the sound and the size of everything. I think they should be encouraged to narrate these things how they like it. 4E does that, 3e did less so. And that is were the two of us differ. 
I do not think that we play totally different games, though. From what I read, you change things just as I would. You just like to have more information written out in the text. I need less of that. Less than 3e most definetely.



> You can actually, they're called houserules and they don't change every time the spell appears based on DM's whim. They mean that if the fireball doesn't set paper on fire this time then logically it shouldn't next time.



I think this is a very valid point. The misuse of power by a GM that does A one day and B another in the same situation is aweful. But the times of DnD when you really had to write down a list of houserules, because the basic rules were so lacking ("no skills", and "dwarfs are always fighters, but here are the rules for dwarven priests" comes to mind) are over.
4E already covers the basics and more. It just so happens that some people want fireballs to burn unattended objects in the blast and want it hardcoded in the power description. Well, tough luck, I guess you have to decide that for yourself. And there might be special circumstances in any given situation when a fireball burns stuff, and later does not, or not all the stuff. Depending on the narrative and what seems plausible at the moment.
And I like that, I always have. And I have always played that way, but I do not have to argue about this anymore.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 26, 2011)

ashockney said:


> The style of play should also define this.  When you're going for anime/manga style - smash the guy into the side of a mountain, or superhero style - Xmen/Avengers/JLA, a sense of realism will more often get in the way of the storytelling.  If you want an austere retelling of a challenging adventure (think LoTR movies, recent James Bond reboot, and the new Mission Impossible reboot) there is certainly WIN in that type of story and campaign, but it's a different kind of challenge.



My realism issue with LotR is that it posits an essentially autarkic community - The Shire - with material living standards comparable to late 18th or even mid-19th century England, which was a centre of world trade and production. So if I played an LotR game I probably wouldn't make economics or social organisation a major focus of play.

Similarly, in 4e - which doesn't distinguish between attacking high and attacking low with a sword - I don't make that level of detail in weaponplay a major focus of play.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 26, 2011)

Double post deleted.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 26, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I think this is a very valid point. The misuse of power by a GM that does A one day and B another in the same situation is aweful. But the times of DnD when you really had to write down a list of houserules, because the basic rules were so lacking ("no skills", and "dwarfs are always fighters, but here are the rules for dwarven priests" comes to mind) are over.
> 4E already covers the basics and more. It just so happens that some people want fireballs to burn unattended objects in the blast and want it hardcoded in the power description. Well, tough luck, I guess you have to decide that for yourself. And there might be special circumstances in any given situation when a fireball burns stuff, and later does not, or not all the stuff. Depending on the narrative and what seems plausible at the moment.
> And I like that, I always have. And I have always played that way, but I do not have to argue about this anymore.




I would disagree that there's no longer a need to write down houserules because of the basic rules being lacking.  I see your point, and there are many areas in which I would agree, but there are also enough areas of 4E where I've felt the need to houserule because of either a lack of rules or a lack of what I felt were good rules that I overall disagree.

Skill Challenges are an easy example for me.  In general, I've found that ignoring the written advice about them leads to a better experience for me.  In particular, I use a much different set of DCs. 






As for fireballs?  I do try to nod toward realism, but -for me personally- not when playing D&D 4th Edition.  That's mostly because, when I've tried to do so in the past, it lead to frustration.  

Even though I prefer more of a sense of realism when gaming, I would not want 4E fireballs to set things on fire.  The reason being that I would feel the sense of balance and uniformity which 4E encourages would be thrown off by doing so.  If fire attacks have an occasional additional benefit to using them, but other energy types do not, it becomes better than the others.  If there were an additional narrative effect, it only seems fair to me that the other powers would also.   There should be situations in which cold is better than fire as well as situations in which fire is better than cold.  4E already has too many 'no-brainer' choices and options which are obviously better (in most cases) than others; I would not want to add more.

If you're familiar with The Elder Scrolls Skyrim, I'll say I feel that is a good example of how to give everything a reason to be used.  Fire magic in that game does set things on fire; it's best for pure damage and setting things on fire.  Lightning magic does damage to magicka; it is good against enemy mages.  Cold damage slows opponents and can do damage to what the game calls stamind; it can be good against strong melee opponents and for crowd control.  Each element has ups and downs.  

I feel like spending so much effort to work against the ideals that 4th is built upon and the already established playstyle to be more frustrating than simply using a different game when I want to nod toward realism.  I've come to be able to enjoy 4th edition mostly because I change my state of mind and how I think about a rpg experience when playing it.  Previously, trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole just lead to feeling bitter.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> It's really starting to become apparent to me that it is the gamist design of 4e that I don't like. I play narrative games and I play simulationist games but I have never been a fan of more gamist systems. I guess this is also why I have such a problem when people claim 4e is narrative... it just doesn't strike those same chords for me as a game like Legends of Anglerre does, without me overlaying narrative conventions onto it. Very little in it's mechanics remind me of the narrative games I am familiar with but it's mechanics almost always scream gamist to me. This is all IMO and all that...



As I've often posted, elements of the mechanics - especially skill challenges - remind me of both HeroWars/Quest, and Maelstrom Storytelling.



KarinsDad said:


> Why?
> 
> Why shouldn't it just be the Heal skill? Why all of the restrictions?
> 
> ...



Yes. It is about balance.

The general principle is that a skill that is broader in its application, like Diplomacy, should be less powerful when used for some specific effect, like restoring morale, than a narrower skill that has the same mechanical efect, like Healing.

This principle occurs in a range of games, including narrative ones like HeroQuest revised, though not in all games. In classic Traveller, for example, some skills are supersets of others, but there are other mechanics to handle this, such as random rather than chosen acquisition of skills.



Tovec said:


> Are you comparing the son of Zeus, a demigod, to regular human fighters?



Only because the 2nd ed PHB did the same thing.



Imaro said:


> This doesn't prove anything about whether powers are rotes or principles.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Their effects never change, their procedures never changes... that sounds like a rote to me.



Which powers are you talking about? The effects of some powers sometimes change. So while I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in this rote/principle discussion, but the premises on which you're basing your argument for "rote" are mistaken.

For example, Come and Get It can have different effects in the fiction (sometimes skilled weaonplay, sometimes lulling enemies into a false sense of confidence, sometimes goading them, etc) althought _mechanically_ these are all resolved as a pull. If the same PC sometimes used Come and Get It with a dagger, sometimes with a pike, I would think the procuedure and effects are very different.

The effects of Twist of Space can also differ - it can be used, for example, to rescue a NPC magically trapped in a mirror (I know this, because it happened - via p 42 - in my game). I've not seen the effects of Bigby's Icy Hand vary - yet.



darjr said:


> If the flavor could be anything, then it doesn't matter what it IS.



That's not true.

Here's one counter-example: my child's name could be anything before I name her. It doesn't follow that, once I name her, it doesn't matter. Calling her "Beatrice" will create a different impression from calling her "Madison". Calling her Kiende (a Meru name) in a predominantly English-speaking, non-African community will also create a diffrent impression.

In my experience, the "flavour" in 4e also matters, because it creates a fictional reality with other implications for the fiction. Because of the way the action resolution rules are structured, those consequences tend to play out at a higher level of detail than "did I strike him with the flat or the point of my blade?" But that gritty level of detail is not the only level that matters.



Imaro said:


> in PF, outside of the above, Fireball also sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area... it can even melt metals. Thus if a player wants to set an object on fire or melt metal with it he can and using it can also have unforseen consequences (this, IMO, is what flavor that actually ties into the gameworld does).
> 
> Taking Fireball in 4e... it only affects creatures in the burst... that's it by the rules and flavor.





Derren said:


> The rules part do not mention anything of a ball of fire or collateral damage. The rules only say that creature in an area take X fire damage.





Gentlegamer said:


> In AD&D, this question doesn't come up because the Fireball spell explicitly states that it can set non-living matter on fire (subject to item saving throws). Famously, _Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ described the giant's wooden hall as too damp to able to set on fire easily (though still possible) to prevent this tactic.



I already dealt with this upthread - the Moldvay Basic Rules for fireball mention _only_ damage to creatures. The original D&D booklet (for which G1 was written) talks only about d6s of damage but says nothing about creatures, nor objects, nor fire (other than in the name of the spell). It's not until the AD&D PHB that we get the text about combustibles, melting metals etc.

Yet plenty of pre-AD&D GMs worked out that a *fireball* might set fire to flammable things. Likewise 4e GMs - for an actual play example, see here - in that scenario, the PC magic-user was trying to fight off a swarm of necrotic spiders in a library without destroying the scrolls - he therefore chose to use an "enemies only" fire power, but things still went a bit haywire when burning spiders crawled onto the shelves.



Gentlegamer said:


> What happens when the Fireball doesn't ignite the orc's wooden stockade (benefits players) but does the dungeon they are in (harms players) because the DM made an ad hoc adjudication on the nature of magical fire?



The same as what happend before AD&D when a GM made inconsistent calls about fireball and objects - the table worked it out, put up with it, or changed GMs.



Mark CMG said:


> So, just to be clear, by the rules for all editions (just by the rules as written, without need for a DM adjudication), if a guy is standing in a ten by ten by ten room and he is targetted by a fireball, all of the papers in the room (let's say piled around his feet) catch on fire, no ifs, ands, or buts.





Hussar said:


> Mark CMG, no, you're right.  In 4e, it is not automatic if the papers light on fire or not.  It is up to the DM to adjudicate that.
> 
> Pre-4e, all DM's were forced by the mechanics into a single interpretation of how fireball works.



Can we please all get on the same page here! The text about igniting comubstibles is from the AD&D PHB. As I have quoted upthread, it is _absent_ from Moldvay Basic. It is also _absent_ from Book 1: Men & Magic. It is _absent_ from the Mentzer-era Rules Compendium (which many in this thread have nominated as an ideal baseline for simplicity/versatility). I assume it is absent from Holmes Basic.

The key point is that no one has ever maintained that, by RAW in those versions of classic D&D, fireballs did not ignite objects. It just requires some adjudication.



Mark CMG said:


> There must be something else in play that caused the default to be for stuff not to burn.  This is a case where designers determined that logic and thirty-five years of rules be damned, we need to put the question of paper caught in a fireball but not specifically targetted going up in flame in the hands of the DM.



It's about 30 years, I think, between the AD&D PHB and the 4e PHB. And about 20 years between the Rules Compendium and the 4e PHB. I don't think the change in fireball wording introduced by the AD&D PHB radically changed the way the spell is adjudicated. I bet that, even back in the day when the spell description didn't mention objects, or in Basic or RC games where the rules didn't mention objects, the odd library or piece of furniture was still ignited by a fireball. As to why 4e would drop the AD&D wording and return to the more classic wording, I think this was for ease of formatting. Targets are specified as allies, enemies, or creatures to facilitate adjudication in relation to who is hurt by an attack. Objects, in this technical parlance, are a species of creature.

A further consideration is this - fireball does far less damage to a serious combatant in 4e then it does in earlier editions. The only creatures it is likely to kill, if dropped on them at the start of a combat, are minions. Whereas in earlier editions of D&D it is likely to be fatal to all ordinary soldiers, whether human or humanoid. This suggests that a 4e fireball is less destructive - whether for narrative or physical reasons would be up to a given group to adjudicate. This change in destructiveness also suggests that the adjudication of damage to furniture might be changed to be more context-sensitive (eg it would be odd for the spell to reduce a table and charis to cinders, yet leave the 5 gnolls sitting around the table unbloodied).



Tovec said:


> We saw this argument over and over with the Aragorn dream sequence suggestion from before. The same analogy should work for the little pixies that catch enemies on fire but not paper.



I can't imagine many groups wanting to adjudicate fireball in the way you describe, but if they do, what's your objection to them doing so?



Derren said:


> If all that matters in your game is that fireball does X damage to creatures in Y damage then this is enough.
> But what when the "flavor" of the spell, that it creates no pressure or ignites unattended objects does become important, maybe because of creative spell usage outside of combat (yes, I know, a strange idea) or because you really don't want to set the room aflame?
> 
> In prvious editions this was just another layer of challenge for the players. In 4E all this gets handwaved away as the player can simply say that it
> happens.



Have you heard of page 42?



LostSoul said:


> I come down on Imaro and Derren's side in this.  It's been my experience that, if you don't give the flavour text any weight in action resolution, then the specifics of what the characters do in the fiction tends to get ignored.



My experience is that you don't need the game text to settle the flavour text in order for the fiction to be given weight in action resolution (although I don't think 4e, as written in the rules text, will support the sort of fine-grained fiction you seem to be looking for, like it mattering whether an attacker strikes high or low). 



LostSoul said:


> I think that game design that's challenge-based, puts the fictional positioning of the characters in a privileged position with regards to action resolution, and provides acceptable (if unexpected) results through action resolution needs to rely heavily on an impartial player - the DM.



I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this:



Balesir said:


> Just because the players (including the DM) get to decide what the in-game expression of the facts generated by the rules will be does not mean that the form of that expression is unimportant.





D'karr said:


> Does the power say that it WILL NOT affect any objects in the burst? No it doesn't.  So the DM can decide what the power does outside of that narrow interpretation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Nemesis Destiny said:


> What the DM says goes, just like always.



In my view, the key element of the game rules that interacts with ficitonal positioning is the *keyword*. Because there is no keyword for a high or a low or a frontal or a rear attack, these don't matter in the default rules. (Although whether a PC attacks from the front or the rear could be relevant to future matters like whether others treat him/her as honourable or not, either in combat or in a skill challenge).

But because there _is_ a keyword for fire attacks, a fireball can set objects aflame.



Tovec said:


> I already saw this was partially addressed.
> 
> But come on...
> Mocking the master/creator, who is dead (based on the example), or plausibly not within earshot?
> ...



There are a few things to say here.

One, the dead can be mocked.

Two, I have no objection to a bard mocking a dead or absent creator, and this so weakening the magic of his/her creator that the skeletons, in their tiny minds, feel a sensation of weakness/dispiritedness/enfeeblement/ennui (take your pick!) and are less resolved to fight on. It reminds me a bit of Gandalf confronting the Balrog by mocking his dark powers as a Flame of Udun.

Third, you can't use vicious mockery against a fire, because objects are immune to psychic damage and to attacks vs will. I'd have no trouble with a bard confronting a fire elemental and mocking the fire as feeble or incapable in the scheme of things.

If the game involves bards as PCs, it is presupposing the magical power of words - as is evident in much myth. Vicious mockery - affecting things by the use of words that mock them, or relevant aspects of their history or creation - doesn't threaten my sense of (fantasy) verisimilitude.



LurkAway said:


> So you allow bards to use vicious mockery on chairs? After all, the chairs are mindless and have no resistance/immunity to charms or psychic damage, and a cracked or exploding chair seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction to psychic damage



Chairs, being objects, are immune to psychic damage and to attacks vs Will.



LurkAway said:


> I think another part of it is the 4E being very specific that the default rule is independant of fictional positioning.



What have you got in mind? Both the page 42 and skill challenge guidelines make it clear that fictional positioning is central to adjudication.



Imaro said:


> If anything, from the line below found in the 4e RC (The most up to date source for rules) 4e is empowering the roll of the dice as to how the power (at least spells) are described... Wow these books can be confusing and contradictory when it comes to _Improvising with Arcana (Page 136)_
> 
> _-Change the visible or audio qualities of one's magical powers when using them (moderate DC)_
> 
> Wow can these rules be confusing and contradictory when reading through 4e... I wonder why every other power source can reskin freely... but actual rules are given if you wish to reskin spells??



With my group, we assume that this is about concealing the glow of fire, or the sound of thunder - things that otherwise wouldn't be "reskinnable" because they track keywords.



LurkAway said:


> Why doesn't the game encourage the DM *more* to do that, by listing fireball as causing x damage in a burst (with no mention of creatures).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What exactly do you think is the problem with the above suggestion, and why do you think that 4E didn't do it that way from the beginning?



I've frequently posted that the game needs better guidelines, including guidelines that draw clearer links between keywords and ficitonal positioning - at present this is discussed only in the (somewhat auxiliary) rules about attacking objects, whereas the rules on keywords themselves only talk about mechanics-to-mechanics interactions.

The 4e designers wouldn't be the first ever RPG designers to write crappy guidelines to go with their rules, although they probably have less excuse, given (i) how well resourced they are, and (ii) all the other better examples they had to draw on.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 26, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> There should be situations in which cold is better than fire as well as situations in which fire is better than cold.



Cold is better than fire (i) if you want to trigger frostcheese, or (ii) if you want to freeze water to cross it. Both have come up in my game. Whether this is enough of a balance to an "igniting" fireball will obviously vary a lot from table to table.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 26, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> so you can't fault him for nailing down some sort of objective definition of what D&D "realism" would be.



Sure I can!
Imho, it bodes ill for a new edition of our beloved game if the guy who gets to write such a prominent column cannot get his terminology straight. I've had a bad feeling in previous L&L columns, too.

To me Monte just seems to be _babbling_ instead of actually carefully thinking about the game. It could be that he just doesn't have enough time to write something more meaningful but I think he's doing himself (and us) a disservice.

If a random poster had written that article here in an ENWorld thread with those wacky polls, he'd either have been ignored or torn to shreds (and rightly so).

I liked the column better when Mr. Mearls was still writing it.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 27, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> There is a reference to sound, namely a low roar. People will play with that and wonder what the Listen DC is.



Good point, maybe the 3e PHB should have covered that. I wonder what it would be in 4e, as it provides the same information.



> <snip>
> 
> the default is what is written in the rules, not something like: well, the rule says this, but just forget about it if you don't like it.



Exactly. But if the rule is "it effects creatures" and the DM has to decide (on a case by case basis) if it does anything else.



> And I did change it (and now I finally know what "Rule 0" means, thank you). But in my opinion most people play with what the rules say. "I want my fireball to look like a dragon's head that flies toward my opponent", "No, it says here that it is a pea-sized thing, not a small dragon head, cannot do that". 4E encourages players and DMs much more than 3e to narrate their own stuff, to make the powers their own. Sure, the side effect is that not as many things are explained in the texts for the powers as there were in 3e. But I consider this a good thing.



Okay, so 4e says nothing so people must make up something to fill in the blank = good
3e has a rule (which you can change) = bad?



> 4E already covers the basics and more. It just so happens that some people want fireballs to burn unattended objects in the blast and want it hardcoded in the power description.



Some of us want less ambiguity. We want the choice not up the whim of the DM. "Hardcoded" into the rules means that if the DM changes it that both the DM and the player are aware of the change and that if they don't want it burning objects that it doesn't and shouldn't change on a case by case basis in the future.



> Well, tough luck, I guess *you have to decide* that for yourself.



Emphasis mine. Exactly my issue.



> And there might be special circumstances in any given situation when a fireball burns stuff, and later does not, or not all the stuff. Depending on the narrative and what seems plausible at the moment.
> And I like that, I always have. And I have always played that way, but I do not have to argue about this anymore.




Special circumstances have always been included, as upthread they've pointed out - wet wood meant they couldn't set the barrier on fire. It is when there are no obvious special circumstances, but instead REGULAR circumstances and the rule changes because the DM decided that a fireball should burn paper this time but last time he didn't think of it or didn't know or didn't think he should because it wasn't in the rule's description. Not knowing the relevance on page 42.

I don't want to argue anymore either. I just want to straighten out some points. I can happily agree to disagree, if that's what you want.




pemerton said:


> Only because the 2nd ed PHB did the same thing.




I don't have the 2e PHB, but based on what was said I assumed it said Hercules was a fighter, not that all fighters are Hercules.



> I can't imagine many groups wanting to adjudicate fireball in the way you describe, but if they do, what's your objection to them doing so?




I brought up the pixies, not because I've used them in that fashion, but because upthread someone gave that as how the text could be reflavoured and was said that it was an incorrect view.



> There are a few things to say here.
> 
> One, the dead can be mocked.
> 
> ...




One, the dead can be mocked "haha, you're dead!!" Check.

Two, it doesn't make sense the bard can mock a dead creator and in so doing weaken the magic they set in place. Put another way, how would it work if the bard mocked a sigil they left behind, or an alarm spell.
Two B, yes, Gandalf mocked the dark fire which gave the Balrog life - it in no way made the Balrog give up and go home, nor did it make him die from shame.

Third, I didn't mention "vicious mockery" when I said mocking fire. I was pointing out how silly it is to poke fun at shadow and expect a result, likening it to saying "fire you suck" and expecting it not to deal 1d6/round. Put another way, the shadow is an object and therefore immune to psychic attacks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I can't imagine many groups wanting to adjudicate fireball in the way you describe, but if they do, what's your objection to them doing so?




My objection is lack of consistency.

The ability to reskin spells (prayers, powers, whatever) or other abilities is not actually a good idea per se. It can lead to arguments and situations where last week, the Fireball burned the entire library, but this week, it doesn't burn the single sheet of paper on the desk.

I prefer spells to work in a certain specific way (i.e. as written) and not reskin them into anything a player wants. The reason I prefer it this way is that the designers would then create logical spells where the fluff matches the mechanics and not ones where the description of the fluff is stretched to match the mechanics.

I might just be an old curmudgeon, but I prefer a clean system where not just anything goes over a chaotic system where players can describe their abilities any way they want and it can change from session to session.


Climbing should be climbing. It shouldn't be some weird acrobatics jumping from one outcrop to another. Yes, the movies (like Jackie Chan or James Bond) allow people to imagine (see on film) and hence believe that this is plausible and can be done in real life, but the thing that people don't see is that in the movies, those moves take many takes (and often with cut scenes) to get them absolutely perfect.

Fireballs should be an area of fire. That means that they should affect every creature and object in the area. So should all elemental area effects. At Paragon levels, sure, elemental area effects should be controllable so that they do not damage an entire room and can be targeted for specific creatures or objects, but 4E doesn't take that into consideration well. 4E hands a 2 target ranged lightning effect and a 3 target ranged radiant effect as an At Will at level one, totally invalidating other At Will area powers that did affect every creature in an area. This level of precision should be a higher level effect. First level should be either single target, or every target in an area. The designers do not understand the balance of handing out enemy only or multi-target effects at level one. They just want to make everything cool.


----------



## darjr (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> That's not true.
> 
> Here's one counter-example: my child's name could be anything before I name her. It doesn't follow that, once I name her, it doesn't matter. Calling her "Beatrice" will create a different impression from calling her "Madison". Calling her Kiende (a Meru name) in a predominantly English-speaking, non-African community will also create a diffrent impression.
> 
> In my experience, the "flavour" in 4e also matters, because it creates a fictional reality with other implications for the fiction. Because of the way the action resolution rules are structured, those consequences tend to play out at a higher level of detail than "did I strike him with the flat or the point of my blade?" But that gritty level of detail is not the only level that matters.




In my experience it is true.

If I reflavor magic missile as a tossed small yellow poisonous frog it doesn't matter that the target may be poison immune, or that the target is a demon poisonous frog that can control poisonous frogs in a certain radius. The fluff doesn't matter. I do agree that it is a subjective thing. My DM could decide that that demon could control those frogs or is immune to them, but then my DM would be house ruling that fluff DOES matter ( I guess that's what really matters ).

I'll just finish that reflavoring is house rulling anyway and a good DM can work with that and make it matter.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Cold is better than fire (i) if you want to trigger frostcheese, or (ii) if you want to freeze water to cross it. Both have come up in my game. Whether this is enough of a balance to an "igniting" fireball will obviously vary a lot from table to table.





I'm aware of those things.  My point was that an giving extra benefits based upon realism to one energy type, but not doing the same for the others would -I feel- be somewhat lopsided.  Granted, there already are certain types which are better due to feat support an such, but I had been ignoring that in favor of keeping my example and my statement simple during my previous post.

edit:  There's no reason you could not then ad extra benefits to other energy types to even things out.  However, for me, sitting and trying to make all of 4E give more of a nod toward realism is an exercise which lead me toward bitterness in the past.  Personally, I have a better experience with 4E when I accept 'reality' as presented by the system.  I still have my gripes and complaints, but I'm now at a place from where I can enjoy the game.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> If the game involves bards as PCs, it is presupposing the magical power of words - as is evident in much myth. Vicious mockery - affecting things by the use of words that mock them, or relevant aspects of their history or creation - doesn't threaten my sense of (fantasy) verisimilitude.



Allow me to off topic for a moment and I'll wrap it all back. I had started another thread about what it means to roleplay an evil PC and is eeeevil just a funny hat. Celebrim articulated it best:


Celebrim said:


> In my experience, most people neither play particularly evil nor particularly good characters in the long run. Most players make considerations based on 'winning' the game, a very little else. This tends to produce a sort of casual brutality that most players don't dwell on much, and which doesn't really hit them much because they don't spend much time thinking of the characters in the game as more than game peices to move around. That is to say, you aren't killing orcs, you are 'killing' a miniature, or reducing down a pile of numbers. So conversely, most people playing 'evil' are not engaging the world at a level deeper than that either. It takes quite a bit to shock your average player - especially an experienced one - out of this mode of thought.



Substitute "evil" and "good" (above) with "unrealistic" and "realistic" and I think you can have the same situation with nods to realism, such as bards insulting skeletons to death.

For example, I dislike being around people who swear too much or have extremely negative attitude. Imagine being around a person so very negative and so very offensive that his distressing insults actually hurt and kill almost anything that moves (unlike the source myth where this talent is probably limited and used with discretion). Even worse, imagine _being_ that bard, imagine being that person who insults the universe, who knows how to push the buttons of any creature in order to devastate and kill them, and he/she does this frequently in every combat. I can't even begin to imagine having to put up with the sordid toxic psychological baggage this person carries around.

Many people don't think about that stuff, because they don't care to dig that deep in the high fantasy genre. Which is fine -- all fantasy tropes fall apart when you dig too deep. But IMO, equal opportunity has no place in the realm of plausibility. A sword duel to the death is cinematic and compelling, whether you're metagaming with miniatures or immersed in your character. An insulting duel to the death... not so much.

Bard A: You suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard B: No, you suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard A: Idiot! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard B: Moron! (inflicts psychic damage)
Bard A: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!!! (kills opponent)
Bard B: Oh, bon mot! I wish I had agreed to a duel of swords, but alas, you have slain me with words. Good bye, cruel world, good bye!

(please, not in my game, thank you very much!) I don't want to feel forced to allow a metagame rule like Vicious Mockery to dictate the fiction so heavy-handedly in my game world. I didn't sign up for that, so to speak. I signed up for a story that feels as compelling as the genre conventions, where bards are warriors with a sword that have some mysterious subtle tricks on the side, sweet words and treacherous whispers, and not loud powers being smacked around ostentatiously like an oversized baseball bat on almost anything that moves.

Previously, LostSoul wrote:


LostSoul said:


> I come down on Imaro and Derren's side in this. It's been my experience that, if you don't give the flavour text any weight in action resolution, then the specifics of what the characters do in the fiction tends to get ignored.



So let's stop ignoring and give some weight to the flavor text of Vicious Mockery.

It's inspired by myths that bards could kill with an insult. What's evocative and compelling about this myth is that some ideas are so potent as to kill you, and that bards should be treated with respect, because maybe -- just maybe -- this one is wise and knowledgeable enough to know the exact thought that is deadly to your soul.

Give that flavor some weight, and you have nods to realism like: do bards know the insult that harms any personality or just those he understands which buttons to push? Can he effectively insult all fellow human beings, humanoids like giants, abominable demonic minds, non-sentient artificial minds, the higher minds of devils and gods, sticks and stones, and the fabric of magic itself? Must the insult be spoken or whispered to a single soul to direct its potency, or does the potency of the word dissipate like ink in a lake when shouted openly to many ears in a room? Is the victim harmed if he cannot hear? Is the victim harmed if he does not understand the bard's language? Do lethal insults always kill you in 6 seconds, or might it take a day or longer? Is this talent the epitome of bardish lore and only master bards are so gifted, or can any bard kill with a word instead of the sword? All of these and more are natural, organic questions about the process.

IMO, 4E, being oblivious to fictional positioning, asks none of these questions (not a single one). Neither do the DMs and players who must justify the powers on the fly. Thus IMO the game translates the myths very poorly into a videogame-y fighting action, converting rich myths into combat fast food, losing almost all the nutrients and flavor in the process.

When the game dumps all these questions of process and cause-and-effect onto the shoulders of DM and players, it's often ignored or handwaved away as an unwelcome or undesired burden, but even players who are genuinely interested in the process may a) not want the obligation unto themselves, b) be unable to come up with a subjectively satisfying fluff at that very moment in time, c) be digging themselves into a hole as their explanation becomes more and more elaborate to offset a domino effect on the game world (like with skeletons and oozes), d) have a conflict of interest -- do I play according to RAW or do I gimp my PC's success in favor of choosing and using powers "realistically"?

Thus, in practice, more often than not, I think the DMs and players avoid the very questions about nods to "realism" that the metagame originally offloaded to the group. I'm not saying those problems come up all the time in gameplay, but it's why I find a number of the justifications on Enworld to be so unsatisfying, incohesive, and, well, "unrealistic".

Because of those difficulties, I asked why players might not refrain  from using powers "unrealistically" and there was a curious lack of answers (this is why I posted that other poll).

I know I'm not the only one concerned -- others seem to have an itch to ban the bard class or modify powers based on fictional positioning.

In the interest of compromise though, I think the solution is not to "ban" per se a class or power, but rather have the game system openly encourage every group to pick the classes and powers that mesh with what's plausible for their game world.

For example, in GURPs, I assume you don't have modern day soldiers and Viking warriors in the same party (unless the genre is a crossover genre), even though there are rules for both. Dark Sun doesn't allow all PC options.

So rather than assuming "everything is core" and always "say yes", D&D could contain various classes and various amounts of gonzo fantasy powers with*OUT* the implied default that they should or could all co-exist in any one story. I think that would be yet another compromise between 2 opposing schools of thought.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 27, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> D&D could contain various classes and various amounts of gonzo fantasy powers with*OUT* the implied default that they should or could all co-exist in any one story. I think that would be yet another compromise between 2 opposing schools of thought.



This sounds a lot like what Crazy Jerome was suggesting back in post #217.

On a related topic, I wonder what the most "gonzo" 4E powers would be. The one that usually keeps getting brought up (in my experience) is _come and get it_, and martial healing (second wind, _inspiring word_) also gets the occasional mention. It's only recently (in this thread, in fact) that I've learned that some players also have an issue with _vicious mockery_ (despite it being an actual arcane spell), although that might have more to do with mind-affecting (or language-dependant) magic having an effect on creatures that are traditionally mindless. 

Is the "gonzo" effect really that pervasive, or is it a matter of (to adapt a metaphor) making a mountain out of corner cases?

EDIT: For the record, when I last asked the question (admittedly, not entirely seriously - I tagged the thread as "Humor") the other issues that were raised were martial healing and the 15th level rogue daily _bloody path_.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 27, 2011)

Tovec said:


> Some of us want less ambiguity. We want the choice not up the whim of the DM. "Hardcoded" into the rules means that if the DM changes it that both the DM and the player are aware of the change and that if they don't want it burning objects that it doesn't and shouldn't change on a case by case basis in the future.



I understand that. But where does it start and where does it end? For me, I do not want to read anything about the sound a power makes unless it is keyword-related. I most of the time do not want any designer's default version of the visual components of a power as a fixed rule. 4E does it right here in that it presents a flavor text only.

You see, I think this thread makes obvious the fact that "realism" differs from player to player. The discussion ignites on the fact that in 3e the fireball burns objects explicitly and in the 4E version the GM has to decide. The people that want the fireball to burn stuff can still reach the same conclusion with the rules 4E presents *without ever changing a rule*. The people who do not want the 3e version of the fireball to burn stuff have to *change the rule*.
I think the latter is harder to overcome, at least that is my personal gaming experience, as I have seen a lot of GMs struggle with this when I as a player wanted to narrate my fireballs in 3e in a different way.

This is why I think 4E is better in this regard. The rules say "Say yes!" and "page 42" and "here is a flavor text". And that makes changing things to accomodate individual play tastes easier. Because you do not have to change a rule. 



> I don't want to argue anymore either. I just want to straighten out some points. I can happily agree to disagree, if that's what you want.



That is not what I was trying to say, although reading my sentence again I realize that it was badly written. Sorry about that. What I meant to say that I do not need to argue about this anymore at the game table, because the 4E design is clear on this. And that is why there is only one the RC at my game table instead of a box full of 3e books. And there is much much less argument over the rules.
I find great insights reading through the posts and discussing this topic with you.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 27, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> So let's stop ignoring and give some weight to the flavor text of Vicious Mockery.
> 
> 1. It's inspired by myths that bards could kill with an insult. What's evocative and compelling about this myth is that some ideas are so potent as to kill you, and that bards should be treated with respect, because maybe -- just maybe -- this one is wise and knowledgeable enough to know the exact thought that is deadly to your soul.
> 
> ...




1. I like that, it's interesting.

2. That's a lot of questions for the rules to answer.  In my experience you don't need to answer all of those questions; one simply defines how magic works in general (a feature of the tone, setting, genre, and themes of your game), producing principles from which one can extrapolate answers without having to answer an infinite list of questions.

3. 4E is not oblivious to fictional positioning.  I think it has more effective rules than any previous edition of D&D for adjudicating ad-hoc actions that arise from the fiction.  It does have some other problems regarding fictional positioning, though.

4. I find it interesting that you think answering those questions will cause all sorts of problems.  I personally find that many more issues crop up when the game book tries to answer all conceivable questions.  Anyway.  My answers to your concerns are:
a) that's what it means to be a DM; you have to make judgement calls
b) making creative contributions means that you're going to be judged by your peers; you can't avoid it, so deal with it
c) given that any answer is going to lead to ever more elaborate explanations for strange corner cases, I think it's better to explicitly state that the group has the authority to change those answers (or devise their own elaborate explanations)
d) that's why you have the DM make the judgement calls

My preferred way to approach things is to get something like what we have in 4E right now, then tell the players that they have to "flavour" it; that will answer some questions about Vicious Mockery.  If it is a "magic word" (in 4E that would be in Supernal) that represents the idea of mockery, then the target wouldn't need to understand it or be concious at all; but you would have to be able to speak, so stuffing a rag into your mouth would screw up the spell.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 27, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Give that flavor some weight, and you have nods to realism like: do bards know the insult that harms any personality or just those he understands which buttons to push? Can he effectively insult all fellow human beings, humanoids like giants, abominable demonic minds, non-sentient artificial minds, the higher minds of devils and gods, sticks and stones, and the fabric of magic itself? Must the insult be spoken or whispered to a single soul to direct its potency, or does the potency of the word dissipate like ink in a lake when shouted openly to many ears in a room? Is the victim harmed if he cannot hear? Is the victim harmed if he does not understand the bard's language? Do lethal insults always kill you in 6 seconds, or might it take a day or longer? Is this talent the epitome of bardish lore and only master bards are so gifted, or can any bard kill with a word instead of the sword? All of these and more are natural, organic questions about the process.
> 
> IMO, 4E, being oblivious to fictional positioning, asks none of these questions (not a single one). Neither do the DMs and players who must justify the powers on the fly. Thus IMO the game translates the myths very poorly into a videogame-y fighting action, converting rich myths into combat fast food, losing almost all the nutrients and flavor in the process.



I think this is a valid point. As has been said upthread by somebody else, 4E makes room for narrating powers in lots of ways but the books do not really explain or give enough examples on how to relate the fictional description of a power in the story with the power's crunch. I wish they had a regular column in any of the magazines on how to do that and about how to change the flavor text so it fits a certain situation.

But, that being said, how did other versions of DnD handle this? If I remember correctly (it has been a long time), 3e had the Book of Exalted Deeds in which rules for "word" magic were published. If I recall correctly, you could take a feat that gave a bonus of some sort or opened up a whole chain of feats. Now, how does this enable a player or a GM to make better changes to the description of the rules of each individual bard spell? I would assume, it doesn't. At least not by much. I think that the 3e bard was in no way better designed on a fictional level than the 4E bard. And not better suited for narrative play, either.

Most of the 3e bard spells were spells from other classes that somehow fit the flavor of the bard being a singer, a lover, not a fighter. How the bard fights, attacks with spells and a rapier and still sings (to give attack boni, etc.) had to be narrated by the player. Was there a rule or advice in any of the 3e books on how to actually play that on a narrative level? By all means, prove me wrong, but I do recall that there was.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 27, 2011)

FireLance said:


> The one that usually keeps getting brought up (in my experience) is _come and get it_, and martial healing (second wind, _inspiring word_) also gets the occasional mention.



I'm sure there are plenty others, different issues to different degrees to different people. If you only hear about certain ones, I think people tend to pick their battles (I know I'm holding back ). I know if I discuss something that feels out of place to me, and others counter with various subjective rationalizations/justifications, it quickly gets time-consuming and (not to be dramatic but...) demoralizing -- web forum terrain seems to confer a good probability of 'Stake Your Position' conditions  -- and I don't think it helps anyone to catalog a long list of my complaints about any edition.



FireLance said:


> Is the "gonzo" effect really that pervasive, or  is it a matter of (to adapt a metaphor) making a mountain out of corner  cases?



For me, the "gonzo" and "videogame-y" elements feels pretty pervasive, or at least enough bits here and there that seem to add up to something bigger, but that could be somewhat fixed for me if a 4.5E factored in for some of the suggestions offered here on Enworld.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As I've often posted, elements of the mechanics - especially skill challenges - remind me of both HeroWars/Quest, and Maelstrom Storytelling.




Uhmm... good for you, IMO, Skill Challenges are a badly thought out, badly presented and badly implemented mechanic that have been changes so many times and become so vague in how they are presented, explained and implemented by the developers/designers and fanbase of 4e that I'm not even sure where the line between a proper skill challenge begins and ends... thus it's hard for me to discuss the mechanics for them in any coherent manner as far as their merits and disadvantages are concerned. IMO, this again speaks to pemerton overlaying his own playstyle over mechanics that don't actively do anything to support it. But if you're having fun then you're not doing it wrong. 



pemerton said:


> Which powers are you talking about? The effects of some powers sometimes change. So while I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in this rote/principle discussion, but the premises on which you're basing your argument for "rote" are mistaken




I was speaking to spells and according to the RAW, as opposed to pemertons interpretation of RAW, in order to change a visual or audio quality of a spell one must make an arcana check. this seems to infer that in general spells are rote and in order to change the visual or audio properties of a spell (and as I noted before, only a spell) then one has to put forth effort and is not guaranteed success. 



pemerton said:


> For example, Come and Get It can have different effects in the fiction (sometimes skilled weaonplay, sometimes lulling enemies into a false sense of confidence, sometimes goading them, etc) althought _mechanically_ these are all resolved as a pull. If the same PC sometimes used Come and Get It with a dagger, sometimes with a pike, I would think the procuedure and effects are very different.




But what does the fiction matter in this instance? How does the fiction of whether you use weaponplay or lulling an enemy influence the gameplay, your chances of success or the effect?  It in fact doesn't... Come and Get It will always work the same without a DM houseruling it.



pemerton said:


> The effects of Twist of Space can also differ - it can be used, for example, to rescue a NPC magically trapped in a mirror (I know this, because it happened - via p 42 - in my game). I've not seen the effects of Bigby's Icy Hand vary - yet.




*sigh* no one's arguing against DM implemented houserules, so I'm not sure what your point here is??




pemerton said:


> With my group, we assume that this is about concealing the glow of fire, or the sound of thunder - things that otherwise wouldn't be "reskinnable" because they track keywords.




Again, if you want to houserule no one is stopping you, but that's not what the rules specify... It says changing the visual or audio properties... not to silence or obfuscate spell effects only.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 27, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> You see, I think this thread makes obvious the fact that "realism" differs from player to player. The discussion ignites on the fact that in 3e the fireball burns objects explicitly and in the 4E version the GM has to decide. The people that want the fireball to burn stuff can still reach the same conclusion with the rules 4E presents *without ever changing a rule*. The people who do not want the 3e version of the fireball to burn stuff have to *change the rule*.
> I think the latter is harder to overcome, at least that is my personal gaming experience, as I have seen a lot of GMs struggle with this when I as a player wanted to narrate my fireballs in 3e in a different way.
> 
> This is why I think 4E is better in this regard. The rules say "Say yes!" and "page 42" and "here is a flavor text". And that makes changing things to accomodate individual play tastes easier. Because you do not have to change a rule.




I think the problem with your argument is that it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple... strangely enough, the same as the example you present for 3e. 

In 4e if the DM wants your fireball to burn stuff, it will regardless of your description of it. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I guess depends on your DM and whether your wants as a player line up with his as a DM... but it's not as simple as... "If you do want it to burn things just make it so." because everyone at the table may not want the same thing.

IMO, I like 3e better because it takes a stand with a concrete default and then says, but hey...if you don't want it to do that then make it so. It doesn't put me in the position of being a douche because I want some reality in my fireballs, but my players want the advantage of it being a totally safe fire that they don't have to worry where they sling it.  It tells the player's upfront what the default is so we're all on the same page when they pick that spell... 4e doesn't, it tells them that I'll be arbitrarely deciding what the default is each time they cast it.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 27, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think the problem with your argument is that it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple... strangely enough, the same as the example you present for 3e.
> 
> In 4e if the DM wants your fireball to burn stuff, it will regardless of your description of it. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I guess depends on your DM and whether your wants as a player line up with his as a DM... but it's not as simple as... "If you do want it to burn things just make it so." because everyone at the table may not want the same thing.
> 
> IMO, I like 3e better because it takes a stand with a concrete default and then says, but hey...if you don't want it to do that then make it so. It doesn't put me in the position of being a douche because I want some reality in my fireballs, but my players want the advantage of it being a totally safe fire that they don't have to worry where they sling it. It tells the player's upfront what the default is so we're all on the same page when they pick that spell... 4e doesn't, it tells them that I'll be arbitrarely deciding what the default is each time they cast it.



I understand your point very well.
I think you like the 3e description of the fireball and that it burns stuff, because you find that realistic. That is all fine and good. I think it is realistic, too. At least most of the time.
What I also am saying (and playing) though is that storywise not all fireballs should burn stuff in all situations. The GM (and through the "say yes!"-rule the player) can narrate the fireball in different ways to match the situation. And that seems to be the default of 4E. So it is relatively easy to change this aspect of the fireball in 4E, but in 3e you are always changing the explicit fireball-rule and have to explain yourself because you are. That does not happen in 4E, at least not in my experience, because it is all a matter of the fiction. Just imagine having to come up with a houserule for every spell you do not find realistic in your game and then having to keep track of it and argueing with the players over the rules.

You think this default in 4E is arbitrary, which can be the bad side of it, especially if the GM sucks. I, on the other hand, think it makes things easier to fit the effect of the power to the story. Which, for me, is a positive thing. And ever since I play 4E, I have not encountered any problems because I am playing with people that know and enjoy how to play that way. Even the one player that is new to 4E and is not that experienced in roleplaying in general really likes that kind of game and does not like the 3e style that he experienced in a different group. So, based on that experience, I am of the opinion that this style of play can be taught and really should be taught in a game like 4E. Now, WotC does not do that in a way that I think they should (they could put advice like this in a regular column in one of the online magazines for example).
But I know that this is one of the deciding factors why a lot of people turned away from 4E and play 3e instead. It is a major difference in the game design.


----------



## Derren (Dec 27, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> What I also am saying (and playing) though is that *storywise *not all fireballs should burn stuff in all situations.




And here is the problem.
For many people, especially those who want more realism, D&D is not like a book or movie. A D&D adventure does not have one predetermined path the PCs have to follow. They don't have to find this one cryptic notice to continue the adventure which is the whole reason to "narrate" that the fireball does not ignite paper.

Rather such people want that the players find their own solutions to a problem instead of following the DM's script. And that get much more easily when the players know exactly what their powers do and can use the flavor text to use the abilities creatively.
When they acidentally burn the cryptic note then they have to find another way to continue.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 27, 2011)

Derren said:


> And here is the problem.
> For many people, especially those who want more realism, D&D is not like a book or movie. A D&D adventure does not have one predetermined path the PCs have to follow. They don't have to find this one cryptic notice to continue the adventure which is the whole reason to "narrate" that the fireball does not ignite paper.
> 
> Rather such people want that the players find their own solutions to a problem instead of following the DM's script. And that get much more easily when the players know exactly what their powers do and can use the flavor text to use the abilities creatively.
> When they acidentally burn the cryptic note then they have to find another way to continue.



This is entirely a DMing issue, rather than a problem with the game system. It's called railroading, and has been an issue in every edition, depending entirely on the DM.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 27, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Imagine being around a person so very negative and so very offensive that his distressing insults actually hurt and kill almost anything that moves (unlike the source myth where this talent is probably limited and used with discretion).



I don't see this as any different from other departures from myth and history - D&D protagonists fight ludicrous numbers of fights, against a bizarrely gonzo variety of foes. Just as no mythical bard ever viciously mocked a gelatinous cube, no heroic warrior of myth ever duelled with one either.



LurkAway said:


> A sword duel to the death is cinematic and compelling, whether you're metagaming with miniatures or immersed in your character. An insulting duel to the death... not so much.



In D&D both are resolved pretty abstractly. The drama is to a signficant extent mechanically mediated.



LurkAway said:


> Bard A: You suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
> Bard B: No, you suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
> Bard A: Idiot! (inflicts psychic damage)
> Bard B: Moron! (inflicts psychic damage)
> ...



Whereas the sword duel, at the table, contains such epic swordplay as "I swing", "I riposte", etc. It's not as if I actually get to see two fencers go at it.



LurkAway said:


> Do lethal insults always kill you in 6 seconds, or might it take a day or longer?



I don't have much to add to [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s long reply to your post, but the question you ask here applies equally to a sword duel. How, in D&D, can I replay a (fantasy) variant of Reservoir Dogs, with a protagonist dying slowly from a stomach wound?



LurkAway said:


> Is this talent the epitome of bardish lore and only master bards are so gifted, or can any bard kill with a word instead of the sword? All of these and more are natural, organic questions about the process.



The answer to this question presumably depends on how the particular campaign tackles first level PCs - are they epitomes? or generic?



LurkAway said:


> When the game dumps all these questions of process and cause-and-effect onto the shoulders of DM and players, it's often ignored or handwaved away as an unwelcome or undesired burden



If people want to play that way, isn't that their prerogative? But what they will find out, I think, is that the game mechanics break down at certain points. For example, they won't be able to bring page 42 into play, because page 42 depends on fictional positioning.



LurkAway said:


> Thus IMO the game translates the myths very poorly into a videogame-y fighting action, converting rich myths into combat fast food, losing almost all the nutrients and flavor in the process.



I'm not seeing anything unique to 4e in your criticisms here. As far as I can tell, they apply equally to Power Word and True Name spells in earlier editions.

But as for the quality of your experience, I'm sorry it's been poor in the way you describe.



darjr said:


> If I reflavor magic missile as a tossed small yellow poisonous frog it doesn't matter that the target may be poison immune, or that the target is a demon poisonous frog that can control poisonous frogs in a certain radius. The fluff doesn't matter.



Given that magic missile lacks the *poison* keyword, I don't think that is a permissible reflavouring.



darjr said:


> I'll just finish that reflavoring is house rulling anyway and a good DM can work with that and make it matter.



Is this really true when the core rulebook actively encourages it?



Imaro said:


> no one's arguing against DM implemented houserules, so I'm not sure what your point here is??



Using page 42 is not houseruling. Is a key part of 4e's action resolution mechanics.



Imaro said:


> But what does the fiction matter in this instance? How does the fiction of whether you use weaponplay or lulling an enemy influence the gameplay, your chances of success or the effect?  It in fact doesn't... Come and Get It will always work the same without a DM houseruling it.



The consequence - that various NPCs/monsters move their position - will always be the same. The method by which this is procured won't necessarily be the same, because the power says nothing about how this is achieved. And those differences can matter in the fiction. For example, a fighter who taunts foes into attacking him/her is presenting a different fighting style, and can expect different reactions and responses from those who s/he confronts, from a fighter who relies primarily on weapon play.



Tovec said:


> I don't have the 2e PHB, but based on what was said I assumed it said Hercules was a fighter, not that all fighters are Hercules.



I don't have it either, but I trust [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]'s quote: it mentions Hercules as an exmaple of a fighter. This seems to me to be intended to indicate that players of fighters, in AD&D, can expect their fighter to resemble Hercules in salient ways.

Page B30 of Moldvay Basic says "Great heroes such as Hercules were fighters" and also that "Merlin the Magician was a famous magic-user." Again, I take this as an indication that a player of a fighter can expect his/her PC to resemble Hercules, just as the player or a magic-user might expect his/her PC to resemble Merlin. There's no implication that a high-level wizard will be weaker than Merlin because Merlin is not a mortal, and there's no indication that a high-level fighter will be weaker than Hercles because Hercules is not a mortal.

The broader point: given that Hercules is the _only_ example given of a fighter, there is no implication that a figther, as a PC, is purely mundane in ability in the way that a real-world soldier or martial artist must be.



Tovec said:


> One, the dead can be mocked "haha, you're dead!!" Check.



Board rules put limits on this, but in the real world, where many people doubt the existence of magic or the endurance of the spirits of the dead, there is a diplomatic incident currently taking place between Turkey and France over what may or may not be permissibly said about the Armenian dead during WW1.

Most criminal codes make it an offence to desecrate the dead or their graves.

In a magical world in which the spirits of the dead and their magic _do_ endure, the idea that a magician (like a bard) could weaken a skeleton by mocking the power of its dead creator is, to me, entirely verisimilitudinous.



Tovec said:


> Two, it doesn't make sense the bard can mock a dead creator and in so doing weaken the magic they set in place. Put another way, how would it work if the bard mocked a sigil they left behind, or an alarm spell.



In those latter cases, there is no creature to suffer psychic damage as a result, so it is less straightforward. But if the player of a bard in my game wanted to used Vicious Mockery (via page 42) as part of an attempt to weaken the lingering magic of a dead creator, I would be happy with that.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 27, 2011)

Derren said:


> And here is the problem.
> For many people, especially those who want more realism, D&D is not like a book or movie. A D&D adventure does not have one predetermined path the PCs have to follow. They don't have to find this one cryptic notice to continue the adventure which is the whole reason to "narrate" that the fireball does not ignite paper.
> 
> Rather such people want that the players find their own solutions to a problem instead of following the DM's script. And that get much more easily when the players know exactly what their powers do and can use the flavor text to use the abilities creatively.
> When they acidentally burn the cryptic note then they have to find another way to continue.



Over the past 15 years or so, RPGs have been designed which put story front and centre _without_ a GM script, or a pre-determined path. Various rules systems can facilitate that style of RPG play better or worse.

My objection to Monte's column is that it appears to show no awareness of this particular trend in RPG design, and therefore to miss much of what is attractive about 4e to many of those who play it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Over the past 15 years or so, RPGs have been designed which put story front and centre _without_ a GM script, or a pre-determined path. Various rules systems can facilitate that style of RPG play better or worse.
> 
> My objection to Monte's column is that it appears to show no awareness of this particular trend in RPG design, and therefore to miss much of what is attractive about 4e to many of those who play it.




I am sure cook is aware of these games, it just isn't his approach to design. 

It is probably worth keeping in mind that while the approach you describe appeals to a portion of gamers it is also something many other gamers react negatively to.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Using page 42 is not houseruling. Is a key part of 4e's action resolution mechanics.




Here are the rules for Twisted Space...

*Encounter*




*Arcane*, *Evocation*, *Implement*, *Teleportation*
*Standard Action* *Area* burst 1 within 10 squares
*Target*: Each creature in the burst
*Attack*: Intelligence vs. Will
*Hit*: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier damage, and the target is teleported 3 squares and slowed until the end of your next turn.

What exactly did you have to use page 42 for? As long as the target only needed to be teleported 3 squares to escape, and was within 10 squares... I'm not seeing how page 42 was necessary at all? Maybe if you elaborate we can see how this power's effects somehow were different when being used in this particular situation.





pemerton said:


> The consequence - that various NPCs/monsters move their position - will always be the same. The method by which this is procured won't necessarily be the same, because the power says nothing about how this is achieved. And those differences can matter in the fiction. For example, a fighter who taunts foes into attacking him/her is presenting a different fighting style, and can expect different reactions and responses from those who s/he confronts, from a fighter who relies primarily on weapon play.




The method will always be the same... it will always be a weapon/implement/etc. + X attack that causes some factor of [W] damage to the target and it will always move them Z squares. You can describe it however you want but nothing in the rules facilitates a different narrative response depending on how it is described... that is again pemerton's playstyle overlay on 4e's rules.

EDIT:  In fact I would argue that many of 4e's keywords force one into certain narratives depending upon the powers one's adversaries have and how they interact with certain keywords.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 27, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But what does the fiction matter in this instance? How does the fiction of whether you use weaponplay or lulling an enemy influence the gameplay, your chances of success or the effect?  It in fact doesn't... Come and Get It will always work the same without a DM houseruling it.



I'm beginning to think this "is the fiction important" thing comes down to what one means by "important".

If "importance" is taken purely in the sense of "will the flavour/colour description change the mechanical outcome of an action", then the situation in 4E is that it will have no "importance". And, FWIW, I say "halleluja" to that.

If, on the other hand, the "importance" of the colour/flavour elements is taken to be allowing each player present to have a coherent picture of the fictional events - to have a model that makes sense *for them* of what has occurred in the fictional space - then I would submit that (a) the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of doing this and (b) it is _very_ important in that it allows a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character.

On fireballs burning stuff/setting paper on fire, frankly I see no compelling "realism" argument either way.  A flamethrower-type effect would certainly set stuff on fire, but it would also create ongoing fire effects (which the Fireball spell does not do). A gas explosion, on the other hand, for many fairly small gas clouds (and a 25' cube is "small" in this context), will not persist long enough or heat the air hot enough to set paper on fire reliably. It will also cause burns to exposed persons without the likelihood of ongoing fire damage. So having it work either way in a (fantasy) game seems like a non-issue, to me.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 27, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I'm beginning to think this "is the fiction important" thing comes down to what one means by "important".
> 
> If "importance" is taken purely in the sense of "will the flavour/colour description change the mechanical outcome of an action", then the situation in 4E is that it will have no "importance". And, FWIW, I say "halleluja" to that.




And I would say this is where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, players stay more engaged, when the fiction of their actions actually has an effect in the game... otherwise what's the point? If the description has no effect, then all you really need is to be able to recite the formula on the power card. 



Balesir said:


> If, on the other hand, the "importance" of the colour/flavour elements is taken to be allowing each player present to have a coherent picture of the fictional events - to have a model that makes sense *for them* of what has occurred in the fictional space - then I would submit that (a) the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of doing this and (b) it is _very_ important in that it allows a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character.




Explain to me how the treatment of colour/flavor in 4e does this, as opposed to the players around the table (which of course they can do with any roleplaying game if they want to and try hard enough)? similarly how does ever-malleable flavor allow a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character? In both instances the game isn't doing anything to facilitate this, the players are.


----------



## darjr (Dec 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Given that magic missile lacks the *poison* keyword, I don't think that is a permissible reflavouring.




That kinda proves my point. The flavor means next to nothing, the rules text is everything.



pemerton said:


> Is this really true when the core rulebook actively encourages it?




Each revlavoring is a house rule, yes I think it's true.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Explain to me how the treatment of colour/flavor in 4e does this, as opposed to the players around the table (which of course they can do with any roleplaying game if they want to and try hard enough)? similarly how does ever-malleable flavor allow a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character? In both instances the game isn't doing anything to facilitate this, the players are.




It's interesting that this might even be a point of argument.  In 4e, the flavor text for powers gives the players a starting point for additional, or increased narration if they want to use it.  At worse, it gives them a default baseline if they choose to do no additional narration.

In previous editions of the game if you were a non-spell casting class (fighter, or thief/rogue, etc.) you got nothing to describe at all.  There was no flavor text in the least.  So the players had even less than they have in 4e.  Many where the games where the only description/narration at the table was, " I rolled a 20, I hit; 5 points of damage." Any flavor at those times was entirely initiated by the players/DMs as there was nothing in the game that provided even a smidgeon of flavor text for those classes.

With 4e, at the bare minimum, they have some default flavor that they are completely empowered to change to suit their needs.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> And I would say this is where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, players stay more engaged, when the fiction of their actions actually has an effect in the game... otherwise what's the point? If the description has no effect, then all you really need is to be able to recite the formula on the power card.



The "fiction of the character's actions" _*does*_ have an effect - via the stipulations on the power card. The description is there to build the visual model that the characters see in the (imaginary) "game world".



Imaro said:


> Explain to me how the treatment of colour/flavor in 4e does this, as opposed to the players around the table (which of course they can do with any roleplaying game if they want to and try hard enough)? similarly how does ever-malleable flavor allow a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character? In both instances the game isn't doing anything to facilitate this, the players are.



A poor word choice on my part - I should have said "the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of *allowing* this". This is, of course, also possible with other RPGs (with prescriptive flavour elements and without). But making the colour/flavour non-prescriptive in the power descriptions means that the actual game mechanics can be made explicit and clear, which in turn allows all the players to have a clear view of how the game world "physics" really works without reliance on DM judgement*, and thus gives far more agency to the players when we want impartial "challenge based" or collective "story driving" gaming.

Given the pre-existing features of D&D as a system, I think this was the correct design focus to choose; the alternative is a drive to support "simulationist" priorities, which have, when pushed, never really worked well with D&D's core mechanics/assumptions.

*: FWIW I _don't_ subscribe to the "fireball burns objects at DM's whim" argument. My "default" reading of the rule is that it normally does not, but if the player asks for it to the DM _may_ agree to it (well, duh...).


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> IMO, I like 3e better because it takes a stand with a concrete default and then says, but hey...if you don't want it to do that then make it so. It doesn't put me in the position of being a douche because I want some reality in my fireballs, but my players want the advantage of it being a totally safe fire that they don't have to worry where they sling it.  It tells the player's upfront what the default is so we're all on the same page when they pick that spell... 4e doesn't, it tells them that I'll be arbitrarely deciding what the default is each time they cast it.




Catching on Fire via the 3.5 SRD:

Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.​
I wouldn't call those realistic.

Fireball says "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area."  Since there are rules for catching on fire, we should use those.  When we look up those rules, it leaves out objects catching on fire - except "clothes or equipment".  It doesn't say that unattended objects catch on fire, so by RAW, they don't.  (Though they can take fire damage and be destroyed, as per the rules governing damaging objects.)

Objects that don't burn - an ironwood staff, for example - catch on fire if you fail the DC 15 Reflex save.  Since its hardness means it's impervious to flame, and unattended objects always fail saves, if you drop that burning ironwood staff it will burn forever.

If you want something to catch on fire - putting a log in a fire, for example - you *must* make a DC 15 Reflex save.  Good luck starting a camp fire, high-level Rogues!  ("Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result."  No mention of effects that aren't spells.)

*

Or, you know, you could have the DM make a judgement call.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

D'karr said:


> It's interesting that this might even be a point of argument. In 4e, the flavor text for powers gives the players a starting point for additional, or increased narration if they want to use it. At worse, it gives them a default baseline if they choose to do no additional narration.
> 
> In previous editions of the game if you were a non-spell casting class (fighter, or thief/rogue, etc.) you got nothing to describe at all. There was no flavor text in the least. So the players had even less than they have in 4e. Many where the games where the only description/narration at the table was, " I rolled a 20, I hit; 5 points of damage." Any flavor at those times was entirely initiated by the players/DMs as there was nothing in the game that provided even a smidgeon of flavor text for those classes.
> 
> With 4e, at the bare minimum, they have some default flavor that they are completely empowered to change to suit their needs.




Seriously?? 

Well one of the differences between 4e and 3.x was that many of 3.X's maneuvers for martial characters were analogous to real things. I mean who needs flavor text for trip, disarm, feint... while for others like overrun, bull rush, sunder, etc. there are descriptions of them in the sections explaining them. Maybe you should go back and read the PHB as opposed to the SRD.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Catching on Fire via the 3.5 SRD:
> Catching on Fire
> Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
> Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)
> ...




Hmm, interesting. I would say they are more realistic then 4e... IMO, of course.  In fact, does 4e even have rules for a character catching fire... or is it just silent on the matter?



LostSoul said:


> Fireball says "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." Since there are rules for catching on fire, we should use those. When we look up those rules, it leaves out objects catching on fire - except "clothes or equipment". It doesn't say that unattended objects catch on fire, so by RAW, they don't. (Though they can take fire damage and be destroyed, as per the rules governing damaging objects.)




Waitaminute... you just quoted the spell description saying that they catch on fire... not that there is a check to see if they catch on fire or that they may or may not catch on fire. You're also using the rules for characters not objects... and you know this already, so really what is the point of this? The spell also lists the damage taken and so on. Now if you as a DM feel this is a better way to handle it fine, but that's not what the descritption says.



LostSoul said:


> Objects that don't burn - an ironwood staff, for example - catch on fire if you fail the DC 15 Reflex save. Since its hardness means it's impervious to flame, and unattended objects always fail saves, if you drop that burning ironwood staff it will burn forever.




Read the spell... don't use the rules for characters catching on fire...



LostSoul said:


> If you want something to catch on fire - putting a log in a fire, for example - you *must* make a DC 15 Reflex save. Good luck starting a camp fire, high-level Rogues! ("Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result." No mention of effects that aren't spells.)
> 
> *
> 
> Or, you know, you could have the DM make a judgement call.




Wow, really LS? You're purposefully citing rules for *characters* catching on fire in reference to a discussion about *objects* caught in a spell that clearly states what happens when an *object* is caught in it's fire ball... in an effort to... what exactly?  What were you trying to prove here by purposefully ignoring what the spell stated happened and deciding to use inappropriate rules for the situation? I'm really at a loss as to what was suppose to be gleaned from this example?  

Is it that any DM who wants to make things more complicated purposefully can do it?  If so then yes, you've definitely proven that... but then I think we already knew that.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 28, 2011)

pemerton, I'm only replying to the bits where you quote me, if you want my thoughts on anything else please let me know as I find you quite wrong on a variety of points - many of which are being addressed by others.



pemerton said:


> I don't have it either, but I trust [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]'s quote: it mentions Hercules as an exmaple of a fighter. This seems to me to be intended to indicate that players of fighters, in AD&D, can expect their fighter to resemble Hercules in salient ways.



Or it intends to point out that if you need an example of a fighter, Hercules is one. Not, as I said, that all fighters can become Hercules in terms of power. They CAN expect to have armor proficiency, weapon proficiency and whatever other class abilities granted to fighters. They don't suddenly however gain god blood and the ability to reroute rivers.

As Imaro previously pointed out here:


Imaro said:


> Did Hercules use spells empowered by arcane knowledge or a divine being... no.
> 
> Was Hercules able to pick locks, climb walls, etc? No.
> 
> ...




Did he use spells? No, then he wasn't a wizard or a cleric.
Did he pick locks, climb walls? No, then the strong-man wasn't a rogue.
Was he able to fight and kill things with weapons? YES, therefore good ol' Herc was a fighter.



pemerton said:


> Page B30 of Moldvay Basic says "Great heroes such as Hercules were fighters" and also that "Merlin the Magician was a famous magic-user." Again, I take this as an indication that a player of a fighter can expect his/her PC to resemble Hercules, just as the player or a magic-user might expect his/her PC to resemble Merlin. There's no implication that a high-level wizard will be weaker than Merlin because Merlin is not a mortal, and there's no indication that a high-level fighter will be weaker than Hercles because Hercules is not a mortal.



Once again, it is saying, like Merlin, a wizard can perform spells. Not that he will have a grand, important place as the advisor to King Arthur. It is saying that these famous characters from history and legend are X class, not that all X class can perform the feats of that character.

Saying "A chicken comes from an egg, therefore all eggs are chickens." is equally wrong.



pemerton said:


> The broader point: given that Hercules is the _only_ example given of a fighter, there is no implication that a figther, as a PC, is purely mundane in ability in the way that a real-world soldier or martial artist must be.




Others, besides Mallus also referenced other fighters, not just Hercules. So this is just totally flawed, good try though.



Mallus said:


> The AD&D 2e PHB used Hercules and Perseus (ie, semi-divine folks) as examples of the fighters, along with the like of Beowulf and Siegfried, which seems to open the door to a more... mythical interpretation of the class. Granted, it also listed historical figures like Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted, but the idea that there is no precedent for or reference to "mythic fighters" in D&D is inaccurate.






pemerton said:


> Board rules put limits on this, but in the real world, where many people doubt the existence of magic or the endurance of the spirits of the dead, there is a diplomatic incident currently taking place between Turkey and France over what may or may not be permissibly said about the Armenian dead during WW1.
> 
> Most criminal codes make it an offence to desecrate the dead or their graves.



Right, and desecration in both real life and in DnD magic would be "resurrecting the dead" not "making fun of the dead" at least to my knowledge. People may not like you spitting on the grave of the dead but they usually don't consider it to be as bad as carving open their bodies, for example.



pemerton said:


> In a magical world in which the spirits of the dead and their magic _do_ endure, the idea that a magician (like a bard) could weaken a skeleton by mocking the power of its dead creator is, to me, entirely verisimilitudinous.



Right, but once again, you replied without reading what I was asking. I was saying how does the act of the spell weaken the caster's power anymore than it could weaken his alarm spell or sigil left behind (after he was dead). As far as I can recall I've never said that the spell shouldn't harm the skeleton - thought I don't think it should be harmed, for the record. I'm not talking about the damage done to the skeleton, I am talking about, as you suggested, damage done to the SPELL that animates the skeleton.



pemerton said:


> In those latter cases, there is no creature to suffer psychic damage as a result, so it is less straightforward. But if the player of a bard in my game wanted to used Vicious Mockery (via page 42) as part of an attempt to weaken the lingering magic of a dead creator, I would be happy with that.



I notice you didn't address my 2B or 3.
I'm glad you would let them attempt to hurt the lingering magic of the dead creator, I'm saying that doing such is a pure and simple houserule. It is not supported by the rules, nor should it be in either of our arguments.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

Balesir said:


> The "fiction of the character's actions" _*does*_ have an effect - via the stipulations on the power card. The description is there to build the visual model that the characters see in the (imaginary) "game world".




*Sigh* and yet because it's malleable and everyone's picture in their head is slightly different (I mean that's why we use battlemat's to keep positioning straight right??) You can easily just state the power you're using with and explanation of it's effect and a roll (which is exactly what I've seen at gamedays and encounters) and leave it up to the rest of the table to imagine it in whatever way will make it consistent for them. So again, no the description doesn't necessarily serve this purpose. 



Balesir said:


> A poor word choice on my part - I should have said "the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of *allowing* this". This is, of course, also possible with other RPGs (with prescriptive flavour elements and without). But making the colour/flavour non-prescriptive in the power descriptions means that the actual game mechanics can be made explicit and clear, which in turn allows all the players to have a clear view of how the game world "physics" really works without reliance on DM judgement*, and thus gives far more agency to the players when we want impartial "challenge based" or collective "story driving" gaming.




The thing is, some/many/alot of people don't have a clear view of how the game world "physics" in 4e really work, as evidenced by numerous posts in this thread.

As to working without reliance on a DM... we've been discussing exactly that for the past couple of pages... According to most of the 4e fans in this thread, it's totaly DM judgement on whether combustible things catch fire or not with a player's powers... in fact it's also entirely DM fiat on whether they can even target an object or not... so how is this impartial or collective?



Balesir said:


> Given the pre-existing features of D&D as a system, I think this was the correct design focus to choose; the alternative is a drive to support "simulationist" priorities, which have, when pushed, never really worked well with D&D's core mechanics/assumptions.




Eh, you're entitled to your oppinion and I'm not going to argue against that it would just be silly... though I think the real question is which one is more generally acceptable and popular amongst players of D&D.



Balesir said:


> *: FWIW I _don't_ subscribe to the "fireball burns objects at DM's whim" argument. My "default" reading of the rule is that it normally does not, but if the player asks for it to the DM _may_ agree to it (well, duh...).




Yeah, that was my interpretation as well... but as seen on this thread, that's not everyone's interpretation by a long shot.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Hmm, interesting. I would say they are more realistic then 4e... IMO, of course.  In fact, does 4e even have rules for a character catching fire... or is it just silent on the matter?




Not specifically.  That would be covered by 4E's general resolution system, ie. page 42.

One DM might rule catching on fire in a different way than another DM.  Is this a benefit or a drawback?  In my opinion, if one is concerned about "realism", this is a benefit.  There are other drawbacks concerning this method (eg. maintaining consistency over months of play), but eh.  Costs will always exist.

I think developing general principles for the DM to use when he makes judgement calls is going to create more "realism" at the table during play than having a book full of specific rules meant to cover everything.

For instance, this is what I wrote for my 4E hack to cover such things:

[sblock]TERRAIN CHALLENGES
The world is a hostile place.  The world has a will of its own, and that will works against characters.  Mighty mountain peaks, raging rivers, desolate deserts, forlorn forests - all of these present challenges to characters.

When a character attempts to manipulate or overcome the terrain, the terrain fights back.  Treat the terrain as a character.  It can take actions that make sense - a river pushes and attempts to drown or freeze, an avalanche buries you under tons of snow - and even subtle, minor actions that may be called "bad luck" - the stone you're holding onto as you climb the wall or mountain crumbles beneath your hand.  If the terrain is passive, if you can't think of a reasonable action for it to take, then there's no conflict and you don't need to make a roll.

Use the standard Skills in Play system to determine the results of such conflicts.  Use the level of the hex to determine the terrain's modifiers (typically level +3); for constructions, you may choose to use the builder's level instead.  Apply any other modifiers as normal.  Consult the damage tables on page 42 of the DMG to determine damage done; use the limited damage expressions.[/sblock]



Imaro said:


> Waitaminute... you just quoted the spell description saying that they catch on fire... not that there is a check to see if they catch on fire or that they may or may not catch on fire. You're also using the rules for characters not objects... and you know this already, so really what is the point of this? The spell also lists the damage taken and so on. Now if you as a DM feel this is a better way to handle it fine, but that's not what the descritption says.




The only rules for catching on fire are those for characters and their equipment (including clothes).  Otherwise there are no rules.  Which means we're in a similar position as in 4E.  

One could argue that objects catching on fire is just "fluff" that has no bearing on action resolution, since there are no rules that I'm aware of that cover it.  If one were so inclined.



Imaro said:


> Read the spell... don't use the rules for characters catching on fire...




What rules should I use?



Imaro said:


> What were you trying to prove here by purposefully ignoring what the spell stated happened and deciding to use inappropriate rules for the situation? I'm really at a loss as to what was suppose to be gleaned from this example?




I'm showing that there isn't much difference between 4E and 3.5.  Both rely on judgement calls from the DM.  If one is going to argue that fireball doesn't set things on fire in 4E, I think one would also be of the mind that objects (save equipment and clothing) don't catch fire in 3.5.

Of course, I could be wrong; there might be some other rule governing objects catching fire in 3.5 that I can't find.  Which is an issue in itself.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Seriously??
> 
> Well one of the differences between 4e and 3.x was that many of 3.X's maneuvers for martial characters were analogous to real things. I mean who needs flavor text for trip, disarm, feint... while for others like overrun, bull rush, sunder, etc. there are descriptions of them in the sections explaining them. Maybe you should go back and read the PHB as opposed to the SRD.




Yes, seriously. It still seems interesting that you are even trying to use the PHB descriptions for any type of flavor text.  I'll take a look at one for a simple comparison.

This is the description/flavor text of a Trip in 3.x
*Trip* - Flavor Text (possibly?) - _You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack._
Rules - Everything else is rules text.
Effect - If successful target prone

This is the flavor text of powers that knock an opponent prone in 4e.
*Shield Bash* - Flavor Text - _You knock your adversary off balance with your shield and follow up with a strike._ 
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

*Driving Attack* - Flavor Text - _You drive back your adversary with a hail of blows._
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

*Takedown Attack* - Flavor Text - _You bash your foe with a vicious attack and then drag the creature down to the ground._
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

*Knockdown Assault* - Flavor Text - _You smash your weapon into your foe so hard that the enemy loses its footing._
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

*Spinning Sweep* - Flavor Text - _You spin beneath your enemy’s guard with a slashing strike, and then sweep your leg through your foe an instant later, knocking it to the ground._
Rules - Everything is rules text. Possibly other effects.
Effect - If successful target prone

I've only used 5 example out of one character class (fighter).  There are at least 40 other powers for that class alone that can result in effect of knocking the target prone.  So there are at least 45 ways that players can decide to use the default narrative, or expand it as desired, just for that class.  In 3.x there is something that says you can attempt to trip.

BTW, the description in 3.x is not really flavor text, it is a simply a description whereas the 4e description is specifically designated as flavor text so the player can have a gameworld narrative of what his attack looks like.

So yeah, I was serious when I said that previous editions really had no flavor text for attacks for non-spellcasting classes.  What flavor text did OD&D, BECMID&D or AD&D have?  Possibly, the one invented by the players and DMs out of whole cloth. Like I said, in 4e at the least the player gets a base description from where they can start, and if they want to create the description from whole cloth they still can.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Yes, seriously. It still seems interesting that you are even trying to use the PHB descriptions for any type of flavor text. I'll take a look at one for a simple comparison.
> 
> This is the description/flavor text of a Trip in 3.x
> *Trip* - Flavor Text (possibly?) - _You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack._
> ...




First... quantity does not equal quality.  If 4e is suppose to be a game played with a malleable narrative... then all those words of fluff (especially because they have absolutely no bearing on how the attack will be resolved or how it's effect will turn out, don't really add up to much.  I mean honestly with the pervading attitude of many 4e fans, it was just wasted word space.

Second.  I specifically said trip was a non-descriptive maneuver and you decided to go with it... ok.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> What rules should I use?




The one's for the fireball spell, the very thing that we are discussing.

*Fireball*

*Evocation [Fire]*

Level:Sor/Wiz 3Components:V, S, MCasting Time:1 standard actionRange:Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)Area:20-ft.-radius spreadDuration:InstantaneousSaving Throw:Reflex halfSpell Resistance:Yes
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. *Unattended objects also take this damage.* The explosion creates almost no pressure. 
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely. 
*The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area.* It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does. 
*Material Component*

A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.





Emphasis Mine...


----------



## Tovec (Dec 28, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Not specifically.  That would be covered by 4E's general resolution system, ie. page 42.
> 
> One DM might rule catching on fire in a different way than another DM.  Is this a benefit or a drawback?  In my opinion, if one is concerned about "realism", this is a benefit.  There are other drawbacks concerning this method (eg. maintaining consistency over months of play), but eh.  Costs will always exist.
> 
> I think developing general principles for the DM to use when he makes judgement calls is going to create more "realism" at the table during play than having a book full of specific rules meant to cover everything.




(You just illustrate my point, I'm not trying to target you specifically LostSoul.)
I this really addresses the topic of the thread.

As far as "realism" in the game world. It comes down to expectations.
In 3e there was an expectation that fire would burn things, and would set things on fire. Indeed there were rules for it, yes most of these rules addressed players as opposed to all objects but then again so does 4e.
In 4e, however, there is an expectation that it may not unless the DM wills it to be. Using page 42.

I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?


----------



## D'karr (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> First... quantity does not equal quality.  If 4e is suppose to be a game played with a malleable narrative... then all those words of fluff (especially because they have absolutely no bearing on how the attack will be resolved or how it's effect will turn out, don't really add up to much.  I mean honestly with the pervading attitude of many 4e fans, it was just wasted word space.




For you maybe.  For a lot of people that enjoy the baseline flavor that then they can adjust to their taste, it is not wasted at all.

Quantity does not equal quality.  I agree.  There was quite a quantity of *rules* in previous editions that were of very suspect quality.



> Second.  I specifically said trip was a non-descriptive maneuver and you decided to go with it... ok.




Since you are the one alluding to all these descriptive maneuvers that exist for non-spellcasting classes, then why don't you give an example?  You specifically mentioned a non-descriptive maneuver, and I showed at least 5 examples of how 4e had made that exact same maneuver into a descriptive one, which was exactly my original point.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The one's for the fireball spell, the very thing that we are discussing.




Those "rules" seem to have about as much weight as the flavour text for Spinning Sweep.

Do those rules tell me how much damage an object takes _while_ burning?  How about how fast the fire spreads?  What's needed to put out the fire?  How long something will burn?

What I see, if those rules are applied, is that combustibles will catch fire and, if not destroyed by the initial damage, burn forever like the cast-aside ironwood staff.



Tovec said:


> I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?




That's the way I see it.  I wonder what the merits and drawbacks to those two different methods are, and why one would design a game using one over the other.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 28, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't see this as any different from other departures from myth and history - D&D protagonists fight ludicrous numbers of fights, against a bizarrely gonzo variety of foes. Just as no mythical bard ever viciously mocked a gelatinous cube, no heroic warrior of myth ever duelled with one either.



It doesn't matter. That is, it doesn't change the fact that myths *can* be translated in various ways, some with more nods to realism than others. Or to put it another way, Legolas and Gimli killed a ludicrous number of orcs, but still had a certain gritty LoTR tone for most of the novel... inconsistent, probably. But for me, better to tone down the gonzo throughout the novel than have more ludicrous pervade everywhere.



> Whereas the sword duel, at the table, contains such epic swordplay as "I swing", "I riposte", etc. It's not as if I actually get to see two fencers go at it.



Again, doesn't matter in context of my point. Generally speaking, I can well imagine and be immersed in the idea of the swordplay, and find it compelling, even if the words spoken at the table are only "I swing", etc.



> I don't have much to add to  @LostSoul 's long reply to your post, but the question you ask here applies equally to a sword duel.



I re-read LostSoul's point and I don't see anything that directly contradicts my concerns, so much as offering a counterbalance ("Yes, A is a problem, but there is also B, which doesn't negate the validity of A but counterbalances B for me"). IMO, B does not counterbalance A enough, and that's where I think I can agree to disagree,  which is fine...



> How, in D&D, can I replay a (fantasy) variant of Reservoir Dogs, with a protagonist dying slowly from a stomach wound?



...whereas this kind of thing is more perplexing to me because I don't understand how your points integrate what my points.



> I'm not seeing anything unique to 4e in your criticisms here. As far as I can tell, they apply equally to Power Word and True Name spells in earlier editions.



1) I understand that it's easy to get mixed up with different POVs from different posters, but please try to remember that when some people complain about 4E it doesn't mean they like everything about pre-4E. 

2) The day that Power Word and True Name are used with the same frequency as the sum total of gonzo 4e powers is the day that I'll cast a more critical eye on them too.

3) Power Words are very high level spells and I feel that high level magic need not feel as gritty, unlike some low-level 4E powers that feel too gonzo to me fresh out of the gate.

Everything in context. "Realism" means that every puzzle piece is "realistic". "Nods" to "realism" means that some puzzle pieces are more wonky than others, but when you put some puzzle pieces together, the whole picture feels more "realistic" than the sum of its parts.

For whatever reason, IMO, the whole picture of 4E feels less realistic to me then the whole picture of 3E. We can dissect individual puzzle pieces until doomsday, but it's not going to change anything. Despite rationalizations to the contrary, I am certain that WoTC will get more market share if they're more proactive about making updates to the game that at least tries to incorporate both schools of thought, rather than just defending one school of thought (the 'Dear Mike & Monte' thread is pertinent here). I have tried to conclude my posts with progressive suggestions as they come to me.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 28, 2011)

Tovec said:


> I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?



No, I do not think you are. But neither am I. We just have different tastes. You see the disadvantages, I see advantages.
But surely, the designers of 4E went *my* way more than they followed yours. And lost part of the fanbase because of it. All those 5e polls and threads come up for a reason. I would say this is a very vocal group of people who do not like 4E and want it to be removed by something else. And I understand this sentiment, too, because after 10 years of 3e I most certainly do not want to play PF or 3e any longer. I really needed 4E and want 3e and PF to be much much less important. I am not going to make polls about it, though.
So, for us it is a question of simple taste. For WotC it is the much more important question of what kind of player do they want to attract. Who is going to play their game?


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 28, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> No, I do not think you are. But neither am I. We just have different tastes. You see the disadvantages, I see advantages.
> But surely, the designers of 4E went *my* way more than they followed yours. And lost part of the fanbase because of it. All those 5e polls and threads come up for a reason. I would say this is a very vocal group of people who do not like 4E and want it to be removed by something else. And I understand this sentiment, too, because after 10 years of 3e I most certainly do not want to play PF or 3e any longer. I really needed 4E and want 3e and PF to be much much less important. I am not going to make polls about it, though.
> So, for us it is a question of simple taste. For WotC it is the much more important question of what kind of player do they want to attract. Who is going to play their game?





While you weren't responding to me...

I think they could have made some of the changes they made when designing 4E, but not have taken some of the ideas as far as they did and ended up with a happier fanbase overall.  Personally, I was fine with the idea of 'streamlining' if it made the game better.  However, there were a lot of areas where I feel as though D&D went farther in the new direction than I wanted to go.  

That being said, I honestly expect 5th Edition to take some of 4th's concepts even farther.  I expect 5th Edition will maintain an identity which is closer to your tastes than mine; I'd even go so far as to say I would bet on it moving closer to your tastes.  Essentials and the board games are among the reasons I say this.  

I'm aware there is talk of modularity and such, but I just don't see that working out for the D&D brand.  I'm not trying to be pessimistic; just realistic.  The only way I can currently see the modular approach to D&D working is if they do it via boxed sets of some sort; perhaps using a model similar to the current board games.  If that's the path taken, I do not believe complexity will be added in a way that satisfies the simulation crowd nor in a way that satisfies a more emergent-gameplay-focused crowd.  

I hope to be proven wrong.

If I'm proven wrong, that would be nice.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think the problem with your argument is that it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple... strangely enough, the same as the example you present for 3e.
> 
> In 4e if the DM wants your fireball to burn stuff, it will regardless of your description of it. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I guess depends on your DM and whether your wants as a player line up with his as a DM... but it's not as simple as... "If you do want it to burn things just make it so." because everyone at the table may not want the same thing.
> 
> IMO, I like 3e better because it takes a stand with a concrete default and then says, but hey...if you don't want it to do that then make it so. It doesn't put me in the position of being a douche because I want some reality in my fireballs, but my players want the advantage of it being a totally safe fire that they don't have to worry where they sling it.  It tells the player's upfront what the default is so we're all on the same page when they pick that spell... 4e doesn't, it tells them that I'll be arbitrarely deciding what the default is each time they cast it.




Hang on.  Didn't you just finish telling me that 4e doesn't empower DM's?

Yet, "_it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple._"  

Color me confused here.  If that isn't DM empowerment in your mind, what is?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Hang on.  Didn't you just finish telling me that 4e doesn't empower DM's?
> 
> Yet, "_it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple._"
> 
> Color me confused here.  If that isn't DM empowerment in your mind, what is?



Did you really just base your argument for 4E DM empowerment on fireball?

I mean, seriously, come on.  That isn't even honest debate.  It is just playing "gotcha".

For myself I'll say that 4E has serious issues with DM empowerment and I'll also say that you can parse through and cherry pick exceptions.


As a separate note, I think pemerton will agree with me here:  (please correct me if I'm wrong)

If played in the true spirit of 4E whether or not anything catches fire should NOT be the narrative control of the DM but should be the narrative control of whoever cast the spell.  (With DM authority to trump if, but only if, absolutely needed)


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Those "rules" seem to have about as much weight as the flavour text for Spinning Sweep.




No, I would argue the rules for the fireball spell + the rules for damaging objects have alot more weight than "the flavour text for Spinning Sweep"...



LostSoul said:


> Do those rules tell me how much damage an object takes _while_ burning?




1d6 per caster level. Once it has taken this damage it is no longer burning.



LostSoul said:


> How about how fast the fire spreads?




Who said the fire was strong enough or lasted long enough to spread? The magic creates the fire and the magic's duration is instantaneous. The fire lasting longer than an instantaneous burst is not part of the description for the spell... so it lasts as long as it takes for the objects to suffer 1d6 per caster level of fire damage.



LostSoul said:


> What's needed to put out the fire? How long something will burn?




The fire in this spell only lasts long enough to do 1d6 per caster level of damage (again th duration of the spell and thus the magic fire it creates is instantaneous). The rules for damaging objects allow one to determine what did and did not survive the burst of fire damage that the flames of this spell were able to produce. 



LostSoul said:


> What I see, if those rules are applied, is that combustibles will catch fire and, if not destroyed by the initial damage, burn forever like the cast-aside ironwood staff.




This is because instead of actually following the rules in the spell and for damaging objects (which will let you determine what objects were destroyed in the fire, and what objects were only singed or suffered minimal damage)... you've ignored some things and added your own interpretation/rules to it... then wonder why it doesn't make sense.

Nowhere does it say the fire lasts forever or that once ignited the combustibles stay lit. Just follow the rules for the spell and damaging objects (which even has specific rules for fire) and it works out.

See LS, I think you're missing the bigger picture. The fact of the mattter is that whether you like or don't like the way fireball in 3.5 interacts with objects... it's accounted for, made apparent to the player when he chooses fireball, and consistent in the rules. The interaction of a fireball with objects in 4e, on the other hand, isn't consistent, isn't accounted for in the rules, and even whether it's up to the DM or up to the player's requesting it from the DM is in the air between people who play the game.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Hang on. Didn't you just finish telling me that 4e doesn't empower DM's?
> 
> Yet, "_it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple._"
> 
> Color me confused here. If that isn't DM empowerment in your mind, what is?




If you'd followed the thread you would have seen that I, along with Balesir and a few others  don't necessarily ascribe to that particular interpretation... but since 4e has made it so vague and unclear...I have to be willing to accept that said interpretation may be true.  Though I and others don't necessatrily believe it to be so.  So yeah, color me confused as well... but by 4e's poor wording.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2011)

> Originally Posted by Tovec View Post
> I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?




I'm not sure you actually are characterizing your tastes correctly.  What you want is the game designers to tell you how the simulation works.  The designers say that when Action A occurs, it will be resolved in this manner every single time.  When you try to pick a lock, for example, in 3.5, you will use some sort of tool (taking penalties if the tools are jury rigged), it will take a certain amount of time, and you can retry as long as you want (thus taking 20, presuming you have time).

And this is how Open Locks works every single time.  Now, how about a puzzle lock, like a Chinese Puzzle Box?  What skill do I roll to open that?  Open Lock or Disable Device?  I can see an argument for either way.  

Now, in 4e, it's left up to the DM's discretion.  You can open a lock in any manner that the DM accepts.  If you Fonzie Bump the lock, and the DM is happy, then groovy, you're just opened the lock.  The rules expect you to make some effort towards doing just that.  There's no compelling reason why you even have to use Thievery to open a lock, although that would be the baseline assumption.  I could easily see a Wizard using Cantrip in conjunction with Arcana to open a lock as well. 

Other DM's might not.  And that's groovy.  There's nothing saying that the DM must always say yes, although, again, that tends to be the baseline advice.  But, there's certainly nothing stopping the DM from saying no.  I could see a Martial Only campaign, doing a nice Sword and Sorcery 4e game, where that sort of thing just would not fly at all.

In other words, because the mechanics are not lockstep tied to the flavor, you can apply different mechanics to an action without having to start jumping through all sorts of hoops.  Yes, you could do the same thing in 3e, but, it was never encouraged to the degree that it is in 4e.  If you want to do X, in 3e, you have to do Y.  That's the formula.  Departing from the formula is certainly not verbotten, of course, but, it's also not encouraged very much either.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

BryonD said:


> If played in the true spirit of 4E whether or not anything catches fire should NOT be the narrative control of the DM but should be the narrative control of whoever cast the spell. (With DM authority to trump if, but only if, absolutely needed)





You've hit the crux on the head for me,  and it's one of the biggest problems for me when discussing 4e with many of it's fans... even they seem divisive and at odds about what playstyle 4e is trying to support... though again and again it is lauded as a very focused and tight game. 

 The only thing that players of 4e (and this includes me as well) seem capable of agreeing on is that it has a large dose of highly developed tactical skirmish play in it.  Otherwise one can get dizzy trying to keep up with all the different ways that 4e is purported to inherently support different (and often at odds) styles, empowerment, etc.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Since you are the one alluding to all these descriptive maneuvers that exist for non-spellcasting classes, then why don't you give an example? You specifically mentioned a non-descriptive maneuver, and I showed at least 5 examples of how 4e had made that exact same maneuver into a descriptive one, which was exactly my original point.




If all you wanted to prove was that 4e has printed five different ways to say "I knock him prone"... then you win.  Sorry I missed your point earlier.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

re: 4e's Fireball...

... actually, I thought it was a little odd, too... at first... until I thought about it more.

Why, exactly, should a fireball spell function like an incendiary grenade or mortal shell? Other than it kinda used to in early editions?

Why shouldn't the magician have control over _what_ burns and/or ignites inside the area of effect. Or even if it does lethal or non-lethal damage?

It's _magic_, for Crom's sake. There's no logical reason for it to behave one way or the other.

Now you _can_ make an argument for more incendiary grenade-like fireballs in gamist terms; they are more tactically-challenging to use, the user has to take into account collateral damage, etc. But this has nothing to do with logic or simulationalism or whatever.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> re: 4e's Fireball...
> 
> ... actually, I thought it was a little odd, too... at first... until I thought about it more.
> 
> ...




...And now we are back to the position that it is controlled by PC's... only the DM still has to okay or not okay it. 

My problem is mainly the lack of consistency concerning the 4e approach. First...that it's still unclear who controls whether the spell effects objects or not... and even if it is the player, they still need DM permission so it's not under the casters control, or entirely under the DM's control. 

Second that no matter who does the controlling it's inconsistent in that the spell sometimes damages objects and sometimes doesn't dependant upon someone's (DM's... Player's) whim. 

OAN: as I stated above, IMO, this is done purely for gamist/balance reasons, not narrative, since a general rule of powers being able to target objects would lead to the whacking of chairs and boulders to generate effects. While listing it seperately in powers that don't have effects could later on lead to some broken combo or issues with eratta.


----------



## Derren (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> this is done purely for gamist/balance reasons, not narrative,




Another example for this would be Bahamuts human form.
In his human form he is accompanied by 7 gold dragons (named ones, so real creatures who can act independently, not summons). But as fighting Bahamut and 7 gold dragons in the same encounter would be unbalanced, Bahamut instead uses the gold dragons as ammunition to fuel his powers. And in combat they still behave like summons and not as independant creatures they are and are vastly weaker than real gold dragons.


```
Area Burst Gold Dragon Rescue (standard; uses one canary)
Area burst 1 within 30, centered on ally; +41 vs. AC; the target is stunned (save ends). Effect: The ally in the origin square gains fly 10 until the end of its next turn.

Ranged Summon Gold Dragon (standard; uses one canary) Summoning
Ranged 20; Bahamut summons a Large gold dragon in an unoccupied space within range. The dragon has speed 8, fly 10 (hover) and, unlike a typical summoned creature, has its own defenses and hit points (all defenses 34; hp 120).
Minor Action: +27 vs. AC; 1d12 + 10 damage.
Opportunity Attack: +27 vs. AC; 1d12 + 10 damage.
```

All in the name of balance.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> My problem is mainly the lack of consistency concerning the 4e approach. First...that it's still unclear who controls whether the spell effects objects or not... and even if it is the player, they still need DM permission so it's not under the casters control, or entirely under the DM's control.



I'm running AD&D right now, and in some ways, it's not so different. It's up to the DM to decide to what extent a fireball damages objects/ignites them. Sure, there's an item saving throw table, if the DM chooses to use it, for some or all objects caught in the area of effect. There _might_ be rules for room combustibility, AD&D having a lot of rules , but most are really more like suggestions. 

I've seen DMs call for item saves against _all_ of a PC's gear, only _some_, only if the PC fails their saves, _independent_ of the PC's save, and so on. This could produce some odd results, like a PC saving against a fireball and being more-or-less okay, even though his sword, armor, and gold melted into slag while he was wearing it (should that necessitate another save vs. wearing molten metal? Hmmm...). 

A lack of consistency we have always had with us.   



> Second that no matter who does the controlling it's inconsistent in that the spell sometimes damages objects and sometimes doesn't dependant upon someone's (DM's... Player's) whim.



Let's assume the player has control for now...

What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it? 
Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball _have_ to behave like an incendiary grenade?

Being able to select targets and effects != inconsistent.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it? Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball _have_ to behave like an incendiary grenade?



Two words: Reference point. Like cold and lava and everything else, it's easier by default to assume that fire produced by magic is still fire and acts like fire (because it's the default reference point for everyone, because nobody has a reference point for what is the behavior of magical fire -- a good author/storyteller will 'sell' you on a vision of how and why magical fire should be different than normal fire, but it is a challenge to persuade from the default reference point)


----------



## D'karr (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> If all you wanted to prove was that 4e has printed five different ways to say "I knock him prone"... then you win.  Sorry I missed your point earlier.




Way to be dismissive, while still not answering the question.

I talked about how 4e provided baseline descriptions for all players so they could have a starting point from which to expand.  I mentioned that they did this for all classes including non-spellcasting classes.

You said that 3.x provided some descriptive baseline, and then mentioned things that were non-descriptive.

I talked about how 4e had even made those non-descriptive things into descriptive powers, and offered a few examples.

You said that I focused on the non-descriptive things you had mentioned.  So, I asked you to provide examples of these descriptive things that 3.x had and you were alluding too.

You still haven't provided any examples, and are just being dismissive.  So does 3.x have these non-spellcaster class descriptive things that you speak of?


----------



## talok55 (Dec 28, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I think more of a nod toward realism would help D&D.  Obviously I am speaking from personal preference.  I am aware 'realism' is not a concern for many groups.
> 
> I've gotten to a point where I can now enjoy 4E, but it requires me to turn certain parts of my brain off and/or view my character as a game piece first and a rpg character second - which I am capable of doing, but that's not my preferred style of play.
> 
> ...




I'd like to add a few things to that list.  I expect that a PC will not go from dying to being just fine because someone who calls himself a warlord with no supernatural ability to heal tells them to walk it off.  I expect that a healing potion will heal someone who drinks it even if they have no "healing surges" left.  I expect you cannot go from nearly dead to being completely healthy just by resting for 6 hours.  I also expect that a paladin or his deity will not "punish" a creature for attacking someone besides said paladin with holy laser beams.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 28, 2011)

Holy Laser Beams are da' bomb!


----------



## Tovec (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I'm running AD&D right now, and in some ways, it's not so different. It's up to the DM to decide to what extent a fireball damages objects/ignites them. Sure, there's an item saving throw table, if the DM chooses to use it, for some or all objects caught in the area of effect. There _might_ be rules for room combustibility, AD&D having a lot of rules , but most are really more like suggestions.



Okay, first of all, AD&D is what? 30 years old. There have been a number of changes (I would normally say improvements but I doubt we could agree on that term.) since then. Saying ....



Mallus said:


> A lack of consistency we have always had with us.



Isn't really true. It was a lack of consistency (AD&D), then it became more consistent (3e) then it became less again (4e). A change that purposefully went from more information to less - as D'karr's prefers.



Mallus said:


> Let's assume the player has control for now...



If you're talking about 4e, they don't. The DM does.



Mallus said:


> What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it?
> Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball _have_ to behave like an incendiary grenade?



Because it isn't the wizard deciding these things, it is the DM. And it is the DM 's choice even when previously they ruled a different way and this time they change their mind.



Mallus said:


> Why, exactly, should a fireball spell function like an incendiary grenade or mortal shell? Other than it kinda used to in early editions?



Mortal shell? Not familiar with that term.
Why should it? Well should might be a strong term, but it _should_ because from a design standpoint they have to come up with a rule one way or another? Beyond that, as far as I know, there is no strong reason as to why it should behave like a grenade or any other type of explosion.



Mallus said:


> Why shouldn't the magician have control over _what_ burns and/or ignites inside the area of effect. Or even if it does lethal or non-lethal damage?



Once again, from a design standpoint, it would have to pick if it deals lethal or non-lethal damage. Neither the player nor the DM should suddenly change their mind without redefining the actual rule involved. In specific however, the reason they have no control over what burns this time vs what burns next time has to do with the nature of the spell, the fact that those objects are in the path and that they should be consistent one way or another. Also because it isn't the players choice, it is the DMs's.




Hussar said:


> I'm not sure you actually are characterizing your tastes correctly.  What you want is the game designers to tell you how the simulation works.



Agreed, let us continue.



Hussar said:


> The designers say that when Action A occurs, it will be resolved in this manner every single time.



Not that it will, but that it is supposed to - in favour of being consistent, yes. It would certainly suck if I kicked someone in the shin that this time they hurt their leg and next time they spontaneously ignite.



Hussar said:


> When you try to pick a lock, for example, in 3.5, you will use some sort of tool (taking penalties if the tools are jury rigged), it will take a certain amount of time, and you can retry as long as you want (thus taking 20, presuming you have time).



Right. Assuming you have plenty of time to do it, and the lock doesn't have a failsafe if you were to fail. Then sure I see no problem in taking 20 to open a lock.



Hussar said:


> And this is how Open Locks works every single time.  Now, how about a puzzle lock, like a Chinese Puzzle Box?  What skill do I roll to open that?  Open Lock or Disable Device?  I can see an argument for either way.



This is where you start to lose me. A puzzle box =/= a lock. But depending on circumstance either Open Lock or Disable Device may be appropriate.
In fact, if you found a chinese (they would not call it chinese) puzzle box in a (3e) DnD manual then it likely tells you what the DC is and which check should be used. 4e certainly wouldn't.



Hussar said:


> Now, in 4e, it's left up to the DM's discretion. You can open a lock in any manner that the DM accepts.



It was in 3e.



Hussar said:


> If you Fonzie Bump the lock, and the DM is happy, then groovy, you're just opened the lock. The rules expect you to make some effort towards doing just that. There's no compelling reason why you even have to use Thievery to open a lock, although that would be the baseline assumption. I could easily see a Wizard using Cantrip in conjunction with Arcana to open a lock as well.



Are you under the impression locks can't be destroyed in 3e?
What we are talking about is that the rule is use open lock to unlock the lock, DC 25 (for example). If you have Open Lock as a skill and roll (or take 20) then fine it is done. If you don't have Open Lock you can still destory it with any number of spells or weapons - probably.
What NEITHER rules support is the player "Fonzie Bump"-ing it. BOTH rules assume you have to actually try and unlock/disable the lock before it is opened.



Hussar said:


> Other DM's might not.  And that's groovy.  There's nothing saying that the DM must always say yes, although, again, that tends to be the baseline advice.  But, there's certainly nothing stopping the DM from saying no.  I could see a Martial Only campaign, doing a nice Sword and Sorcery 4e game, where that sort of thing just would not fly at all.



And here is the issue with the 4e ruling exactly. Some DM's may allow one effect, other DM's may allow another. Neither ruling is entirely supported by the game outside of "let the DM decide" on page 42. The problem arises when the DM allows the effect to do something one time and then changes it another time. Once again, this is perfectly allowed by the rules and is a major concern about realism and consistency. In 3e, when a fireball does (or doesn't) set paper aflame one time then everyone at the table can expect it do the same thing the next time it comes up. No DM fiat/judgement/ruling/interpretation/argument/opinion/best guess required. Similarly, if it is changed next time, then there is a reason and should be considered to work under those circumstances in the future.



Hussar said:


> In other words, because the mechanics are not lockstep tied to the flavor, you can apply different mechanics to an action without having to start jumping through all sorts of hoops.  Yes, you could do the same thing in 3e, but, it was never encouraged to the degree that it is in 4e.  If you want to do X, in 3e, you have to do Y.  *That's the formula.*  Departing from the formula is certainly not verbotten, of course, but, it's also not encouraged very much either.



This only matters, in either edition, if people at the game are 100% bound by the rules as written in the book. 4e doesn't solve that problem anymore than 3e did except it gave them less explanation on how effects logically occur. I feel it is poor design choice to give me less, especially on magical effects which so distort the usual understanding of cause and effect. Of course 4e opens it up to having more problems in this regard, as all effects are magical effects in 4e. 

Also, about the emphasis mine; it is a formula for both - as many on both sides have pointed out.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> *Sigh* and yet because it's malleable and everyone's picture in their head is slightly different (I mean that's why we use battlemat's to keep positioning straight right??) You can easily just state the power you're using with and explanation of it's effect and a roll (which is exactly what I've seen at gamedays and encounters) and leave it up to the rest of the table to imagine it in whatever way will make it consistent for them. So again, no the description doesn't necessarily serve this purpose.



Doesn't serve what purpose? You describe the purpose very well when you say it allows those at the table "to imagine it in whatever way will make it consistent for them". That is precisely the purpose I am talking about - what other purposes do you consider to be indispensible?



Imaro said:


> The thing is, some/many/alot of people don't have a clear view of how the game world "physics" in 4e really work, as evidenced by numerous posts in this thread.



For the most part, they _*do*_ have a clear view. If, for some corner cases such as (important) objects getting destroyed by fireballs, there is more than one interpretation I don't see that as a big deal. As LostSoul has pointed out, it was never clear in earlier editions, either; I think it was 2-3 years into us playing that I even considered the possibility of flammable items getting burnt by fireballs - which would be after running AD&D for a while, at least.

Characters being set on fire in 4E is known as "ongoing fire damage", by the way. Fireballs don't cause it.



Imaro said:


> As to working without reliance on a DM... we've been discussing exactly that for the past couple of pages... According to most of the 4e fans in this thread, it's totaly DM judgement on whether combustible things catch fire or not with a player's powers... in fact it's also entirely DM fiat on whether they can even target an object or not... so how is this impartial or collective?



I didn't say "without reliance on a DM", I said "allows all the players to have a clear view of how the game world "physics" really works without reliance on DM judgement". Where there is ambiguity over the precise interpretation of the rules this clearly does not apply, but that is not really that widespread in 4E - generally the players are able to know what effect their powers will have without asking the DM for confirmation, ruling or interpretation. That exact way in which the power achieves those results may be open to interpretation, but the rules as written are usually quite clear. This clarity on the part of the players allows modes of play that are not easily achievable with older editions, or with most other systems I have played with over the years. I regard this as a positive attribute of D&D 4E - something it does that is a unique selling proposition, for me.



Imaro said:


> Eh, you're entitled to your oppinion and I'm not going to argue against that it would just be silly... though I think the real question is which one is more generally acceptable and popular amongst players of D&D.



I'm sure WotC would be very happy to have something that is popular amongst players of D&D. I would prefer them to produce something that positively supports a mode or modes of play without house rules and endless judgement calls. It's no biggie - if they go for popularity at the expense of functionality I'll just stick with what I've got. In that sense they may be well advised to do exactly this, since those who prefer whatever it was that they found to do with older editions seem unable or unwilling to do just this.



Imaro said:


> Yeah, that was my interpretation as well... but as seen on this thread, that's not everyone's interpretation by a long shot.



Sure, but as long as everyone at the table is clear on what variant is being used, I don't really see the harm.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Two words: Reference point. Like cold and lava and everything else, it's easier by default to assume that fire produced by magic is still fire and acts like fire (because it's the default reference point for everyone, because nobody has a reference point for what is the behavior of magical fire -- a good author/storyteller will 'sell' you on a vision of how and why magical fire should be different than normal fire, but it is a challenge to persuade from the default reference point)



What is the proper reference point(s) for magical fire?

Wouldn't it be various depictions of magical fire in fiction, mythology, and film? Can't be the real world, right?

Now in fiction, magical fire can burn hot, cold, with pretty audiovisual effects but without deviating significantly from the ambient temperature, etc. It can incinerate bad guys, such as Nazi's, without damaging so much as a fiber of their clothing. It can, in short, do quite a lot of things that deviate from real fire and a strict accordance with the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.

In fact, a case can be made for these rather common depictions of imaginary, magical fire in works of fiction should set the baseline assumptions as to how imaginary, magical fire should behave in the fictional settings D&D campaigns take place in.

Not everyone expects a supernatural world designed by 3rd year engineering students. Not  that there's anything _wrong_ with expecting or wanting that... 

... but at least concede it that most people who play D&D absolutely do have reference points for things like magic fire. They're found in the books and movies they enjoy.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

Tovec said:


> Okay, first of all, AD&D is what? 30 years old.



About that, yes. It's fresh in my mind as I'm running it currently. It's also handy to place these discussions in a.... hmmm... historical context.



> It was a lack of consistency (AD&D), then it became more consistent (3e) then it became less again (4e).



3e's consistency includes things like fireballs sometimes working _under water_. But not always...

Is that more consistent than the inconsistent application of item saving throws that I brought up? (they seem similar to me) 



> If you're talking about 4e, they don't. The DM does.



I was positing a bit of thought experiment. That's why I started off with "assume"...



> Mortal shell? Not familiar with that term.



Oops. Typo. Meant "mortar shell". 



> Beyond that, as far as I know, there is no strong reason as to why it should behave like a grenade or any other type of explosion.



Good. Then you agree there's nothing wrong, in principle, with a selective-damage fireball. 



> Once again, from a design standpoint, it would have to pick if it deals lethal or non-lethal damage.



Why? "From a design standpoint" means nothing in this context.

Why can't you design a spell that does lethal or non-lethal damage, caster's choice? 

If you object for aesthetic reasons, that's fine. But there no logic at work here... it's merely taste.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I
> 
> What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it?
> Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball _have_ to behave like an incendiary grenade?
> ...




Doesn't fireball target all creatures in the area of effect?

I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects". Especially when you have things in world like constructs so that one piece of paper (the animated object) is affected and a different piece isn't (or is, depending on somebody or others decision)

Therfore, I personally find it insanely inconsistent that a wizard can choose whether or not the fireball sets papers on fire but can NOT choose whether or not it hurts his friend Bob. And it doesn't matter at all if the Player or GM made things insansely inconsistent.

In my mind, there are essentially 2 consistent conditions for a fireball
1) It affects everything in the area (incendiary go boom)
2) It affects what the wizard wants to affect (Directed bolts of flame)

Up to 4th edition we had the first. In 4th edition we may get the first or we may get some absurd combination where the creatures burn but the papers don't


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 28, 2011)

My understanding of Fireball in 3.5 was that it would cause objects to burn or catch on fire, in addition to doing damage.  In other words, I think you can start a forest fire or ignite an underground vein of coal with Fireball, not just destroy the tinder.



Imaro said:


> See LS, I think you're missing the bigger picture. The fact of the mattter is that whether you like or don't like the way fireball in 3.5 interacts with objects... it's accounted for, made apparent to the player when he chooses fireball, and consistent in the rules.




Perhaps.

My point of view is that rules that attempt to model and define all the interactions between elements of the fiction will not provide "realism" (meaning that use of the system will provide acceptable, if unexpected, results to those playing) without the application of DM judgement calls.  I believe that providing certain principles from which players can apply their own judgement will result in a more realistic game.

Thus the example of Catching on Fire from the SRD - without judgement calls it produces strange results within the fiction.



Imaro said:


> The interaction of a fireball with objects in 4e, on the other hand, isn't consistent, isn't accounted for in the rules, and even whether it's up to the DM or up to the player's requesting it from the DM is in the air between people who play the game.




I agree, more or less.  The question is: can this method provide a more realistic result than other approaches?  My answer is a qualified "yes", assuming that authority and responsibility is well-defined within the text.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 28, 2011)

Tovec said:


> I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?



I think "simulationism" is getting used for both of its common meanings in a somewhat confused way, here.

In general, I think what you seem to be seeking is not "simulationism" in any clear game agenda sense, but "realism". In other words, you want to be able to use the game systems to model a world that, apart from certain specific departures (commonly identified as "magic"), behaves in ways that conform to the ways you believe the real word to behave in.

The second meaning you seem to be using is that you like the rules system to describe _how the game world works in terms of principle_, as opposed to describing it in terms of the _capabilities of the characters and creatures in the game_.

To see the difference in this second meaning, adopting more of this approach might see the power "Vicious Mockery" described as follows:

*Vicious Mockery* is the Arcane skill of using Charm magic to manipulate and magnify an enemy's emotions to the point that he or she takes damage from them, and becomes distracted such that they have a reduced chance to succeed at tasks that require coordination or dexterity (including striking with attacks or using skills). Any creature with a mind and any discernible driving needs or feelings may be targetted with this power, but some will be harder to affect than others (based on their Will defence). Vicious Mockery will typically inflict 1d6 + the Bard's Charisma modifier of psychic damage and impose a -2 penalty to actions that require coordination or dexterity for one round.

Would that suit your sensibilities better?


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> Personally, I find it insanely inconsistent that a wizard can choose whether or not the fireball sets papers on fire but can NOT choose whether or not it hurts his friend Bob.



I would find it inconsistent if the wizard were employing a flamethrower or lobbing a Molotov cocktail. Assuming the wizard is using magic, I'm okay with it... 



> I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects". Especially when you have things in world like constructs so that one piece of paper (the animated object) is affected and a different piece isn't (or is, depending on somebody or others decision)



Well, they are _magic flames_. Conjured out of thin air by bat guano and pig Latin or some such. 

What if the fireball was described as the invocation a minor fire spirit/elemental? Something the wizard could command to burn _this_ but not _that_?

In the same time it took you to formulate your objection, I came up with a perfectly suitable, not to mention flavorful and congruent with the source fiction(s), explanation.

Not bad, eh? This is what you can achieve when you spend your effort trying to make the game make sense. Instead of working hard to make it less sensible. 

(Why try to make D&D look more ludicrous? That's like shooting fish in a barrel with a grenade)


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> In 4th edition we may get the first or we may get some absurd combination where the creatures burn but the papers don't



Like I pointed out before, in AD&D you could have a fireball scorch a PC a tad while _melting_ the armor they were wearing (not to mention melting their precious gold pieces!), and in 3e, you can have fireballs detonate under water.

You were saying something about absurdity??


----------



## Balesir (Dec 28, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> Doesn't fireball target all creatures in the area of effect?
> 
> I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects". Especially when you have things in world like constructs so that one piece of paper (the animated object) is affected and a different piece isn't (or is, depending on somebody or others decision)
> 
> ...



You seem to be conflating the concept of "realistic" with the concept of "consistent".

On the first, since damage to living bodies requires temperatures of only 100 degrees C or so (boiling the water in our bodies does horrible things to us) whereas setting light to paper requires temperatures well over 400 degrees C if the ignition source is short lived, I don't think a fireball that damages living things but does not ignite papaer is in the least "unrealistic". Heat transfer is a subject I studied at degree level, and the flame heat required to get paper surfaces up over 400 degrees in a second or two would be well above that of many "fireballs" (especially gas-based ones).

On the second, I find 4E is generally very consistent; it treats objects the same for all powers - viz. powers affect objects only if specifically intended to target objects and only then with DM agreement. Creatures are quite clearly different from objects in both the 4E and the 3.X D&D worlds - 3.X even distinguishes between "attended" and "unattended" objects. In a fantasy world, where magic indisputably exists, I don't see anything "inconsistent" or even surprising about this.


----------



## Derren (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> and in 3e, you can have fireballs detonate under water.




Actually it was not quite that easy.


> Fire
> 
> Nonmagical fire (including alchemist’s fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made a Spellcraft check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect.






Balesir said:


> On the second, I find 4E is generally very consistent; it treats objects the same for all powers - viz. powers affect objects only if specifically intended to target objects and only then with DM agreement. Creatures are quite clearly different from objects in both the 4E and the 3.X D&D worlds - 3.X even distinguishes between "attended" and "unattended" objects. In a fantasy world, where magic indisputably exists, I don't see anything "inconsistent" or even surprising about this.




Doesn't the "It has magic so it does not need consistency" defense get boring after all that time?
4E also has different labels for creatures (Minions, etc.) which are completely gameist (can't be explained in game) yet radically alter how the creatures interact with the game world (making minions immune to missing attacks for example)

PS: What heat level would be required to heat water from 25 to 100 in 2 seconds? More or less than igniting paper?


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> What if the fireball was described as the invocation a minor fire spirit/elemental? Something the wizard could command to burn _this_ but not _that_?




So these fire elementals/spirits can differentiate between the piece of paper and the paper construct but can NOT figure out that my friend Bob shouldn't be burnt?

So, the rules text would be something like :
"This spell summons thousands of fire spirits. Each can unerringly detect invisible objects and unerringly differentiate between creatures and objects.

They burn ALL creatures in the area of effect but burn only those objects that the caster wishes to burn. Note that it is totally immaterial if the wizard can actually detect the objects, the fire spirits can do so"

As I said, I find that insanely inconsistent.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

Seeing as I'm on a posting-tear in this thread... I thought I dredge up a few things I missed while on a holiday break from ENWorld... 



LurkAway said:


> A man who can kill with a plasma rifle is a _fighter_.



If the AD&D 2e PHB used a man with a plasma rifle as an example of a _fighter_, that would raise certain expectations, no? Such as: "my fighter may one day obtain a plasma rifle" and "plasma rifles belong in at least some campaigns". Otherwise such an example would be a kinda nutty.



> Unless you've played D&D like a greek myth, you're mixing up 2 different mediums.



My modest proposal is: since the AD&D 2e used two children of Zeus as examples of fighters, perhaps playing in the style of Greek myth isn't all that incompatible with the game (mythic figures from other mythoi are cited, too). 



JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I assume that for that to matter to anyone, they'd need to know who Hercules is.



Naturally. 



> Knowing that, I could see how they could accept him being a Fighter, but I don't see the logical leap to "all Fighters are therefore like Hercules!"



Did anyone other than people trying to misconstrue my point say that?



> That is, it follows that Hercules is a Fighter (they said so). That does not mean that all Fighters are Hercules (obviously).



Equally obviously, it means the fictional space defined by [FIGHTERS] includes mythic figures. Which, to me, says something.



Tovec said:


> Are you comparing the son of Zeus, a demigod, to regular human fighters?



I was pointing out the AD&D 2e PHB compared the son of Zeus --and several other mythological heroes-- to the PCs a player could create. This is generally what is meant by citing something as an example.

I'm also assuming the writers of the AD&D 2e PHB had some reason for doing this. Perhaps they were suggesting ways a D&D milieu could be framed/conceived of, or ways in which the game could by played? 



> Why not mock fire to make it not burn you?



I'm sure some mythological figure has done precisely that. Maybe in the _Kalevala_?  



FireLance said:


> However, if you start with the assumption that the PCs are exceptional in ways beyond their official game statistics (not a palatable option for some people, I know), then the question becomes "How can _this_ PC do something which most people cannot?"



This is a wonderful explanation for why AD&D/2e PCs can gain levels, and the vast majority of people can't. 



> How can this warlord heal wounds when he uses _inspiring word_? Because one of his distant ancestors was a celestial, and he is actually able to channel small amounts of divine healing power.



This also explains why, in the past, D&D core book authors used the kids of gods as examples of PC classes!



LurkAway said:


> Bard A: You suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
> Bard B: No, you suck! (inflicts psychic damage)
> Bard A: Idiot! (inflicts psychic damage)
> Bard B: Moron! (inflicts psychic damage)
> ...



You know, I could make virtually any D&D combat sound ridiculous, with very little effort. But what would the point be?



> Give that flavor some weight, and you have nods to realism like: do bards know the insult that harms any personality or just those he understands which buttons to push? Can he effectively insult all fellow human beings, humanoids like giants, abominable demonic minds, non-sentient artificial minds, the higher minds of devils and gods, sticks and stones, and the fabric of magic itself? Must the insult be spoken or whispered to a single soul to direct its potency, or does the potency of the word dissipate like ink in a lake when shouted openly to many ears in a room? Is the victim harmed if he cannot hear? Is the victim harmed if he does not understand the bard's language? Do lethal insults always kill you in 6 seconds, or might it take a day or longer? Is this talent the epitome of bardish lore and only master bards are so gifted, or can any bard kill with a word instead of the sword? All of these and more are natural, organic questions about the process.



Do you ask the same kind of questions about all the traditional D&D spells. If not, why? This kind of analysis and extrapolation seems arbitrarily applied.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

Derren said:


> Actually it was not quite that easy.



I know the rule  -- I looked it up! Note I said "they can"... not "they always". 



pauljathome said:


> So these fire elementals/spirits can differentiate between the piece of paper and the paper construct but can NOT figure out that my friend Bob shouldn't be burnt?



What I said was I could come up with a reasonable explanation for a selectively-damaging fireball.



> As I said, I find that insanely inconsistent.



And I find the amount of effort and over-thinking you're engaging in, in service of making something _not work_... confusing.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 28, 2011)

Balesir said:


> I think "simulationism" is getting used for both of its common meanings in a somewhat confused way, here.



I used it because people are describing a _simulationist_ game and I prefer it to the vague "make it up" game.



Balesir said:


> In general, I think what you seem to be seeking is not "simulationism" in any clear game agenda sense, but "realism". In other words, you want to be able to use the game systems to model a world that, apart from certain specific departures (commonly identified as "magic"), behaves in ways that conform to the ways you believe the real word to behave in.



In the way they were describing, I want a game that models the real world. When I play someone without magic, I don't want or expect a magical result. This would include if I swung my sword and moved an enemy back 2 squares. I am a strong man, at 6'1-6'2, and I am very capable of doing a number of impressive things with a weapon in my hand. I cannot force an enemy back 10 feet just by swinging my muscly arms at them. I could force them back if I ran into them and pushed them but that is a different mechanic entirely. Yes, I do want realism but as that post previously stated, the "nods to realism" that this thread is about has very little connection with actual realism or realistic outcomes. Instead it seeks things which seem realistic while being improbable.



Balesir said:


> The second meaning you seem to be using is that you like the rules system to describe _how the game world works in terms of principle_, as opposed to describing it in terms of the _capabilities of the characters and creatures in the game_.
> 
> To see the difference in this second meaning, adopting more of this approach might see the power "Vicious Mockery" described as follows:




I'm actually failing to see the real difference in what you're saying, vicious mockery aside.

A. I want the game to describe how the world works, and hopefully it resembles things I can relate to but in terms of magic not necessarily.
B. I want to understand how the rules relate to the capabilities of character, creatures and objects in the game. Anything that effect will likely intersect with. I don't really need to know what happens if a lightning bolt were to hit the pea (or globe as of 4e)-sized fireball before it exploded but it would be good to know if it is meant to set things on fire, or how it works underwater, or why it hurts things which are left on their own vs something held.



Balesir said:


> *Vicious Mockery* is the Arcane skill of using Charm magic to manipulate and magnify an enemy's emotions to the point that he or she takes damage from them, and becomes distracted such that they have a reduced chance to succeed at tasks that require coordination or dexterity (including striking with attacks or using skills). Any creature with a mind and any discernible driving needs or feelings may be targetted with this power, but some will be harder to affect than others (based on their Will defence). Vicious Mockery will typically inflict 1d6 + the Bard's Charisma modifier of psychic damage and impose a -2 penalty to actions that require coordination or dexterity for one round.
> 
> Would that suit your sensibilities better?



What does the power currently look like in 4e? I haven't been able to find an online quote of the power exactly how it is now. Does it suit my sensibilities better? *rereads* I guess so. I can't imagine what circumstances it might be missing but it does seem to address the skeleton problem from before - so I'm happier.

For the record, once again, I never said that vicious mockery shouldn't affect the skeleton. Though, based on this description, I could find reason against it. All my points on the subject were how little sense it made for vicious mockery to hurt the (shadow) magic which binds the skeleton, its dead creator, or the god who has the portfolio associated with the spell.

My main issue with many of the assumptions of those on your side Balesir is that you are saying 4e works very different then (i) it actually does and (ii) 3e.

Beyond that, if you need me feel free to quote or summon, but I'm just going in circles with you people. I'm tired of replying to (nearly) everything that is addressed and in turn only getting quoted with individual lines. It is especially bothersome when I feel as though you make no real counterpoints to my comments and concerns. (Not you/just you Balesir.)


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Now in fiction, magical fire can burn hot, cold, with pretty audiovisual effects but without deviating significantly from the ambient temperature, etc. It can incinerate bad guys, such as Nazi's, without damaging so much as a fiber of their clothing. It can, in short, do quite a lot of things that deviate from real fire and a strict accordance with the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.



OK, my reference point for magical fire from movies, books, videogames is usually apparently mundane fire summoned and hurled as bolts, arcs, and fireballs. They do burn on contact like regular fire, and set alight draperies, papers, etc. The protagonists manage to dodge/duck/jump away from the fire and you imagine/assume that they and their clothing would burn if they didn't evade it.

You're referring to a more looser fiction of magical fire -- sorcerous energies which looks like fire but can be different colors and not necessarily be mundane fire.

That's fine... if you want to flavor a fireball as arcs of green fire, I can imagine this allows for more leeway. That said, the flavor text of fireball and the burst area effect have always implied to me (and I think to a lot of people) a standard spherical explosion of as-we-know-it fire that probably would and should burn everything in its path but we simply gloss over that for fun, convenience and simplicity, and not for "realism" sake.

If 4E had gone with a fiction-first approach, they could have easily thought of allowing wizards to a) hurl a proper fireball with chance of collateral damage AND/OR b) semi-directed arcs of fire with less collateral damage (and fluff the spell description accordingly). And a little blurb under an entry for 'fire' keyword they might have even thought of suggesting options to summon green fire with unique properties vs mundane fire with standard fire catching properties.

So I can definitely meet you halfway on that, but none of the above still changes the fact for me that a) the default fluff doesn't particularly seem to try to nod to "realism" IMO b) there is no official ideas AFAIK anywhere for changing the default fluff c) a lot of DMs and players don't have endless font of creativity and inspiration to refluff as needed, d) Enworld is not an "official" source for better fluff and shouldn't be the "to go" place to slog through hundreds of pages of forum arguments looking for ways to rationalize/justify effects of mechanics in order to have nods to realsm in a pro-simulationist 4E game.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Do you ask the same kind of questions about all the traditional D&D spells. If not, why? This kind of analysis and extrapolation seems arbitrarily applied.



I do instinctively have questions like that from time to time, but they come up a lot more with 4E - what else can I say? At least I feel I know that other editions/systems try to think about these questions a little bit when designing the mechanic, and that makes enough of a difference, I guess, in the overall impression.

I think the other important point is that these questions are interesting to me. The process is interesting to me. The process is what really distinguishes one power from another. And the correlation of cause and effect (if I re-fluff the cause, does it change the effect?).

The effect purely on its own is not so interesting to me. Damage, push, pull, slide, daze, stun, I don't really care.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

Tovec said:


> For the record, once again, I never said that vicious mockery shouldn't affect the skeleton. Though, based on this description, I could find reason against it. All my points on the subject were how little sense it made for vicious mockery to hurt the (shadow) magic which binds the skeleton, its dead creator, or the god who has the portfolio associated with the spell.



Let me try to cut to the heart of this... and forgive me if you're tired of Vicious Mockery, but it makes for a damn handy example.

You accept bards as plausible; people who can work magic through words, song, and various performance art.

You accept skeletons and shadows as plausible; undead creatures animated by dark magic and curses.

But you find it _implausible_ that a bard can hurt these magic creatures with their magic words (either aimed at the creatures directly or at their creator/source).

What's your definition of "sense"?


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> But you find it _implausible_ that a bard can hurt these magic creatures with their magic words (either aimed at the creatures directly or at their creator/source).
> 
> What's your definition of "sense"?



After everything that has been written to specifically address this question over the last x pages, now I just feel like I've wasted my time.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Now in fiction, magical fire can burn hot, cold, with pretty audiovisual effects but without deviating significantly from the ambient temperature, etc. It can incinerate bad guys, such as Nazi's, without damaging so much as a fiber of their clothing. It can, in short, do quite a lot of things that deviate from real fire and a strict accordance with the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.




The problem is that you aren't being consistent with the rules for a fireball in 4e. The power has specific keywords, damage types, etc. as shown below

*Wizard Attack 5 Fireball*

_A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact._
*Daily*




*Arcane*, *Evocation*, *Fire*, *Implement*
*Standard Action* *Area* burst 3 within 20 squares
*Target*: Each creature in the burst
*Attack*: Intelligence vs. Reflex
*Hit*: 4d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage.
*Miss*: Half damage.


_*Evocation*_
_Evocation powers bring various magical effects into being, including explosions, rays of magical energy, and lingering environmental effects. This is the most widely practiced school of magic._

Ah, so it's not a summoning...

*Implement*

_Implements are items wielded by certain characters to channel their powers. Your class description or a feat tells you which implements you can wield, if any. To use the powers and the properties of a magic implement, you must be able to wield that implement. _

_The implement keyword identifies a power that can be used through an implement, and the implement must be a type wielded by the power’s class. _

_You can use implement powers without an implement, and wielding a nonmagical implement confers no benefit. If you wield a magic implement, you can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of implement powers you use through it_

So we know from the ruless that you are wielding an implement to cast it (unless you're forsaking the implement bonus to hit). It is an Evocation spell (so it doesn't summon anything) and has the fire keyword and has the fire damage type... let's look at damage type...

*damage type* 
_A specific type of damage: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, or thunder. Each damage type has a keyword associated with it.* If a power has such a keyword, the power deals that type of damage* (the exception is poison, the keyword for which refers to damage, a nondamaging effect, or both)._


Emphasis mine: So unless it has the "cold" keyword it is not a cold flame. It does fire damage which is, from the compendium the following three categories...

*Fire (Damage Type)*

_Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition._

Hmm, well that certainly rules out alot of things you're claiming it could be. And also seems to restrict what exactly this spell can be reskinned as.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Let me try to cut to the heart of this... and forgive me if you're tired of Vicious Mockery, but it makes for a damn handy example.
> 
> You accept bards as plausible; people who can work magic through words, song, and various performance art.



Barely, but yes. I accept it because there are numerous other classes which perform magic. Perhaps not as Bards do but they do perform supernatural acts.



> You accept skeletons and shadows as plausible; undead creatures animated by dark magic and curses.
> 
> But you find it _implausible_ that a bard can hurt these magic creatures with their magic words (either aimed at the creatures directly or at their creator/source).
> 
> What's your definition of "sense"?




I accept skeletons and shadows as plausible, along with ghouls, ghosts, zombies, etc. They're undead, they have common rules of how they exist and have HP and all that fanciful stuff.

I do not accept that bards can hurt the fundamental laws of magic by using their words alone. There are no other mechanics* that do what the bard is described of doing. The words in the spell itself don't even lend the ability to mock gods, dead creators or the source of magic itself. That is why I find it implausible in gaming terms.

*_Once again, don't actually have the source spell, but going by what I've seen around here._


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 28, 2011)

Balesir said:


> You seem to be conflating the concept of "realistic" with the concept of "consistent".




I don't believe he is.  Consistency is a facet of realism.  Realism when applied to RPG's means that things happen according to preset rules and remain consistent with those rules, unless acted upon by an unknown factor.  If there is an unknown factor in play that the DM or ruleset intends (even if the DM or ruleset hasn't yet defined that unknown factor), then it's okay.  If a DM or ruleset allows for inconsistent results, then it degrades the sense of realism.

Not being consistent is counter to a "Nod to Realism", and is instead a nod to the fantastic and mysterious.  Neither is bad.  Both are completely enjoyable, though not by everyone.  I occasionally enjoy the randomness and mysteriousness of a fantastic game myself, but by definition such an approach is not a "Nod to Realism".





Mallus said:


> Well, they are _magic flames_. Conjured out of thin air by bat guano and pig Latin or some such.
> 
> What if the fireball was described as the invocation a minor fire spirit/elemental? Something the wizard could command to burn _this_ but not _that_?




Ahhh, but now you've created a whole new set of problems due to your now "defining" what a fireball is in your campaign.  If that definition isn't adhered to as the game progresses, then you've introduced a very obvious inconsistency that will degrade the sense of realism.

From this point on your players can assume that Fireballs are a type of Summoning magic (as compared to the default assumption from previous editions of it being an Evocation).  Also, the Elementals in question have the ability to see invisible objects/creatures that are counter to the caster (even if the caster isn't aware of their presence) and not harm things the caster wouldn't want harmed - which now grants these elementals the ability to read the casters mind, sense alignments or intentions, and see invisible.  With these assumptions, it's only natural for a player to want to use this information in crafting new spells/powers, or find ways to exploit this that the DM or ruleset couldn't anticipate.  Quite likely introducing abilities to a power/spell that are far beyond it's actual level.

You've added a new and unintended facet to the game.

Adding a new facet isn't a bad thing.  As a DM, I find that my adjudications often have unintended consequences, and I roll with them as they usually make for something pretty fun.  But not all DM's are capable or accepting of that.  It's the unintended part that can cause the problem for many.

Of course though, this also highlights that "Fluff" does matter.  It's not a simple thing to just "change the Fluff" to fit what you want it to be, while keeping the "crunch".  Realism means that "Fluff" and "Crunch" are consistent with eachother, and work consistently throughout the game.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 28, 2011)

Derren said:


> Doesn't the "It has magic so it does not need consistency" defense get boring after all that time?



That's not what I'm saying - please look again. I'm saying that the way 4E handles this is consistent within itself. The fact that objects and creatures are different is established and quite consistently applied.

The only meaning of "consistency" I can think of that you might have in mind (that justifies your claims of "inconsistency") is the meaning of "consistent with the real world". In this sense you have a valid comment - but since the world of D&D is manifestly not the real world, I'm not at all sure why you insist that it is important. "A world that is not the real world does not behave in all ways like the real world" - isn't that a case of "dog bites man"?



Derren said:


> 4E also has different labels for creatures (Minions, etc.) which are completely gameist (can't be explained in game) yet radically alter how the creatures interact with the game world (making minions immune to missing attacks for example)



OK, so you are using "gameist (sic)" to mean "can't be explained in terms of the game (world)"? Why not? "Can't be explained in terms of analogues in the *real* world, sure. But why can't a game world have creatures that are destined to fall at the first successful hit? It's not the real world, for sure - but it was never intended to be that, as I think must be pretty clear.



Derren said:


> PS: What heat level would be required to heat water from 25 to 100 in 2 seconds? More or less than igniting paper?



Assuming that by "heat" you mean energy, how much water are we talking, and how much paper? If by "heal level" you mean "temperature", then what form is the heat source in? A gas flame? A burning liquid? A detonation front in a well mixed gas-air cocktail?

Put it this way: put some sheets of paper into a gas cupboard with a small cloud of hydrogen or methane mixed with air and ignite the cloud. Neither will ignite the paper, but the hydrogen will hurt and the methane will give a nasty burn/scald to exposed flesh. A person totally immersed in such a cloud would suffer external burns and, if they were unlucky enough to breathe in at the wrong moment, some very nasty lung and trachea damage.



Tovec said:


> I want the game to describe how the world works, and hopefully it resembles things I can relate to but in terms of magic not necessarily.



Why is a world where magic works likely to work in the same way as the real world in any respect? The reason magic does not work as it does in D&D in the real world is because the laws of real world physics preclude it. If they did not, there would most certainly be people doing it! The laws of physics in a world where such magic exists cannot possibly be the same as those of the real world. It is wise for world designers to make some of their outcomes broadly recognisable to inhabitants of this universe - but they simply cannot be identical.



Tovec said:


> I want to understand how the rules relate to the capabilities of character, creatures and objects in the game. Anything that effect will likely intersect with. I don't really need to know what happens if a lightning bolt were to hit the pea (or globe as of 4e)-sized fireball before it exploded but it would be good to know if it is meant to set things on fire, or how it works underwater, or why it hurts things which are left on their own vs something held.



OK; to my mind, 4E does this well. It explains the effects in system terms, which seem a little strange, but I take these terms to be the terms of "4E universe physics" - and they are certainly no more strange than the terms of Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics...



Tovec said:


> What does the power currently look like in 4e? I haven't been able to find an online quote of the power exactly how it is now. Does it suit my sensibilities better? *rereads* I guess so. I can't imagine what circumstances it might be missing but it does seem to address the skeleton problem from before - so I'm happier.



Vicious Mockery  Bard Attack 1

_You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic to send the creature into a blind rage._

At-Will * Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action      Ranged 10

Target: One creature

Attack: Charisma vs. Will

Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Level 21: 2d6 + Charisma modifier damage.



Tovec said:


> For the record, once again, I never said that vicious mockery shouldn't affect the skeleton. Though, based on this description, I could find reason against it. All my points on the subject were how little sense it made for vicious mockery to hurt the (shadow) magic which binds the skeleton, its dead creator, or the god who has the portfolio associated with the spell.



Those are just explanations of how the characters think the power works in sundry game worlds. In 4E, the facts (verifiable by experiment) are that Vicious Mockery does what it says in the power description. Theories about why it might do this are left to the characters (and the players) to come up with.



Tovec said:


> My main issue with many of the assumptions of those on your side Balesir is that you are saying 4e works very different then (i) it actually does and (ii) 3e.



4E certainly works very differently to 3.X and earlier editions. How I am saying that 4E works differently to how it actually does you will need to explain to me; I'm baffled.



Tovec said:


> Beyond that, if you need me feel free to quote or summon, but I'm just going in circles with you people. I'm tired of replying to (nearly) everything that is addressed and in turn only getting quoted with individual lines. It is especially bothersome when I feel as though you make no real counterpoints to my comments and concerns. (Not you/just you Balesir.)



I sometimes feel the same way about those claiming to see uncontestable flaws with 4E. Overall, though, I do think that both "sides" are (very) gradually getting a clearer idea of what the other is saying.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The problem is that you aren't being consistent with the rules for a fireball in 4e.



But what I suggested would work fine at the table.



> Ah, so it's not a summoning...



So redefine it as one. Or simply accept it as an exception. What would be the negative consequence of that? 



> So we know from the ruless that you are wielding an implement to cast it (unless you're forsaking the implement bonus to hit).



Was there any point to bringing up the Implement rules, or were you just feeling quote-y? 



> So unless it has the "cold" keyword it is not a cold flame.



You missed, or avoided, the point I was making. I was listing some common attributes of magical fire in fiction. I wasn't talking about a 4e fireball. 



> Hmm, well that certainly rules out alot of things you're claiming it could be. And also seems to restrict what exactly this spell can be reskinned as.



Again, what would be harm be in using my reinterpretation? I'm really not interested in discussing rules as if they were case law. I err on the side of the creative and practical!


----------



## Balesir (Dec 28, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I don't believe he is.  Consistency is a facet of realism.  Realism when applied to RPG's means that things happen according to preset rules and remain consistent with those rules, unless acted upon by an unknown factor.  If there is an unknown factor in play that the DM or ruleset intends (even if the DM or ruleset hasn't yet defined that unknown factor), then it's okay.  If a DM or ruleset allows for inconsistent results, then it degrades the sense of realism.
> 
> Not being consistent is counter to a "Nod to Realism", and is instead a nod to the fantastic and mysterious.  Neither is bad.  Both are completely enjoyable, though not by everyone.  I occasionally enjoy the randomness and mysteriousness of a fantastic game myself, but by definition such an approach is not a "Nod to Realism".



Consistency is not dependant on realism at all; the real world is consistent, but a completely "unrealistic" world could be consistent. A universe with a phlogiston between the stars and faster than light travel could be perfectly consistent - but it wouldn't be realistic.

It seems to me that the universes of 4E are the most consistent of any edition of D&D to date. They are not, on the other hand, particularly "realistic", in the sense of operating with point-to-point similarity with the real world, compared to previous editions. Of course, the worlds of D&D have (quite deliberately) never been particularly realistic - but they have contained elements of point-to-point correspondance at arbitrary points.

Inevitably, 4E has many aspects that work in ways that mirror the real world. This is probably inevitable, given that it is written by people who live in the real world, and it is certainly wise, given that it is designed to be sold to and used by people who live in the real world. What 4E does not do, however, is retain those point-to-point correspondances where they break up internal system consistency in unpredictable ways (based on the beliefs and perceptions of those playing about the real world).


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 28, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Consistency is not dependant on realism at all; the real world is consistent, but a completely "unrealistic" world could be consistent. A universe with a phlogiston between the stars and faster than light travel could be perfectly consistent - but it wouldn't be realistic.
> 
> It seems to me that the universes of 4E are the most consistent of any edition of D&D to date. They are not, on the other hand, particularly "realistic", in the sense of operating with point-to-point similarity with the real world, compared to previous editions. Of course, the worlds of D&D have (quite deliberately) never been particularly realistic - but they have contained elements of point-to-point correspondance at arbitrary points.
> 
> Inevitably, 4E has many aspects that work in ways that mirror the real world. This is probably inevitable, given that it is written by people who live in the real world, and it is certainly wise, given that it is designed to be sold to and used by people who live in the real world. What 4E does not do, however, is retain those point-to-point correspondances where they break up internal system consistency in unpredictable ways (based on the beliefs and perceptions of those playing about the real world).




I didn't say that it had to be consistent with the real world.  That's a conversation you're having with someone else.  I think you need to read over again what I actually said...

And I do find a setting with a Phlogiston to be realistic.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 28, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I didn't say that it had to be consistent with the real world.  That's a conversation you're having with someone else.  I think you need to read over again what I actually said...
> 
> And I do find a setting with a Phlogiston to be realistic.



You were taking me to task for saying that [MENTION=21807]pauljathome[/MENTION] was confusing "consistency" with "realism". I was referring to comments in his post such as:


> I find it insanely inconsistent that the flames somehow differentiate between "creatures" and "objects"



How is this "inconsistent"? If it were inconsistently applied, if some powers could not discriminate between objects and creatures but others could - _that_ would be inconsistent. But every power (excepting special cases, perhaps, with appropriate explanation - your "unknown factor") discriminating between objects and creatures in a systematic way is surely a feature of the game universe, not any sort of "inconsistency" except that it be "inconsistent with the way the real world works", no?


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

Balesir said:


> How is this "inconsistent"?




Who decides what is an object and what a creature?
Is a golem damaged? A stone statue which looks like a golem? A zombie? A corpse? Can the spell harm someone the caster doesn't even know is there (and thus can not conciously decide to harm if you want to use that explanation)? Can a mimic (do they even exist in 4E?) be harmed by fireball when disguising itself as an object?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> Realism when applied to RPG's means that things happen according to preset rules and remain consistent with those rules, unless acted upon by an unknown factor.



That is one way to apply "realism" to an RPG. Another way is to ask "Is the fiction verisimilitudinous and/or genre appropriate?" This can be achived other than via mechanicall modelling of ingame causal processes. It can be achieved by the participants at the table making sure they don't break genre/verisimilitude in their narration.



Imaro said:


> The thing is, some/many/alot of people don't have a clear view of how the game world "physics" in 4e really work, as evidenced by numerous posts in this thread.



What are the gameworld physics of a HeroQuest Revised game? The action resolution mechanics don't tell you. It is up to the participants (especially the GM) to supply them, keeping in mind constraints of genre and credibility. 4e is, in my view, similar - this is the logic of "say yes" and page 42. Unlike HeroQuest, however, 4e has keywords as important anchors between mechanics and fiction.



LurkAway said:


> Despite rationalizations to the contrary, I am certain that WoTC will get more market share if they're more proactive about making updates to the game that at least tries to incorporate both schools of thought, rather than just defending one school of thought (the 'Dear Mike & Monte' thread is pertinent here). I have tried to conclude my posts with progressive suggestions as they come to me.



I'm sure that WotC will get more share if they change their game from it's current design approach to a more 3E-ish approach. For at a year or so it has been increasingly apparent that WotC was wrong in following Ron Edwards idea that there was a market for less-simulationist games that would rely more heavily on the participants to fill in the details of the fiction in the pursuit of other goals of play (thematic, or Balesir-style "light gamist).

But (in my view) this has nothing to do with realism. A fortune-in-the-middle game can be as realistic as you like, if the participants adhere to realism in interjecting their narration. And this is the point that (as I posted back on the first page of this thread) I believe that Monte Cook's column appears not to acknowledge.



talok55 said:


> I expect that a PC will not go from dying to being just fine because someone who calls himself a warlord with no supernatural ability to heal tells them to walk it off.



"Dying" is not an ingame state. It is a metagame state.



LurkAway said:


> I can well imagine and be immersed in the idea of the swordplay, and find it compelling, even if the words spoken at the table are only "I swing", etc.



But not in a duel of wits, even if the words spoken at the table are only "I sneer at her", "I rebut", etc?



Balesir said:


> I'm beginning to think this "is the fiction important" thing comes down to what one means by "important".
> 
> If "importance" is taken purely in the sense of "will the flavour/colour description change the mechanical outcome of an action", then the situation in 4E is that it will have no "importance". And, FWIW, I say "halleluja" to that.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the "importance" of the colour/flavour elements is taken to be allowing each player present to have a coherent picture of the fictional events - to have a model that makes sense *for them* of what has occurred in the fictional space - then I would submit that (a) the treatment of colour/flavour in 4E is capable of doing this and (b) it is _very_ important in that it allows a player to visualise the events that motivate and influence his or her character.



I would want to add to this: depending on what sort of game is being run, events in the fiction can be quite significant to the development of an ongoing situation, or the nature/theme/content of future situations.

A bard who uses Vicious Mockery to attack skeletons by ridiculing the creator of those skeletons, for example, might later be visited by the hostile ghost of that creator.



Tovec said:


> All my points on the subject were how little sense it made for vicious mockery to hurt the (shadow) magic which binds the skeleton, its dead creator, or the god who has the portfolio associated with the spell.



I didn't suggest you hurt the magic or the creator or the god. I suggested that by mocking those things you might hurt the skeleton or the ooze.



Imaro said:


> Here are the rules for Twisted Space...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What exactly did you have to use page 42 for?



The rules you quoted say nothing about whether or not Twist of Space can be used to rescue the victim of a magic trapping mirror. But they do indicate that the spell has the *teleport* keyword.

Resolving a non-standard use of a power and/or skill is a page 42 matter. As [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] put it, this is 4e's default action resolution system.



Imaro said:


> My problem is mainly the lack of consistency concerning the 4e approach.





Tovec said:


> Neither the player nor the DM should suddenly change their mind without redefining the actual rule involved.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And here is the issue with the 4e ruling exactly. Some DM's may allow one effect, other DM's may allow another. Neither ruling is entirely supported by the game outside of "let the DM decide" on page 42. The problem arises when the DM allows the effect to do something one time and then changes it another time.



I don't understand why it is a problem that different tables handle it diferent ways. And I don't understand why a GM (or a group) is likely to be inconsistent in adjudication; or, if this is a problem, how more rules detail will help.



Tovec said:


> Or it intends to point out that if you need an example of a fighter, Hercules is one. Not, as I said, that all fighters can become Hercules in terms of power.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The Moldvay Basic rulebook mentions only one example fighter - Hercules - and only one example magic-user - Merlin.

This is nothing to do with fallacies of generalisation. It is about illustrations. If the writer chooses to illustrate his/her classes by giving Hercules and Merlin as examples, I assume that s/he is inviting me to focus on more than just Hercules club or Merlin's staff, or the fact that both a pre-modern figures, or even just that Hercules uses brawn and Merlin magic.

Why does the writer use Hercules, and not (for example) Eric the Red as an example? For me, at least, the example of Hercules invokes a figure not just who uses brawn, but who uses brawn to achieve fantastic feats.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2011)

BryonD said:


> If played in the true spirit of 4E whether or not anything catches fire should NOT be the narrative control of the DM but should be the narrative control of whoever cast the spell.  (With DM authority to trump if, but only if, absolutely needed)





Mallus said:


> Why shouldn't the magician have control over _what_ burns and/or ignites inside the area of effect.





Mallus said:


> What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it?



Mallus, I agree with most of what you've said in your recent posts, especially about (i) the use of Hercules as an example, and (ii) the non-engineering approach to mechanics and fiction.

On fireball, though, I think the fact that the spell targets "creatures" is relevant - it suggests that the caster lacks discretion over who/what the spell affects. (In my game, when the wizard wanted to avoid setting fire to a library, he used an "enemies only" fire attack.)

On the other hand, there is [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s point that the game distinguishes between creatures and objects.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> Who decides what is an object and what a creature?



The rules do.







> Is a golem damaged? A stone statue which looks like a golem? A zobmie? A corpse?



 Unless it is immune or resisting the damage, yes; maybe; yes; and possibly.







> Can the spell harm someone the caster doesn't even know is there (and thus not decide to harm in if you want to go that route)?



Absolutely it does. Creatures in the burst are just that - creatures in the burst, whether the caster can see them or not.







> Can a mimic (do they even exist in 4E?) be harmed by fireball when disguising itself as an object?



 Absolutely. And yes they still exist. Nice little snide jab though.


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> yes; maybe; yes; and possibly.




No "maybe". _Yes _or _No_?
Why is a golem damaged but a inanimate stone statue (unfinished golem?) not? And if it is, why are other objects in the blast area not damaged?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> No "maybe". _Yes _or _No_?



Maybe. Binary thinking = fail.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> Who decides what is an object and what a creature?



The rules define it; anything with a creature stat block is a "creature" - anything without isn't.



Derren said:


> Is a golem damaged?



Yep - it has a monster statblock.



Derren said:


> A stone statue which looks like a golem?



Nope, unless it is some form of construct that has a monster statblock.



Derren said:


> A zombie?



Yep - statblock.



Derren said:


> A corpse?



Nope.



Derren said:


> Can the spell harm someone the caster doesn't even know is there (and thus can not conciously decide to harm if you want to use that explanation)?



For fireball, there is no such interpretation as the caster being able to decide not to harm creatures in the burst - only objects. The caster not knowing the creature is there has no effect at all; all creatures in the burst are affected. For objects that are invisible, if the burst is defined to affect objects, it is affected, if it is defined to not affect objects, it isn't.



Derren said:


> Can a mimic (do they even exist in 4E?) be harmed by fireball when disguising itself as an object?



There is such a thing, and yes, they can be affected even if in "object" form. They have a monster statblock. If they are not bloodied by the attack, however, it will not be evident that they have been affected.


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Maybe. Binary thinking = fail.




You are just avoiding the actual issue. 4E is not consistent in such borderline cases.



Balesir said:


> The rules define it; anything with a creature stat block is a "creature" - anything without isn't.




And now explain why this is the case without resorting to either gameist terms or "Its magic".


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 29, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Maybe. Binary thinking = fail.



This post = irony.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> And now explain why this is the case without resorting to either gameist terms or "Its magic".



Because that is the way the universe of D&D works. Theories about _why_ it works that way are the province of sages and players with nothing better to do.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 29, 2011)

Does a Green Slime have a creature stat block?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> You are just avoiding the actual issue. 4E is not consistent in such borderline cases.



I'm not avoiding anything. This is the outcome I want out of the game. 

Clealy, you mileage varies, and that's fine, but you're spending an awful lot of effort trying to convince others that they're Doing It Wrong when it's clearly just a case of different preferences. The only one you really need to concern yourself with trying to convince is WotC, and that is only if you care to buy whatever they produce next. If you don't, I'm baffled as to why you're even arguing so hard about something that shouldn't matter in the slightest to you.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 29, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Does a Green Slime have a creature stat block?



Yes.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> That is one way to apply "realism" to an RPG. Another way is to ask "Is the fiction verisimilitudinous and/or genre appropriate?" This can be achived other than via mechanicall modelling of ingame causal processes. It can be achieved by the participants at the table making sure they don't break genre/verisimilitude in their narration.




Very true.  Good point.


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I'm not avoiding anything. This is the outcome I want out of the game.
> 
> Clealy, you mileage varies, and that's fine, but you're spending an awful lot of effort trying to convince others that they're Doing It Wrong when it's clearly just a case of different preferences. The only one you really need to concern yourself with trying to convince is WotC, and that is only if you care to buy whatever they produce next. If you don't, I'm baffled as to why you're even arguing so hard about something that shouldn't matter in the slightest to you.




When this what you think why do you involve yourself at all in this discussion?


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 29, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Because that is the way the universe of D&D works. Theories about _why_ it works that way are the province of sages and players with nothing better to do.



Understanding _why_ it works is part of the nod to realism. With all due respect, if you don't care how/why it works, if you don't care about in-game "realism", then the OP article is irrelevant to you. Your answer to the polls is 'no' and 'not important'. So why are you bothering others and arguing against with rationilizations that are ultimately meaningless to you?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> When this what you think why do you involve yourself at all in this discussion?



I participate (and also tell WotC what I think) because I have a vested interest in the design philosophies used in 4e continuing forward in future releases. I would really like to see them make allowances for as many playstyles and genres and philosophical views as possible, going forward, but if that isn't in the cards, I'd sooner see them keep going with what they're doing than re-do something they've already done.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 29, 2011)

Balesir said:


> You were taking me to task for saying that @pauljathome was confusing "consistency" with "realism". I was referring to comments in his post...
> 
> How is this "inconsistent"? If it were inconsistently applied, if some powers could not discriminate between objects and creatures but others could - _that_ would be inconsistent. But every power (excepting special cases, perhaps, with appropriate explanation - your "unknown factor") discriminating between objects and creatures in a systematic way is surely a feature of the game universe, not any sort of "inconsistency" except that it be "inconsistent with the way the real world works", no?




Well, first: I think "taking you to task..." is bit more aggressive of a description than what I was doing.  I apologize if it came across that way.



Second, I believe the point being made at the time (by pauljathome) was that in comparison to previous iterations of D&D, such a fireball would be inconsistent (unless I read the conversation wrong).  Quite honestly, I've never seen any type of fireball, be it video game, movie, or written fiction that works in such a way.  Doesn't mean it can't be done that way in a new edition, but it seems inconsistent with what we know of fireballs (as a trope), inconsistent with fireballs as we know them in real life (though I wasn't speaking about real life in my post, nor do I think pauljathome was at the time either, though I could have misinterpreted), and inconsistent with fireballs as we know them in the D&D game and D&D fiction.  And making a fireball that does this in a new edition, creates an inherent inconsistency if not explained from the get go.  If a fireball spell took on this iteration in a new edition, simply in order to be easier or simpler (etc.), then you've created a dichotomy where a "Nod to Realism" is no longer possible, or at the least extremely difficult.  On top of that, the unintended consequences would defeat the purpose of it being easier in the first place, and creating a situation more complicated than the problem attempting to be addressed.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 29, 2011)

Balesir said:


> You seem to be conflating the concept of "realistic" with the concept of "consistent".
> 
> On the first, since damage to living bodies requires temperatures of only 100 degrees C or so (boiling the water in our bodies does horrible things to us) whereas setting light to paper requires temperatures well over 400 degrees C if the ignition source is short lived, I don't think a fireball that damages living things but does not ignite papaer is in the least "unrealistic". Heat transfer is a subject I studied at degree level, and the flame heat required to get paper surfaces up over 400 degrees in a second or two would be well above that of many "fireballs" (especially gas-based ones).
> .




Except the rules that treat a "creature" as different from an "object" treat amimated objects, incorporeal undead, creatures of solid bone as "creatures" and not objects.

So much for consistency.

And to reiterate a point I've made many times before, please do NOT interpret comments about 4th Ed as implying that I believe earlier editions were perfect.

ALL RPGs are at least somewhat unrealistic, somewhat inconsistent, do some things for purely gamist reasons, etc.

But, IMO, 4th edition is far less consistent and far less realistic than is 3rd edition. Its also far more balanced from a gamist perspective.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 29, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> Of course though, this also highlights that "Fluff" does matter.  It's not a simple thing to just "change the Fluff" to fit what you want it to be, while keeping the "crunch".  Realism means that "Fluff" and "Crunch" are consistent with eachother, and work consistently throughout the game.




That is an extremely good summary of my position.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 29, 2011)

Balesir said:


> But every power (excepting special cases, perhaps, with appropriate explanation - your "unknown factor") discriminating between objects and creatures in a systematic way is surely a feature of the game universe, not any sort of "inconsistency" except that it be "inconsistent with the way the real world works", no?




I'll admit that I used inconsistent to mean something like
"Inconsistent with the real world, any non game related fiction that I'm aware of, logic, and Occams Razor".

But you're wrong about 4th Edition being consistent, at least for all practical purposes. If neither the player NOR character can determine ahead of time whether or not a fireball will affect a desk (it will if it is animated and has a stat block, it doesn't if it isn't and doesn't) then the world is, for all practical purposes, inconsistent.

And the "Bag of rats" trick (Yes, this is changing the subject from fireball) SHOULD work. The fact is that it was ruled illegal precisely because it broke the game. But, if the universe was consistent then of course it would work.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> A bard who uses Vicious Mockery to attack skeletons by ridiculing the creator of those skeletons, for example, might later be visited by the hostile ghost of that creator.



But this isn't something supported by the rules, nor should it be. It is something tacked on. Also, in every example the creator was long dead. But the simple destruction of the skeleton and ransacking of the person's effects are as likely to bring about the same result. Why must a spell (or effect) without a power or description even approaching it be responsible for this result?



pemerton said:


> I didn't suggest you hurt the magic or the creator or the god. I suggested that by mocking those things you might hurt the skeleton or the ooze.



What you are saying now is not what was said when I originally quoted and rebuffed that a bard could mock the dead creator, vecna or shadow magic. If this is all you are trying to say then fine, that is one interpretation of how the spell could work.

The real issue is that faulty description HAD TO be made up in order to explain the lacking information brought up by the spell.



pemerton said:


> I don't understand why it is a problem that different tables handle it diferent ways. And I don't understand why a GM (or a group) is likely to be inconsistent in adjudication; or, if this is a problem, how more rules detail will help.



They are likely to be inconsistent because the game doesn't give them an expectation of what is supposed to happen. I think we can all agree that DMs throughout DnD have been able to make rulings as they see fit. It just feels like in 3e we went from having a solid and well explained design for fire into 4e where it is a "DM's judgement call" every single time.

I think it is entirely possible for DMs both young and old to decide that the fireball should burn the paper at the feet of the enemy this time but then realizes that it always should have but the rules never said so.
Inversely it is entirely possible that the DM had always decided that fire does spring forth from a fireball but this time it didn't because this time the paper was important.
Either way it leaves an inconsistent and frankly unrealistic flavour in my mouth  that it should be solely up to DM's whim how fire works. Instead, I would prefer there to be a rule and that if it is inadequate or lacking then it be changed so everyone knows what to expect going in.



pemerton said:


> The Moldvay Basic rulebook mentions only one example fighter - Hercules - and only one example magic-user - Merlin.



Wasn't it you that said you didn't have the information and that Mallus did? Now that I went looking and quoted what Mallus said, you are giving other information that it is Hercules and Merlin only? Either way, my information didn't change. I based my statements solely on the information supplied here and based on Mallus' original quote he gave more than just Hercules. Either way.



pemerton said:


> This is nothing to do with fallacies of generalisation. It is about illustrations. If the writer chooses to illustrate his/her classes by giving Hercules and Merlin as examples, I assume that s/he is inviting me to focus on more than just Hercules club or Merlin's staff, or the fact that both a pre-modern figures, or even just that Hercules uses brawn and Merlin magic.



I said you were wrong, based on the quote I provided. It wasn't due to "fallacies of generalization" ?
Anyway, I DO agree that they gave Hercules as the example of brawn vs Merlin's magic. That isn't what was implied (if not outright said) earlier.



pemerton said:


> Why does the writer use Hercules, and not (for example) Eric the Red as an example? For me, at least, the example of Hercules invokes a figure not just who uses brawn, but who uses brawn to achieve fantastic feats.



All I can think is that many people can picture Hercules, given the number of movies, books and mythological tales he has been in, as opposed to Eric the Red - whom I barely know even as a nerd of history.
I do agree that using Hercules can set up an expectation that fighters _may be_ capable of achieving fantastic feats (of strength). I do not agree that all fighters can be Hercules however but that they can expect to be mighty men.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2011)

Tovec said:


> But this isn't something supported by the rules, nor should it be. It is something tacked on.



You may regard it as tacked on. As a GM, I regard consequences for actions performed - including mocking gods or dead wizards - as one important way in which the fiction matters to the game, and the game therefore plays differently from a boardgame. (Consider it a variant of the "reactive dungeon" approach of using the fiction to supplement the purely mechanical reasons for deciding whether or not to rest.)



Tovec said:


> What you are saying now is not what was said when I originally quoted and rebuffed that a bard could mock the dead creator, vecna or shadow magic.



At post 228 I said that if you want to use Vicious Mockery to fight a skeleton or ooze or other emotionless being you don't mock it, you mock its sustaining principle - its creator, the magic or demon prince that underlies it, etc. I am still saying that. But the mockery in question doesn't harm the creator, the magic, the demon prince etc. It harms the ooze or skeleton, perhaps by reducing its sense of self, or its will to act (in the form of psychic damage).



Tovec said:


> If this is all you are trying to say then fine, that is one interpretation of how the spell could work.
> 
> The real issue is that faulty description HAD TO be made up in order to explain the lacking information brought up by the spell.



That may be an issue (=problem) for you. It is an opportunity for others, to build their own narration around the oucomes and parameters dictated by the mechanics.



Tovec said:


> They are likely to be inconsistent because the game doesn't give them an expectation of what is supposed to happen.



I think it does, though. Look at the art. Look at the example fiction in the *Power books. Read Tolkein. Read Doctor Strange. I think most players of D&D have a pretty good expectation of what will happen in fansastic fictional situations. The game mechanics assume that those expectations will be drawn upon to shape the fiction around the possibilities that the mechanics permit.



Tovec said:


> Either way it leaves an inconsistent and frankly unrealistic flavour in my mouth  that it should be solely up to DM's whim how fire works.



Whereas I don't see why it matters that different tables - eg mine compared to Mallus's - might do this differently. At my table, a burst that targets all creatures also hits objects. I'm sure if Mallus were to join my group any initial confusion would be quickly allayed or negotiated away. And likewise if it were vice versa.



Tovec said:


> Wasn't it you that said you didn't have the information and that Mallus did?



I don't have the 2nd ed PHB. I do have Moldvay Basic, which I referred to. (I've reshelved it, but I think the page was B10. I'll also take this opportunity to mention that, according to the Moldvay rules, Fireball targets creatures in the burst, yet in playing Basic D&D over 25 years ago we were able to come up with the idea of using fireball to set fire to wooden structures.)



Tovec said:


> Now that I went looking and quoted what Mallus said, you are giving other information that it is Hercules and Merlin only?



Again, this is in Moldvay Basic. From what Mallus says, 2nd ed PHB has a longer list that includes at least Hercules.



Tovec said:


> I do agree that using Hercules can set up an expectation that fighters _may be_ capable of achieving fantastic feats (of strength). I do not agree that all fighters can be Hercules however but that they can expect to be mighty men.



Which suggests to me that the capabilities of actually strong humans shouldn't be used as the benchmark for "realism"/verisimilitude/genre-aptness.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> You may regard it as tacked on. As a GM, I regard consequences for actions performed - including mocking gods or dead wizards - as one important way in which the fiction matters to the game, and the game therefore plays differently from a boardgame. (Consider it a variant of the "reactive dungeon" approach of using the fiction to supplement the purely mechanical reasons for deciding whether or not to rest.)
> 
> At post 228 I said that if you want to use Vicious Mockery to fight a skeleton or ooze or other emotionless being you don't mock it, you mock its sustaining principle - its creator, the magic or demon prince that underlies it, etc. I am still saying that. But the mockery in question doesn't harm the creator, the magic, the demon prince etc. It harms the ooze or skeleton, perhaps by reducing its sense of self, or its will to act (in the form of psychic damage).
> 
> ...




It is really starting to bother me when you only quote one line of a paragraph from everything I say.

But I'll move on. "Moldvay Basic", Oh I see, I don't know what that is nor do I care to learn though. The point I made still stands, beyond the nitpick of what you took from it. The point is that Hercules is a fighter, not that all fighters are Hercules. I can agree this sets up a bit of an unrealistic standard but then I would point out that the powers presented in that 2e book (possibly the Moldvay Basic too) don't make the player into Hercules. That was my entire point, one which you have either missed or chosen to overlook in favour of reiterating the "verisimilitude" and "realism" arguments. Have fun.

Also, just to nitpick a bit myself..



pemerton said:


> I didn't suggest you hurt the magic or the creator or the god. I suggested that by mocking those things you might hurt the skeleton or the ooze.





pemerton said:


> You don't mock the skeleton. You mock it's creator. Or Vecna (the god of undeath). Or the shadow magic that animates it and keeps it intact.
> 
> So would I. You don't kill an ooze by mocking _it_. You kill an ooze by mocking Juiblex.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2011)

"Killing an ooze by mocking Juiblex" doesn't imply that you're harming Juiblex. It implies that you're harming the ooze.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 29, 2011)

Frankly, I'm going to suggest that the bards in my campaigns make use of their extensive bardic knowledge to insult their enemies to death in obscure languages.

It's far more impressive when the bard mutters a string of complex, incomprehensible gibberish, and one of his enemies drops dead as a result. 

It's almost like magic!

EDIT: As an experiment, I ran LurkAway's bardic insult duel through the Cheferizer.

Berd A: Yuoo soock! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd B: Nu, yuoo soock! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd A: Ideeut! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd B: Murun! (inffleects psycheec demege-a)
Berd A: Yuoor muzeer ves a hemster und yuoor fezeer smelt ooff ilderberreees!!! (keells ooppunent)
Berd B: Ooh, bun mut! I veesh I hed egreed tu a dooel ooff svurds, boot eles, yuoo hefe-a sleeen me-a veet vurds. Guud bye-a, crooel vurld, guud bye-a!​
See, so much better!


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 29, 2011)

What I've learned in the past 40 pages:

I'm playing chess, and my opponent complains that knights don't move in L-shapes, that it's totally unrealistic. Do I say:
1) "This is an abstract game, I don't imagine a knight moving in L-shapes, because it's not a real or imaginary knight, it's a game piece"
2) "Obviously, the knight trots the horse forward a few paces and then pulls hard on the reins to turn the horse right or left"

I hope that if we can agree on anything, it's that #1 is essentially the correct answer for chess. Therefore, it is not well-intentioned to play devil's advocate, play with the other guy's mind, or waste time on trivial rationalizations. Nods to realism are irrelevant to chess.

Of course, D&D isn't like chess. The importance of the metagame abstractions or the "realness" of the fiction is what you make of it.

Still, if #1 is more in line with one's playstyle, then I don't want to argue with someone who has already staked their position on #1. I think it is the wrong angle to come from, and wastes each other's time and energy.

That's the easy way that I can agree to disagree with someone. But let's say that two boys are playing chess and both are imagining a duel. Boy A imagines a story that fit the rules -- L-obsessed knights and walking castles and queens who are faster and mobile than fat slow kings. Boy B sees that as kooky and bending over backwards, and wants rules (by default or by flexibility) that are consistent with more "realistic" stories.

To me, with bards insulting skeletons to death, I really thought I had finally found the 'Aha!' riposte to make my case once and for all. Nevertheless, others clearly enjoy the challenge of coloring inside the lines provided.

So what I've learned is that arguing about what is "realistic" in the fiction is to always be talking past each other. Decide first if D&D rules should nod to realism or D&D fiction must nod to the rules or a compromise of sorts. The rest will follow more naturally. (And I won't need any more analogies).


----------



## rounser (Dec 29, 2011)

> I participate (and also tell WotC what I think) because I have a vested interest in the design philosophies used in 4e continuing forward in future releases. I would really like to see them make allowances for as many playstyles and genres and philosophical views as possible, going forward, but if that isn't in the cards, I'd sooner see them keep going with what they're doing than re-do something they've already done.



The idea of "progression", "evolution", and "moving forward" with regard to art in general, and the artform of games design in particular, is a nonsense borrowed from science theory.

Art is more like the fashion industry, which recognizes that it's just cycles, not progression, and little that is objectively better.  Right now "gamist game design theory" is in fashion.  It's in no way objectively an advance on other theories, and is arguably less popular than former cycles in terms of RPGs (and we know where it leads - the pseudo-RPG abstractions of games like Talisman and M:tG, neither of which is a desirable destination for D&D and already exist) so best to nip this line of thought as 4E being somehow an objective "move forward", very much in the bud.  IMO it's many great leaps backward, and just a symptom of thinking of a specific time.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 29, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> So what I've learned is that arguing about what is "realistic" in the fiction is to always be talking past each other.



It comes down to the basic premise/purpose of fantasy role-playing games. Fundamentally, it has less to do with realism, and more to do with what the players want or wish to be real.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 29, 2011)

FireLance said:


> It comes down to the basic premise/purpose of fantasy role-playing games. Fundamentally, it has less to do with realism, and more to do with what the players want or wish to be real.



Ya, that's why "realism" is in quotes, right? (see page 1)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 29, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Seeing as I'm on a posting-tear in this thread... I thought I dredge up a few things I missed while on a holiday break from ENWorld...
> 
> Did anyone other than people trying to misconstrue my point say that?



I'm not purposefully misconstruing your point. That's the leap being put forth. See below.



Mallus said:


> Equally obviously, it means the fictional space defined by [FIGHTERS] includes mythic figures. Which, to me, says something.



This is that exact jump. Hercules is a Fighter. Not all Fighters are Hercules. You said:


			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> A man who could divert two rivers by himself in the span of a single day is a fighter.
> 
> Make of that what you will .



I said, "not all Fighters are Hercules" meaning "nowhere is it implied that Fighters can divert two rivers in a single day." And that's true. That form of mythic feat is by no means implied by the comparison of a Fighter to Hercules within the context of a Fighter's actual abilities.

You definitely made that leap, in my opinion. As always, play what you like


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 29, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Yes.





Can I insult it to death?


----------



## Mallus (Dec 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not purposefully misconstruing your point.



OK. Then you're misunderstanding something. 

I brought AD&D 2e rules text offering several examples of fighters, ranging from Hercules to Alexander the Great and Eric the Red. 

At no point did I suggest all fighter were Hercules. Neither I suggest they all should be Eric the Red. That syllogism is on you, pal .

Why I did suggest was that the text I paraphrased indicated D&D supported a wide variety of campaign tones, which includes "mythic" (and to bring this around to the interminable 4e discussions, in a more mythic campaign, things like martial healing become far less problematic). 



> This is that exact jump. Hercules is a Fighter. Not all Fighters are Hercules.



Not to belabor --pun intended!-- the point, but here goes nothing.

A core rule book suggests modeling a fighter PC on mythic fighters. How do you interpret that? 

If the game didn't support a mythic mode of play, why use those examples? 

I think the least logical things to conclude, in the face of those comparisons, is i) D&D doesn't support mythic play and ii) the fighter class is strictly mundane. 



> I said, "not all Fighters are Hercules" meaning "nowhere is it implied that Fighters can divert two rivers in a single day."



Note that I was responding to a poster claiming Hercules *was* just a mundane, high level fighter, empowered by no more than bad-assery, a Hellenic Mr. T. 

I brought up the Augean Stables to disprove that.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 29, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Assuming that by "heat" you mean energy, how much water are we talking, and how much paper? If by "heal level" you mean "temperature", then what form is the heat source in? A gas flame? A burning liquid? A detonation front in a well mixed gas-air cocktail?



Ignoring Darren's question for a moment. Fireball, as per the spell, has the "fire" keyword - that's what's important right 4e people? Doesn't the fire keyword mean it is "fire" and not "heat"? Just asking.



Balesir said:


> Why is a world where magic works likely to work in the same way as the real world in any respect? The reason magic does not work as it does in D&D in the real world is because the laws of real world physics preclude it. If they did not, there would most certainly be people doing it! The laws of physics in a world where such magic exists cannot possibly be the same as those of the real world. It is wise for world designers to make some of their outcomes broadly recognisable to inhabitants of this universe - but they simply cannot be identical.



Why is a world where magic works likely to be so different from the real world in any respect? The reason magic does work as it does in D&D is because the laws of the DnD world allow it. In Tolkien, as with other games, variations, alternate histories, etc. It is set ON EARTH and assumed to have the same basic principles of the real world, except magic works. As DnD is supposely based on these settings, or at least drawing inspiration from them, why is it such a leap to assume magic can work with more plausible and realistic** game mechanics?



Balesir said:


> OK; to my mind, 4E does this well. It explains the effects in system terms, which seem a little strange, but I take these terms to be the terms of "4E universe physics" - and they are certainly no more strange than the terms of Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics...



Okay, I said that I wanted a game that explains the mechanics, including minor bits that aren't as likely to come up very often. You bring up "4E universe physics" as though with that term I'm supposed to suddenly realize that I shouldn't want those things? I guess my point, which you missed so I'll say again, was that I want the game to resemble the world. Or more accurately I want a game where physics aren't "4e universe" but instead "our universe"-adjacent  including magic.



Balesir said:


> Vicious Mockery  Bard Attack 1
> 
> _You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with bardic magic to send the creature into a blind rage._
> 
> ...



Ah, thank you. Yes I do prefer the other version. Gave me more to work with and more of a justification on why it works that way. Am I satisfied with the explainable of how the other version can harm skeletons? No, but it gives me more to think about on the subject.



Balesir said:


> Those are just explanations of how the characters think the power works in sundry game worlds. In 4E, the facts (verifiable by experiment) are that Vicious Mockery does what it says in the power description. Theories about why it might do this are left to the characters (and the players) to come up with.



Right, okay, but lets assume that the DM bought the system expecting 4e to actually adjudicate information, not just to give them ability blocks to distribute like crackers. Next let's assume that player 1 thinks that the ability shouldn't hit skeletons, and player 2 disagrees. As with any version of DnD, they turn to the DM. The DM scratches their head and realize they don't have an logical explanation either way and turns to the book. The book doesn't know either. How perplexing, darned book should have had the answer. DM makes a call and one player is angry. Both players decide to play in other games. In other games the DM (a new one or different one) comes up with a completely different interpretation and the game continues. Now I'm not saying that the DMs are wrong in either case, nor am I saying that they shouldn't come up with answers, NOR am I saying they should be bound by the rules. I AM saying that the rules should be there to give clarification and answers so that the DM doesn't have to come up with things all on their own every single time. (By clarification I mean more info than "Say Yes".)




Balesir said:


> Tovec said:
> 
> 
> > My main issue with many of the assumptions of those on your side Balesir is that you are saying 4e works very different then (i) it actually does and (ii) 3e.
> ...



For i) I'm saying that most arguments about reskinning/recolouring/reflavouring seems to assume that the rules just outright allow it. Where as most of these interpretations aren't supported by the actual text given in the actual spell.
For ii) Saying things like "4e allows people to make stuff up" seems to give people the impression that 3e (and earlier) editions didn't allow people to make stuff up or have judgement calls.

I'm not saying 4e doesn't work differently, I'm saying that aspects of that 4e works differently "because X" are often a little wrong/short sighted.



pemerton said:


> On the other hand, there is [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s point that the game distinguishes between creatures and objects.



I guess my issue is WHY does the game distinguish? I get that the DnD world isn't our world. But YES I expect it to have similar rules. I never had to consider it an alien world in 3e but suddenly in 4e I am expected to throw all my expectations of how the world works out the window?



Nemesis Destiny said:


> Maybe. Binary thinking = fail.





Nemesis Destiny said:


> Nice little snide jab though.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 29, 2011)

Tovec said:


> I guess my issue is WHY does the game distinguish? I get that the DnD world isn't our world. But YES I expect it to have similar rules. I never had to consider it an alien world in 3e but suddenly in 4e I am expected to throw all my expectations of how the world works out the window?




The game distinguishes for the same reason that a rogue character in any version does not have "proficiency" with a greatsword, or certain prestige classes have some feat or skill rank prerequisites, or a phantom steed used to appear for 1 hour/level.

It is an arbitrary setup to provide a desired effect.  Rogues can't "backstab" with a greatsword, you can't enter a class, and a spell provides a specific effect.  This is the way the designers decided to give you an effect in the world.

The only reason you are thinking it's an alien world is because you are trying to use your standard for realism, and apply it to an unrealistic world.  And note that your standard can be different than the standard for everyone else.  The game in all editions, provided its own internal standard of "realism" that is not the real world.  

The game mechanics are there to have a consistent result/effect, not to describe how the effect is produced.  How you want to describe it, how the designers chose to describe it, and how everybody else might want to describe it is entirely irrelevant.  The effect is consistent for the players and DM at that table, and that is what is important about the game mechanics.

In our real world a plane "flies" because of complex physical "laws".  Every vehicle or creature that flies has in some way to conform to those physical laws.  In a game world the effect is to fly, how it happens is irrelevant in a comparison to our world.  A dragon flies even though in our physical world it seems like that would be impossible.  Is it because it's a magical creature, or because its musculature is such that it can do it physically?  The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter.  The only importance is that it flies because the fiction "requires" it.  At table one they might choose to describe that as magical flight, at another it might be musculature, and at another it might be because dragons are lighter than air.  I don't want the designers to tell me why or how a dragon flies, I want them to provide me a consistent mechanic which provides the "fly" effect.


----------



## talok55 (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> You are just avoiding the actual issue. 4E is not consistent in such borderline cases.
> 
> 
> 
> And now explain why this is the case without resorting to either gameist terms or "Its magic".




You can't.  Many things in 4E clearly exist for purely gamist reasons.  The only reason 4E fireballs only affect creatures is because the designers wanted it so.  There is no logical or credible reason.   I wish they had thought more about making things make at least some sense instead of existing simply to make x class a better y, or make x spell simpler because they don't want DM's and players to deal with flammable things catching fire.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 29, 2011)

rounser said:


> The idea of "progression", "evolution", and "moving forward" with regard to art in general, and the artform of games design in particular, is a nonsense borrowed from science theory.



First of all, everything I said about "going forward" refers explicitly to things that will happen in the future; it was not some kind of implication that 4e is somehow objectively "better" than what has come before it. It is a nonsense term borrowed from marketing, not from science.



> Art is more like the fashion industry, which recognizes that it's just cycles, not progression, and little that is objectively better.  Right now "gamist game design theory" is in fashion.  It's in no way objectively an advance on other theories, and is arguably less popular than former cycles in terms of RPGs (and we know where it leads - the pseudo-RPG abstractions of games like Talisman and M:tG, neither of which is a desirable destination for D&D and already exist) so best to nip this line of thought as 4E being somehow an objective "move forward", very much in the bud.  IMO it's many great leaps backward, and just a symptom of thinking of a specific time.



By that rationale, AD&D and 3.x already exist too, so there is no real reason to revisit either of them, and yet, that is what many folks want to see. Just as many do not, I'm sure.

Your comparison to the fashion industry is accurate in at least that way. Do we really need to revisit the 60s, 70, and 80s ad nauseam?


----------



## D'karr (Dec 29, 2011)

talok55 said:


> You can't.  Many things in 4E clearly exist for purely gamist reasons.  The only reason 4E fireballs only affect creatures is because the designers wanted it so.  There is no logical or credible reason.   I wish they had thought more about making things make at least some sense instead of existing simply to make x class a better y, or make x spell simpler because they don't want DM's and players to deal with flammable things catching fire.




Why did the designers of 3.x decide that a fireball that can melt metal will not set the characters on fire?  Isn't that just as unrealistic?

See, the designers make decisions for game rules based on the effects that they want to occur.  So a 3.x fireball may melt gold but not set the characters on fire.  A 4e fireball affects creatures in the area and, if the DM and players want, it can target objects.

There is nothing there dealing with realism, it is dealing with what the designers envisioned the effect would do, and what mechanics they provided to get that effect.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 29, 2011)

And on a tangentially, but still relevant, note... Rich Baker comments about the gamist (not narrativist) nature of 4e as compared to the simulationist nature of other editions of D&D on his blog here...

Atomic Dragon Battleship


Funny how the people that were the most closely involved in the game have come down, for the most part, squarely in the gamist camp when it comes to 4e... yet even as evidence continues to mount...are routinely dismissed, ignored or accused of not understanding their own work by those who want 4e to have been designed to be a narrativist game.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 29, 2011)

rounser said:


> The idea of "progression", "evolution", and "moving forward" with regard to art in general, and the artform of games design in particular, is a nonsense borrowed from science theory.
> 
> Art is more like the fashion industry, which recognizes that it's just cycles, not progression, and little that is objectively better.  Right now "gamist game design theory" is in fashion.  It's in no way objectively an advance on other theories, and is arguably less popular than former cycles in terms of RPGs (and we know where it leads - the pseudo-RPG abstractions of games like Talisman and M:tG, neither of which is a desirable destination for D&D and already exist) so best to nip this line of thought as 4E being somehow an objective "move forward", very much in the bud.  IMO it's many great leaps backward, and just a symptom of thinking of a specific time.




You're overstating the case.

While there are very clearly "fashions" in art and in rpgs and while there are very clearly tradeoffs that have to be made there are also very clearly "advances" as well. 

"advances" that a huge portion (well over 90% of the target market) would agree are improvements.

In art, it is hard to argue that the use of perspective didn't make art "better".

In RPGs, we've learned that having characters die in character creation really isn't the best approach.

I think that few would disagree with the proposition that in RPGs we've also learned that people want a much greater variety in character types than early D&D allowed.

Now, there are all sorts of things in both art and RPGs where opinion is nowhere near as unanimous. But that fact doesn't hide the fact that improvements in technique DO occur and DO matter.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 29, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Why did the designers of 3.x decide that a fireball that can melt metal will not set the characters on fire? Isn't that just as unrealistic?




I'm confused, how is this unrealistic?  the burst of fire is hot enough and brief enough to melt metal and burn flesh without setting it on fire.  Even with a save a character (barring a special ability, spell, etc. that negates it) takes damage from a fireball.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 29, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm confused, how is this unrealistic?  the burst of fire is hot enough and brief enough to melt metal and burn flesh without setting it on fire.  Even with a save a character (barring a special ability, spell, etc. that negates it) takes damage from a fireball.



Well, apparently steel melts at ~1370 degrees C (2500°F) so realisticallly (without the quotes, intentionally), anything that melts steel will incinerate flesh. I don't think a fireball was actively intended by the designers to melt metal armor (if it does, it's the unintentional by-product of non-hardcore or "pretend" simulation). Now dragon fire does apparently burn hotter than regular fire (well, depending on the author's take), in which case the only "realistic" way to avoid turning to slag and cinder is to dodge or take cover from dragon fire. How deep down the rabbit hole of "realism" is a problem with the simulationist approach. What this has to do with 4E fireballs, I'm not entirely sure. If 5E does nod to realism, I think Monte is hinting at rules that empower the group to deal with these sorts of questions or ignore them as desired.


----------



## Tovec (Dec 29, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> By that rationale, AD&D and 3.x already exist too, so there is no real reason to revisit either of them, and yet, that is what many folks want to see. Just as many do not, I'm sure.
> 
> Your comparison to the fashion industry is accurate in at least that way. Do we really need to revisit the 60s, 70, and 80s ad nauseam?




I know I'm not looking for another 3e or 3.5 remake from WOTC. I'm looking for  5e to a game which isn't 4e, but isn't 3e either. *I want it to be the next step*, hopefully its one that steps toward something more "realistic" and "simulationist" and less "gamist".

Ill conjure others to see if they feel as I do or if they want a "revisit of 3.x".

[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION], [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=21807]pauljathome[/MENTION], [MENTION=6685059]LurkAway[/MENTION], [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION], [MENTION=22701]Darren[/MENTION]
What do you guys think?


----------



## D'karr (Dec 29, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm confused, how is this unrealistic?  the burst of fire is hot enough and brief enough to melt metal and burn flesh without setting it on fire.  Even with a save a character (barring a special ability, spell, etc. that negates it) takes damage from a fireball.




Interesting, so to you it's not unrealistic.  Gold that has a melting point of 1947.52 °F will melt when a fireball ignites in a room for less than a second, but a creature's hair which starts to burn at about 451 °F will not even be affected when it fails its save.  And a creature can't catch on fire when it fails a save.

Yeah, they take damage.  There is no dispute there.  In 3.x creatures inside the burst of a fireball take damage.  It also melts gold.  But it doesn't and cannot set the creature on fire, because????  That would be unrealistic?

See, when you start using "realism" as the measure of what happens you end up with these weird situations.  The right answer to the above "WHY" is that the designers decided that damage was well enough for design work, and didn't add anything else in.  Realism had absolutely nothing to do with their decision.  The bounds of the effect that they wanted to provide was the only consideration in their design.  They're not trying to simulate anything realistic.  They are giving you a particular self-contained effect.  That is the only "why" for why certain things, like gold, melt but the creature does not catch on fire.

So when questions of "why" come up about 4e, I refer to the same situation.  The intent of the designers is not to inject realism, it is to design rules that provide the specific desired effect.  In the case of fireball, an area of effect spell that does fire damage to creatures and, if desired by the DM and players, objects.  Realism, verisimilitude, plausibility, whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with it, and never has in any edition of the game.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 29, 2011)

Tovec said:


> I know I'm not looking for another 3e or 3.5 remake from WOTC. I'm looking for 5e to a game which isn't 4e, but isn't 3e either. *I want it to be the next step*, hopefully its one that steps toward something more "realistic" and "simulationist" and less "gamist".
> 
> Ill conjure others to see if they feel as I do or if they want a "revisit of 3.x".
> 
> ...




I honestly want something less gamist than 4e (whether that's a truely narativist game or a simulationist bent game doesn't really matter to me that much at this point). 

Again, I think most of the dislike I have for 4e centers around the fact that, IMO, it's blatantly gamist and in the course of playing and running the game this causes all kinds of things to jump out at me and my players as being designed purely for the game part of 4e. Now whether you want to call this phenomenon immersion breakage, un-realism, or whatever catchy phrase is the new way of refering to it, it happens in 4e for me much more than in previous editions that I have played and I don't particularly care for it. 

Furthermore, I honestly think, from recent posts, articles, blogs, etc. that even many of 4e's designers and developers are aware of it or at least understand what it is many are turned off by in 4e's design... contrary to what most fans of 4e claim.


----------



## rounser (Dec 29, 2011)

> In art, it is hard to argue that the use of perspective didn't make art "better".



When Arneson had players take individual heroes off of the battlefield and control them in a dungeon, firsthand, that was a paradigm shifter like perspective.  4E's gamist high level abstractions and dragonborn-and-eladrin WoW-ish implied setting, let alone stuff like exception based design, skill challenges and healing surges are IMO nothing nearly so important or innovative, or useful in a D&D RPG save for a subsection of it's audience - just a spin in the game design fashion spin cycle that abandons or compromises other arguably important things like suspension of disbelief, genre fidelity and the ability to use the game for generic fantasy worldbuilding.  Or run a campaign of any significant scope for that matter, when combat takes so long compared to say, BECM.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 29, 2011)

Tovec said:


> Ill conjure others to see if they feel as I do or if they want a "revisit of 3.x".
> 
> @Johnny3D3D ,  @Imaro ,  @pauljathome ,  @LurkAway ,  @El Mahdi ,  @Darren
> What do you guys think?



Conjuration successful! I agreed 5E will not be 3.XE revisited (at least for business reasons). Realistically, I could write more but your conjuration power didn't summon an autonomous entity


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

Tovec said:


> [MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION], [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=21807]pauljathome[/MENTION], [MENTION=6685059]LurkAway[/MENTION], [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION], [MENTION=22701]Darren[/MENTION]
> What do you guys think?




I think that we can talk all day long but non of it will matter to WotC.
That is mostly because WotC has completely different priorities for the next edition than we do as they have to earn money with it.

It certainly won't be something like 3E. After having a rather strong competition with pathfinder, WotC will try to keep the fans they have with 4E more than they try to win some pathfinder players back.

PS: D*e*rren


----------



## Tovec (Dec 29, 2011)

Derren said:


> I think that we can talk all day long but non of it will matter to WotC.
> That is mostly because WotC has completely different priorities for the next edition than we do as they have to earn money with it.
> 
> It certainly won't be something like 3E. After having a rather strong competition with pathfinder, WotC will try to keep the fans they have with 4E more than they try to win some pathfinder players back.
> ...




Sorry, D_e_rren.

The reason I summoned was because Nemesis Destiny seemed intent that we wanted 3.x back and that I for one didn't.
I don't want to go backward, but going forward it would be nice to have something different from 4e's "gamist" philosophy.


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

Tovec said:


> ard it would be nice to have something different from 4e's "gamist" philosophy.




Not having a "gamist" edition would be nice (in my eyes).
But I am not the target group of WotC (any more) so in the end what I want doesn't matter.
Personally I think it will stay gamist.

Reasoning:
- I see the D&D boardgames as testing ground for 5E
- WotC can't afford another split which would happen if they changed the core framework again (its easier to loose players than to regain players. And everyone who is dissatisfied with gamist D&D now plays something else already)
- A gamist framework allows them to sell lots of supplements
- A strategy game is "less geeky" and its easier to attract players with it.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 30, 2011)

Tovec said:


> I know I'm not looking for another 3e or 3.5 remake from WOTC. I'm looking for 5e to a game which isn't 4e, but isn't 3e either. *I want it to be the next step*, hopefully its one that steps toward something more "realistic" and "simulationist" and less "gamist".
> 
> Ill conjure others to see if they feel as I do or if they want a "revisit of 3.x".




Yeah, I want 5E to be a different edition also.  Not 4E, not 3E, etc.  I want them to take the lessons learned from all editions and make a better game.  I want to see them pull off the "complexity dial".  I want to see them make a game that has a simple introductory version, plus the full version that has built in instructions on variability for simulationist, narrativist, and gamist.

Then I want to see it fully incorporated into DDI, and include support for all past editions (of which 4E will be one by then).  I want WotC to reunite the fanbase with DDI, and not fracture it even more with a 5E.

A tall order, I know.  But I think anything less would just be a waste of time, and contribute even more to the fracturing of the market and continue a trend of diminishing returns.

If that's not possible, then put this R&D into practical application as options incorporated into DDI, with older editions also incorporated.  It could be that an actual 5E isn't necessary...


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 30, 2011)

Mallus said:


> OK. Then you're misunderstanding something.



That's always a possibility.



Mallus said:


> I brought AD&D 2e rules text offering several examples of fighters, ranging from Hercules to Alexander the Great and Eric the Red.
> 
> At no point did I suggest all fighter were Hercules. Neither I suggest they all should be Eric the Red. That syllogism is on you, pal .
> 
> Why I did suggest was that the text I paraphrased indicated D&D supported a wide variety of campaign tones, which includes "mythic" (and to bring this around to the interminable 4e discussions, in a more mythic campaign, things like martial healing become far less problematic).



When I say, "all Fighters are not Hercules", I'm saying that all Fighters are not going to be able to perform the feats Hercules can due to his status as a demigod. You seemed to suggest that something along those lines is implied.



Mallus said:


> Not to belabor --pun intended!-- the point, but here goes nothing.
> 
> A core rule book suggests modeling a fighter PC on mythic fighters. How do you interpret that?
> 
> ...



I think that if you read the Fighter class, you can take the examples in context. Hercules is a Fighter because he uses weapons to hurt things. The context of the class coupled with the example means that there's no reason to make a logical leap to "D&D supports mythic play in the style of Hercules." You can easily see that it isn't the case (good luck diverting two rivers in a day).

However, it makes a lot of sense to list an extremely famous fantasy figure as an example of something in play when you can take the abilities of the Fighter in context to see exactly why that example was given. That is, he's listed as an example because he's famous. You can see how Hercules is a Fighter, because he hits things with weapons. You can see that not all Fighters will be able to perform the mythic feats Hercules did by looking at the class.

That's logical.



Mallus said:


> Note that I was responding to a poster claiming Hercules *was* just a mundane, high level fighter, empowered by no more than bad-assery, a Hellenic Mr. T.
> 
> I brought up the Augean Stables to disprove that.



By implying that Fighters will be able to perform the same type of feat, in essence. I disagreed. And here we are. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> And on a tangentially, but still relevant, note... Rich Baker comments about the gamist (not narrativist) nature of 4e as compared to the simulationist nature of other editions of D&D on his blog here
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Funny how the people that were the most closely involved in the game have come down, for the most part, squarely in the gamist camp when it comes to 4e... yet even as evidence continues to mount...are routinely dismissed, ignored or accused of not understanding their own work by those who want 4e to have been designed to be a narrativist game.



His blog doesn't even talk about narrativist design. Nor does it explain what Rob Heinsoo meant when he said that 4e design was influenced by indie RPG (=narrativist, or do you disagree?) design. Nor does he say anything about Robin Laws work on DMG2, which cribs a good chunk of the GMing advice from HeroQuest Revised (presumably a narrativist rather than a gamist game). Nor the significance of "say yes" and other techniques discussed in the DMG, which come primarily from narrativist-leaning than gamist-leaning games, don't they?

And then there is also the recognised fact that similar mechanics, with a strong and predictable metagame dimension (ie mechanics that differ from simulationist ones in just the manner that 4e's do) can support either narrativist or gamist play, depending on what sorts of behaviours by the participants receive social endorsement at the table (see, for example, the discussion of this phenomenon here and here). For instance:

Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things: 

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what. 

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion. 

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.

*Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.

Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of two magnets. Note, I'm saying play, not players. The activity of play doesn't _hybridize _well between Gamism and Narrativism, but it does _shift_, sometimes quite easily.​
This passage picks up all the features of 4e that are being objected to in this thread (and its cousins on this board): immersion-killing author stance; fortune-in-the-middle ("Schroedinger's wounds"); exploration ("realism") negotiated among the participants subject to constraints from the mechanics, rather than delivered at every point in play by those mechanics.

Because 4e supports both aesthetic/thematic rewards (because of its integration of story elements with mechanical elements) and "cool move, dude" rewards, it can shift between rewards in the way Edwards describes.



Imaro said:


> Furthermore, I honestly think, from recent posts, articles, blogs, etc. that even many of 4e's designers and developers are aware of it or at least understand what it is many are turned off by in 4e's design... contrary to what most fans of 4e claim.



Who claims that the designers aren't aware of why many RPGers don't like 4e? 

The designers are aware of the obvious features of the game - it's metagame, fortune-in-the-middle mechanics, its support of author as well as (sometimes over) actor stance, etc. No one that I'm aware of denies that the game has these features. That it has them is obvious.

This doesn't show the game is poorly designed. Nor does it show that it can't support a variety of non-simulationist playstyles.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Can I insult it to death?



If it's bad taste to offer a serious answer, I apologise. But my serious answer is "No, you can't insult a green slime to death. But you can kill a green slime by viciously mocking the demon lord of slimes and all his work, including this particular green slime on the dungeon roof in front of you."



LurkAway said:


> What I've learned in the past 40 pages:
> 
> I'm playing chess, and my opponent complains that knights don't move in L-shapes, that it's totally unrealistic. Do I say:
> 1) "This is an abstract game, I don't imagine a knight moving in L-shapes, because it's not a real or imaginary knight, it's a game piece"
> ...



Agreed on chess.



LurkAway said:


> But let's say that two boys are playing chess and both are imagining a duel. Boy A imagines a story that fit the rules -- L-obsessed knights and walking castles and queens who are faster and mobile than fat slow kings. Boy B sees that as kooky and bending over backwards, and wants rules (by default or by flexibility) that are consistent with more "realistic" stories.
> 
> To me, with bards insulting skeletons to death, I really thought I had finally found the 'Aha!' riposte to make my case once and for all. Nevertheless, others clearly enjoy the challenge of coloring inside the lines provided.
> 
> So what I've learned is that arguing about what is "realistic" in the fiction is to always be talking past each other. Decide first if D&D rules should nod to realism or D&D fiction must nod to the rules or a compromise of sorts. The rest will follow more naturally. (And I won't need any more analogies).



And here I think you've isolated the point of controversy.

Most of my replies are old hat - for which I apologise, but this whole discussion seems to a significant extent to be a rerun of past ones.

First, the phrase "fiction nods to rules" - which Raven Crowking and BryonD have both used in the past - I find unhelpful. All versions of D&D involved rules which shape the fiction - for example, in Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D, PC clerics never use swords or spears.

More importantly, I find the analogy between the chess story, and 4e, completely unhelpful. Perhaps if a D&D campaign involved _no action_ except for a solitary bard fighting only skeletons and oozes, than the analogy might get some purchases. Perhaps the story might come to seem contrived - although personally I would still want a bit more of an account of what the story involves. Some surprisingly interesting stories can be built out of contrived elements.

But in fact the campaign will involved much more action than that - more PCs, more variation in foes, etc, etc. It's like Come and Get It and the wizard who is wrongfooted, or zigs when he should have zagged, or turns back just at the wrong moment - a campaign of this and nothing else might seem contrived, but in fact it is likely to be a one-off event.

At which point, the case you seem to be making becomes something like an "in principle" case - along the lines of "A group of 4e players who play nothing but bards using Vicious Mockery to fight slimes and skeletons will end up having to tell a contrived fiction". And even if that is true, it tells us basically nothing about any actual 4e campaign, any actual episode of 4e play.

As I posted way upthread (I think it was in this thread), no D&D game played by the rules will start with one of the PCs being a prince of tremedous wealth. This is not because there are no worthy stories to be told about such a protagonist; it is a metagame contrivance ("fiction following the rules"). But it is a balance-generated burden on storytelling that we've coped with for over 30 years. If _every_ D&D campaign started with the PCs as nobles at court, but all needing some story to tell about why they had no great wealth, and all being unable to obtain wealth except by killing monsters in dungeons, the contrivance might be a harder one to cope with - but I've never heard of such a campaign being run. It's like the single bard vs slimes and skeletons campaign - merely imaginary. Or, rather, any group which did choose to run it would work out among themsevles how to elminate or adequately cope with the contrivance, such that the game would run fine for them. In which case, what's the problem?



Tovec said:


> I said that I wanted a game that explains the mechanics, including minor bits that aren't as likely to come up very often.





Tovec said:


> I know I'm not looking for another 3e or 3.5 remake from WOTC. I'm looking for  5e to a game which isn't 4e, but isn't 3e either. *I want it to be the next step*, hopefully its one that steps toward something more "realistic" and "simulationist" and less "gamist".



Nothing wrong with any of this. A question - do you play games like Runequest, Rolemaster, Chivalry and Sorcery, GURPS or HERO? They already go a lot further than 3E along the "realism" path.



Tovec said:


> In Tolkien, as with other games, variations, alternate histories, etc. It is set ON EARTH and assumed to have the same basic principles of the real world, except magic works.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I want a game where physics aren't "4e universe" but instead "our universe"-adjacent  including magic.



As was already mentioned upthread, there are biolgoical anomilies here, like flying dragons and non-feeble giants. Are these magic, or non-magical depatures from the physics of our universe?

And in Tolkien there are economic anomolies. The Shire, an essentially autarkic community, has a material standard of living comparable to early industrial England, which was a centre of world trade and production. Is this magic, or a non-magical departure from the sociology of our universe?



Tovec said:


> lets assume that the DM bought the system expecting 4e to actually adjudicate information, not just to give them ability blocks to distribute like crackers. Next let's assume that player 1 thinks that the ability shouldn't hit skeletons, and player 2 disagrees. As with any version of DnD, they turn to the DM. The DM scratches their head and realize they don't have an logical explanation either way and turns to the book. The book doesn't know either. How perplexing, darned book should have had the answer. DM makes a call and one player is angry. Both players decide to play in other games. In other games the DM (a new one or different one) comes up with a completely different interpretation and the game continues. Now I'm not saying that the DMs are wrong in either case, nor am I saying that they shouldn't come up with answers, NOR am I saying they should be bound by the rules. I AM saying that the rules should be there to give clarification and answers so that the DM doesn't have to come up with things all on their own every single time. (By clarification I mean more info than "Say Yes".)



Games can break up over any number of things - poor GMing, crappy adventures, TPKs due to swingy combat mechanics, etc, etc. Is there any evidence that 4e is more prone to breaking up games than other systems?



Tovec said:


> most arguments about reskinning/recolouring/reflavouring seems to assume that the rules just outright allow it. Where as most of these interpretations aren't supported by the actual text given in the actual spell.



I think most people talking about "reskinning" have in mind page 55 of the 4e PHB:

A power’s flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like.​


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 30, 2011)

rounser said:


> When Arneson had players take individual heroes off of the battlefield and control them in a dungeon, firsthand, that was a paradigm shifter like perspective.



This deserves to be repeated. The line that was crossed when the game went from war game to role-playing game, the implications of what the game was and how it was played was a sea-change, fundamental and revolutionary in scope. No iteration of RPGs (or games in general) has come close to this revolution.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> If it's bad taste to offer a serious answer, I apologise. But my serious answer is "No, you can't insult a green slime to death. But you can kill a green slime by viciously mocking the demon lord of slimes and all his work, including this particular green slime on the dungeon roof in front of you."





I appreciate the answer, serious or otherwise.  The larger problem this raises is regarding D&D 4E having a default setting that by the rules requires the existence of a "demon lord of slimes" for a green slime (or any other slime?) to exist and function within the rules such that a verbal thrashing can destroy one, and for all green slimes (and any other slimes?) to be interconnected through the existence of the "demon lord of slimes."  That's a serious departure from the traditional way in which folks deal with green slimes and, to put it in the context of this thread on nods to realism, it allows little room within the rules for individual adjustment without needing to deal with additional problems of setting and rules.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This doesn't show the game is poorly designed. Nor does it show that it can't support a variety of non-simulationist playstyles.




I love the work that Baker has done over the years, he is actually one of my favorite designers, and I think that the Dark Sun Campaign Setting is by far the most inspired campaign setting for feel and mechanical value that is out there for 4e.  Even then, I found his example for simulation (hitting someone over the head with a lantern) to be off-track.  It seems that he was trying to make the point that 4e varies from the others because it is a game, not a simulation, and that the game tries very hard to not let you make up actions that aren't what the game designer wants you to do.

The example seems ridiculous, specially because it flies in the face of the pretty robust framework that 4e has put in place exactly to handle this type of "simulation"; if you even want to call it that.  Page 42 of the DMG covers this in such easily digestible detail that I would not think twice about where to go to handle this.

Player: I swing the lantern wildly, I'm trying to make it bust on the "dude's" head.
DM: Okay, roll a Dex Check vs. Reflex.
Player: I rolled a 19 total.
DM: The lantern lands squarely on the "dude's" head exploding in flames. Roll damage, let's make that 3d6+3. 
Player: That's 13 points of damage, can he catch on fire?
DM: That was a pretty solid hit, there's a chance.  Make another Dex Check vs. Reflex.
Player: I rolled a nat 20
DM: Okay, he's on fire and will take ongoing fire damage save ends.

I found none of that hard to do at all.  There were two basic concepts to handling the situation "Say, yes" and DMG pg 42 "Actions the Rules Don't Cover".  However, that is not the beauty of the system.  The real beauty is that this particular system can be used for almost every abstraction/simulation.

1. I want to jump over the railing an land on the trolls head (pg 42)
2. I want to upturn the brazier, and spread the coals on the guards (pg 42)
3. I want to sweet-talk the servant girl, and have her help me get into the manor house (pg 42)
4. I want to spend some time casing this place so I can determine the guard schedule (pg 42)
5. The fire is almost at my feet.  I want to make a jump to the railing on the top balcony, by using the sides of those columns as support (jackie chan style) (pg 42)
6. With all my momentum, I want to do a double-kick on this guy to push him over the railing (pg 42) 

Now if I tried all those things in 1e, most of the stuff would be all over the DMG or I'd have to make it up.  If it was in 3e the first one might be a grapple of some kind, the second one might be a skill check, the third one would be a skill check, the fourth a skill check, the fifth a skill check, and the 6th would be some combination of attack with an overrun and possibly an acrobatics check.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure all the game systems can handle these things. However I seriously doubt that 4e actually makes you work really hard to accomplish what you want.  The hard one is definitely not 4e.  Just by not having to resolve the first one as a grapple, 4e already moved this into the easy to handle category.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] - nice post, good examples.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> The larger problem this raises is regarding D&D 4E having a default setting that by the rules requires the existence of a "demon lord of slimes" for a green slime (or any other slime?) to exist and function within the rules such that a verbal thrashing can destroy one, and for all green slimes (and any other slimes?) to be interconnected through the existence of the "demon lord of slimes."  That's a serious departure from the traditional way in which folks deal with green slimes and, to put it in the context of this thread on nods to realism, it allows little room within the rules for individual adjustment without needing to deal with additional problems of setting and rules.



While I think there are probably other ways of handling the Bard vs slime issue, should it come up in a game, I think your bigger point is right (altough for me, at least, it hasn't been a problem). 4e has a default setting - a cosmology, and a set of gods and godlike beings who populate that cosmology - that (at least in my view, as I've read and played the game) is fairly tightly built into the game. I'm sure there are heaps of 4e groups who are homebrewing their 4e campaign world, gods etc, but the game tends to rely (again, at least as I look at it) on filling in the relevant story elements to support all its moving parts.

From my point of view, this is why I find the suggestion that 4e is devoid of "flavour", "fluff" or story elements strange. I think it is imbued with them. Worlds and Monsters set the initial tone for this, and the game has largely followed through.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I found none of that hard to do at all.  There were two basic concepts to handling the situation "Say, yes" and DMG pg 42 "Actions the Rules Don't Cover".  However, that is not the beauty of the system.  The real beauty is that this particular system can be used for almost every abstraction/simulation.
> 
> 1. I want to jump over the railing an land on the trolls head (pg 42)
> 2. I want to upturn the brazier, and spread the coals on the guards (pg 42)
> ...





Can you expand individually on how each of these examples is handled by page 42, please?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

I'll leave the elaborations to D'karr, but will make a general comment. By setting a range of default DCs and expected damage, page 42 creates a "safety net" for players to try new and/or wacky things. It puts an outer limit on how badly a player can hose his/her PC by stepping outside the more tightly defined action resolution mechanics. (The flipside of this is that it also puts a limit on how successful any wacky stunt can be - for example, there is no "autokill" result on the default damage charts. How big a change this is to the effectiveness of old-fashioned "creative spell casting" will probably vary from group to group.)

It is true, as [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has pointed out upthread, that the actual numerical values for the default DCs have been errata-ed multiple times. The damage has also been errata-ed once (the MM3 changes). This doesn't particularly bother me, and I work around it when running published encounters or scenarios. I see it as fine-tuning the defaults in light of play experience and the evolution of the character build options.

More importantly, for me, has been the _concept_ of default DCs and damage, and the limits on risk of failure and consequences of success, to which they give rise. For me, at least, it's quite liberating compared to more simulationist rulesets, which can lead to wacky stunts getting bogged down in attempts to draw on real-world likelihoods of success and consequence.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

_Essentially_, as I recall, it's figure out the kind of check needed, set a DC, and decide on the results, yes?


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 30, 2011)

More or less. It also provides things like damage ranges. The overall point is to make sure that atypical actions are viable in the proper situation, but are not going to replace a character's powers.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> More importantly, for me, has been the _concept_ of default DCs and damage, and the limits on risk of failure and consequences of success, to which they give rise. For me, at least, it's quite liberating compared to more simulationist rulesets, which can lead to wacky stunts getting bogged down in attempts to draw on real-world likelihoods of success and consequence.



Just playing "realism"'s advocate for a moment, the _other_ flipside to insulating the player from poor results is that everything becomes more or less equally effective, regardless of how silly, ludicrious or "gonzo" the DM thinks it should be. 

So it seems to me that it boils down to whether you want to encourage _more_ creative ideas (page 42 resolution) or _better_ creative ideas (DM adjudication, assuming the DM is a reasonable, fairly knowledgeable indvidual whose views on what is possible are close to those of his players).


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

An Ability or Skill Check, followed by setting a DC, followed by a description of what happens is basically what happens in all editions for most of the situational examples above, except maybe where a "To Hit" combat check would be better.  (I don't really see grapple being appropriate where that one is suggested.)  Anyway, the problem some might find with Page 42 isn't with how innovative it is touted as being (it's not, IMO), but rather with the sliding scales some suggest to keep things challenging from character level range to level range.  Anyway, since you mention it, if Page 42 is meant to handle much of the supposed grunt work of figuring out things not covered by the rules (which as I noted were easily handled in other editions by an Ability score check or Skill check), then why wouldn't a DM prefer to slim down the "powers" list to remove things easily handled by Page 42?  Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?




You'd have to develop Page 42 into something resembling a Slayer, significantly increase the overall power of the options, riddle every encounter scenario with debris and objects to use, so on and so forth.

While a P42-based system could certainly be interesting, and certainly some RPGs use similar ideas, you ultimately have greater complexity with less flexibility.

Also keep in mind that narration-first RPGs tend to come down to players talking their DMs into things AND requires player and DM creativity that the current system does not.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Also keep in mind that narration-first RPGs tend to come down to players talking their DMs into things AND requires player and DM creativity that the current system does not.





My own experience with systems like this aren't problematic (in the _DM-may-I_ way that I have seen a few detractors describe over the years) and tend toward a more shared storytelling experience.  I do agree it engenders (rather than "requires") more creativity and roleplaying among all participants but perhaps that's not a direction D&D can easily go on its current trajectory.  Though this does seem odd considering how much Page 42 is praised by the more vocal adherents of 4E that I generally see posting here and elsewhere.  Maybe there is room for greater flexibility in this area than is currently perceived in the community?  Thoughts?  Would this move forward an agenda of nods toward realism as well?


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 30, 2011)

Keep in mind that D&D is the introductory RPG for many people. As robust as it can be, it's also a very simple game - on purpose. While I play with plenty of very creative people, I also play with people who are just there because they want to spam at-wills in good company, and who couldn't be bothered to get creative if you put a gun to their head.

D&D is an especially good game for a mixed audience because, while it lets you be creative, it doesn't require it, and it doesn't assume that you've found a group that "gets it". Not to mention that not everyone likes to play fully sober.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Anyway, since you mention it, if Page 42 is meant to handle much of the supposed grunt work of figuring out things not covered by the rules (which as I noted were easily handled in other editions by an Ability score check or Skill check), then why wouldn't a DM prefer to slim down the "powers" list to remove things easily handled by Page 42?  Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?



I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I still like my crunchy bits. It's the same reason I prefer D&D (in all its editions) to White Wolf's Mage: whatever guidelines you can come up with to make on the fly adjudication of effects as quick and painless as possible, they will still require a bit of mental effort. Sometimes, you just want to drop a _fireball_ on the bad guys and not think too much about it. Of course, you could work out some standard effects beforehand, but then it _stops_ being an on the fly adjudication system, right?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

FireLance said:


> I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I still like my crunchy bits.





Me, too, but what if the crunchy bits followed the narrative bits instead of the other way around?  With the crunch guided by some simple overarching principle(s) along the lines of a Page 42?  The narrative aspects would also, thereby, determine the depth of the realism for any given, individual campaign and/or setting.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 30, 2011)

Tovec said:


> I know I'm not looking for another 3e or 3.5 remake from WOTC. I'm looking for  5e to a game which isn't 4e, but isn't 3e either. *I want it to be the next step*, hopefully its one that steps toward something more "realistic" and "simulationist" and less "gamist".
> 
> Ill conjure others to see if they feel as I do or if they want a "revisit of 3.x".
> 
> ...




I don't want a 3.5 version 2.0 either.   ...I'm not even sure how the math of the nomenclature works for that.

Don't get me wrong, I loved a lot of things about 3rd edition and have fond memories, but I understand the need to do things differently.  As I've said elsewhere, I simply have a love/hate relationship with 4E.  There are some changes from 3rd to 4th which were so good that I do not believe I can go backwards and still enjoy 3rd; however, there were some changes which I feel so negatively toward that they taint the goodness I feel toward the rest of the game.

So... what would I have done with 4th Edition?  (because I hate to whine and moan without offering anything)

Again, this is something I have said elsewhere many times, but I would have made much more use of the condition/disease track.  I believe a lot of grittiness could have been added to 4th Edition by making things less binary; less simple yes/no.

Imagine if some of the save or suck spells from 3rd Edition were ported into 4th edition by using 4th's disease track.  For a quick arbitrary example, let's say a mindflayer is trying to dominate you.  First failed check and you move to dazed.  The second goes to stun.  The third goes to domination.

Some of you are going to read that and say... wait just a minute there; some effects work exactly that way.  ---> Dazed (save ends) ---> first failed save leads to...

Yes, it is similar, but here's where my idea is different:  You can get better on the disease track.  Instead of only being able to move one way along the condition track; sliding further and further toward suck, you can attempt to shake it off.  On the same token, you cannot instantly just shake it off with one save; you have to fight your way out.

Downside?  I'd say the obvious downside is more book keeping.  However, I believe that model would make things much more dramatic.  Imagine the lone paladin trying to call upon the blessings of his god and purge his mind of enemy influence; in a life or death struggle with a vile mind eater.  

What's nice about that idea is that it completely gets rid of saves too; I'll explain in a bit why that's nice... just hear me out.  Instead of saves, we now can make abilities and skills more relevant.   The previous example of a mindflayer might work something like a cross between how saves are now and the endurance check which diseases give.  Maybe a will roll.  Your will defense would determine if the initial effect hit or not.  After being put under the influence, you'd then need to make will rolls to shake it off.  No need for fancy modifiers or extra mechanics; just getting more mileage out of the numbers which are already on the character sheet instead of inventing a new mechanic.

So, why do I feel dumping the 4th Edition model for saves is good?  Well, I ended my last paragraph by saying there's now no need for an extra mechanic.  The defense numbers are already there; the disease/condition track idea is already there... now they work together as opposed to tacking on the idea of a d20 save roll.  

Also, remember how broken the original orb wizard was?  I'm going to go out on a limb and say it may have been more balanced if recovering from a condition worked differently.  Perhaps instead one massive penalty to a save, the normal orb ability was to make recovering more difficult in a manner similar to bumping a skill check DC up to the next difficulty class.  That may be a terrible idea too; I don't know; I'm not somebody who gets paid to do this.  It just seems to me that it was obviously way too easy to stack orb penalties onto a single d20 roll vs a base number of 10 -for every type of save- and make the odds virtually impossible.  By spreading the idea of saves across a broader mechanic, I believe it would be possible to also spread those penalties out more and have things work smoother as opposed to dumping all the math onto one roll and trying to fit it all in.

There are other ways to use the condition track to.  How about crafting or repairing broken equipment?  Let's say your sword gets broken somehow.  What if that meant your sword now had the broken 'disease.'  To improve the condition your sword, you needed to make some sort of 'heal' (I'm not sure what 4E skill would fit) check on your sword.  On a success, it moves one step toward being repaired.  Failures would mean it is beyond your ability to repair it, and you'd either need to wait until leveling up to try again or you'd need to seek out the blacksmith in town to fix it.  

My point for bringing any of this up is to showcase that there are plenty of mechanics available in 4E which were good mechanics, and would have worked perfectly fine to bridge some of D&D's past editions and outlook with that of the more gamist ideals 4E wanted.  For some reason, they just weren't used.  What I described is still more streamlined than 3rd's crafting rules; meanwhile, it's complex enough and offers a 'real' enough explanation for what's going on when you roll the dice that I feel it would satisfy me.  

Getting back to where I started... again, it provides a way to tone down some of the hardcore 3rd Edition spells and fits them into a model which 4th Edition already contains.  I just showcased one idea of how it might be possible to keep some ideas from previous editions by embracing the ideas and direction of the new edition.  Yes, there's slightly more book keeping than the current model, but I also think it's more interesting than the current model.  Instead of "the solo just failed his save against sleep; let's beat upon this bag of hitpoints until he dies" you get "crap, the dragon is starting to shake off the wizard's spell; we need to hurry before he comes to."

Plus, as I mentioned, it cuts down on the need to keep tacking on different mechanics.  So, yeah, my model might be more complicated than the simple yes/no of a d20 roll for a save, but it's also less complicated in that more parts of the game can fit into it.  Instead of having diseases, skill challenges, and saving throws use different mechanics, they can all work from this same model.  

Now comes the question of how to scale difficulty.  That's a good one.  Personally, I dislike the number inflation which occurs from leveling up.  As such, rather than having checks continue to turn into bigger and bigger numbers, I would signify harsher effects by lowering the amount of steps on the condition track or by having the initial state of the attack be further down the track.

So, a level 5 effect might look like this:

Healthy <--> *Dazed* <--> Dazed & Slowed <--> Stun <--> Domination

A level 11 version might look like this instead:

Healthy <--> *Dazed & Slowed* <--> Stun <--> Domination

or this:

Healthy <--> Dazed <--> *Dazed & Slowed* <--> Stun <--> Domination

*Bold* denotes where a target starts the track from.  


...just an idea


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Just playing "realism"'s advocate for a moment, the _other_ flipside to insulating the player from poor results is that everything becomes more or less equally effective, regardless of how silly, ludicrious or "gonzo" the DM thinks it should be.



Yes. Which in some ways takes us back to Vicious Mockery - weakening a slime by mocking Juiblex becomes just as effective a way to destroy it as setting a torch to it.

In my view, it is this feature of 4e which makes it not very suitable for classic Gygaxian or Pulsepherian play, in which the players' selection of means is meant to make a big difference to their PCs' prospects of success. At first, I thought this made 4e unsuitable for gamist play altogether (unless you make the sorts of changes that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has done), but [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] explained to me a variety of "light gamism" to which 4e is well suited, namely, succeeding in combat via "cool and/or clever moves". For this sort of gamism, it is probably less important to differentiate between the damage done by different moves, and more important that the GM seed an encounter with opportunities for the players to have their PCs do interesting things.



FireLance said:


> So it seems to me that it boils down to whether you want to encourage _more_ creative ideas (page 42 resolution) or _better_ creative ideas (DM adjudication, assuming the DM is a reasonable, fairly knowledgeable indvidual whose views on what is possible are close to those of his players).



I assume by "better" here you mean better in the Gygaxian sense, rather than (for example) more innovative or more entertaining.




Mark CMG said:


> if Page 42 is meant to handle much of the supposed grunt work of figuring out things not covered by the rules (which as I noted were easily handled in other editions by an Ability score check or Skill check), then why wouldn't a DM prefer to slim down the "powers" list to remove things easily handled by Page 42?  Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?





FireLance said:


> I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I still like my crunchy bits.



Likewise. For me, this is an important difference between 4e and games like HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling.

But in principle what you (Mark CMG) suggest is feasible, I think, if there were guidelines to balance conditions against damage.



Mark CMG said:


> My own experience with systems like this aren't problematic (in the _DM-may-I_ way that I have seen a few detractors describe over the years) and tend toward a more shared storytelling experience.  I do agree it engenders (rather than "requires") more creativity and roleplaying among all participants but perhaps that's not a direction D&D can easily go on its current trajectory.  Though this does seem odd considering how much Page 42 is praised by the more vocal adherents of 4E that I generally see posting here and elsewhere.  Maybe there is room for greater flexibility in this area than is currently perceived in the community?  Thoughts?  Would this move forward an agenda of nods toward realism as well?



I think there is a lot of scope for WotC to develop this, via examples in adventures, published guidelines, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...just an idea



Can't XP you again yet, but good post.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Nor does it explain what Rob Heinsoo meant when he said that 4e design was influenced by indie RPG (=narrativist, or do you disagree?) design.




I'm not going to go through our normal back and forth dance since it never leads anywhere... but this is just wrong. An indie rpg is an independently published roleplaying game. An indie rpg can be simulationist, gamist or narrativist but it's defining characteristic is that it is independently published and creator-owned. maybe this explains some of the confusion I have in following your claims since you use the term indie rpg to mean narrativist... when that's not what it means.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 30, 2011)

Failed my Will save...



pemerton said:


> His blog doesn't even talk about narrativist design. Nor does it explain what Rob Heinsoo meant when he said that 4e design was influenced by indie RPG (=narrativist, or do you disagree?) design. Nor does he say anything about Robin Laws work on DMG2, which cribs a good chunk of the GMing advice from HeroQuest Revised (presumably a narrativist rather than a gamist game). Nor the significance of "say yes" and other techniques discussed in the DMG, which come primarily from narrativist-leaning than gamist-leaning games, don't they?
> 
> And then there is also the recognised fact that similar mechanics, with a strong and predictable metagame dimension (ie mechanics that differ from simulationist ones in just the manner that 4e's do) can support either narrativist or gamist play, depending on what sorts of behaviours by the participants receive social endorsement at the table (see, for example, the discussion of this phenomenon here and here). For instance:
> Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:
> ...




I find it interesting that the main thrust of your argument centers around advice (as opposed to any rules or mechanics that actually support narrativist play in the game) found in the 2nd DMG (as opposed to anything in the first three corebooks). I'm sorry but telling me to "say yes" doesn't make a game's mechanics support narrativist play.

I mean your argument seems to basically boil down to... if the players all agree, 4e can be played in a narrativist style. Well duh, if everyone agrees not to use certain powers and to houserule healing surges then 4e can be played in a simulationist style... doesn't mean it supports said play or was created for it. 

Mechanics wise I see a carefully balanced encounter system (for fair challenges)... I see a reward system for completing challenges that affects one's power and capabilities, (now random with the most current rules as opposed to parcels). I see the majority of 4e players I speak to disregarding or changing the fiction and fluff of classes and powers on a whim (as long as they don't change those carefully balanced gamist keywords, effects, etc)... and it not having an effect upon the game through any mechanics of the actual game. 




pemerton said:


> This doesn't show the game is poorly designed. Nor does it show that it can't support a variety of non-simulationist playstyles.




Where did I say the games is poorly designed? I think it's got a very good gamist design. Narrativist... not so much, it doesn't, IMO, have any mechanics that support or empower a narrativist style (tons of advice in the DMG 2 after the "It feels like a boardgame outcry")... but nothing in the mechanics department that actually encourages a focus on or rewards narrative play.  The most I can say about it in regards to narrativist play is that 4e doesn't fight against you if you want to use it for that style.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> First, the phrase "fiction nods to rules" - which Raven Crowking and BryonD have both used in the past - I find unhelpful. All versions of D&D involved rules which shape the fiction - for example, in Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D, PC clerics never use swords or spears.



I agree on the latter point, and that's why I intentionally worded it as "fiction *nods* to the rules" (emphasis on "nods"), just like rules that *nod* to realism. Why is one term unhelpful but not the other? I did a switcheroo to force a change of perspective.



> More importantly, I find the analogy between the chess story, and 4e, completely unhelpful. Perhaps if a D&D campaign involved _no action_ except for a solitary bard fighting only skeletons and oozes, than the analogy might get some purchases.



It's true that D&D isn't solely about bards insulting skeletons and  oozes to death, but in all fairness, that's only one example for illustration. Your dismissal of the analogy is based on unhelpfully focusing on one branch of one tree instead of seeing the forest.



> Perhaps the story might come to seem contrived - although personally I would still want a bit more of an account of what the story involves.



Yes, your distinction between green slimes that can't be insulted to death (because they have no self awareness) vs green slimes with an existential connection to a demon lord that can be nullified by insults (just because) does seem very contrived to me, like the boy who contrives to explain that  queens move faster than slow obese kings just because.



> Some surprisingly interesting stories can be built out of contrived elements.



Absolutely (like that rigged poetry contest) but overall, I feel that stories built on contrived elements are rather more shaky and don't nod to realism as much as I'd like. Perhaps that part of "realism" in the fantasy genre is to have that faux-sense of solidness and cohesiveness, whereas others are OK with world-building a Jenga tower.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'll leave the elaborations to D'karr, but will make a general comment. By setting a range of default DCs and expected damage, page 42 creates a "safety net" for players to try new and/or wacky things. It puts an outer limit on how badly a player can hose his/her PC by stepping outside the more tightly defined action resolution mechanics. (The flipside of this is that it also puts a limit on how successful any wacky stunt can be - for example, there is no "autokill" result on the default damage charts. How big a change this is to the effectiveness of old-fashioned "creative spell casting" will probably vary from group to group.)
> 
> ...
> 
> More importantly, for me, has been the _concept_ of default DCs and damage, and the limits on risk of failure and consequences of success, to which they give rise. For me, at least, it's quite liberating compared to more simulationist rulesets, which can lead to wacky stunts getting bogged down in attempts to draw on real-world likelihoods of success and consequence.




Ok, pemerton... I'm a little confused here. As with many things in 4e I have seen two interpretations of how to set a DC in 4e. The first is by the level of the characters in the game (this was how I originally thought it was suppose to be, but was told I was doing it wrong by numerous fans of 4e)... the second, is by the "level" of the challenge you are facing. I'm curious as to which of these you follow. 

If it's the first then I can see an argument for it being a safety net and limiting the risk of failure and consequences of success... but if you're going with the second interpretation of the rules, then I don't see how it does any such thing. Since you are now baseing the DC on the "level" of the challenge the PC's are facing and nothing inherently stops them from facing challenges beyond their means... except the DM (which would make it like any other version of D&D).


EDIT: I'm also curious as to how you reconcile this with such things as the 9 different doors on page 97 of the Dungeon Master's Book with independent DC's based on their specific material... or even the hardcoded difficulties in the description of certain skills that seem based upon real world analogies?  Again this seems like one of those areas that even 4e isn't sure what playstyle it wants to support with it's mechanics.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Can you expand individually on how each of these examples is handled by page 42, please?




Sure, I don't have much time to type this all out right now, but I'll do a writeup to explain.  Quick question as I'm not sure if you're interested in the examples, or the process.  Would it make more sense to put an example of the thought process of how to arrive at these decisions rather than to give specific examples?


----------



## tuxgeo (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> His blog doesn't even talk about narrativist design. Nor does it explain what Rob Heinsoo meant when he said that 4e design was influenced by *indie RPG* (=narrativist, or do you disagree?) design.




[Emphasis added -- tuxgeo]



Imaro said:


> I'm not going to go through our normal back and forth dance since it never leads anywhere... but this is just wrong. An indie rpg is an independently published roleplaying game. An indie rpg can be simulationist, gamist or narrativist but it's defining characteristic is that it is independently published and creator-owned. maybe this explains some of the confusion I have in following your claims since you use the term indie rpg to mean narrativist... when that's not what it means.




I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to show that pemerton's words can be seen as making more sense than they appear to: 

Pemerton misspelled "indie-rpgs" -- as in the website "the forge" of Ron Edwards. As we all know (or do we?), Ron Edwards moderates that "indie-rpgs.com" website; and he posts stuff about the narrativist playing style there. With his articles, the "indie-rpgs" website does promote a narrativist style, so saying that "_indie-rpgs = narrativist_" would have been more accurate. 

It's merely a spelling thing: pemerton left out the hyphen and the terminal letter "s" in the part that I bolded in my quote from him, above.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Sure, I don't have much time to type this all out right now, but I'll do a writeup to explain.  Quick question as I'm not sure if you're interested in the examples, or the process.  Would it make more sense to put an example of the thought process of how to arrive at these decisions rather than to give specific examples?





That'd be great, and it is process that I seek.  As you have probably seen by the rest of the thread, my wondering comes from the sameness I see in how it was actually handled in other editions and also in its possibility as an overarching model for a full RPG.


----------



## pauljathome (Dec 30, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> More or less. It also provides things like damage ranges. The overall point is to make sure that atypical actions are viable in the proper situation, but are not going to replace a character's powers.




In all the 4th edition playing that I did (2 different campaigns with 2 completely different groups, several months of LFR, and a few mini campaigns) I don't think that I EVER saw these rules invoked.

Probably because the "do something cool" option was always LESS effective than just spamming ones At Will powers.

Contrast that with my 3rd edition and Pathfinder (and many other non D&D games) experience where just about EVERY session somebody would do something wild and wacky and let the GM adjudicate things.

Obviously its just one persons experience but it does make me think that limiting the effectiveness combined with putting the rule in a book that Players don't generally read may not have been the best approach.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 30, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Imagine if some of the save or suck spells from 3rd Edition were ported into 4th edition by using 4th's disease track.  For a quick arbitrary example, let's say a mindflayer is trying to dominate you.  First failed check and you move to dazed.  The second goes to stun.  The third goes to domination.




I like this idea. A suggestion to make it more streamlined: Instead of having a separate track for each power, why not add a "severity" to conditions? So you'd have something like:

*Dazed 1:* You cannot act out of turn and grant combat advantage.
*Dazed 2:* You cannot act out of turn, grant combat advantage, and you only get one standard action per turn.
*Dazed 3:* You cannot act out of turn, grant combat advantage, and you only get one move action per turn.
*Dazed 4:* You grant combat advantage and cannot take any actions.
*Dazed 5:* You are unconscious.

The first condition is a minor nuisance. The second (equivalent to dazed in the current rules) is a significant hindrance. The third means you can't do much except try to get out of the way. The fourth (equivalent to stunned) renders you more or less helpless, and the fifth makes you literally helpless.

Then when you have an effect that causes daze, it would do something like "Target is dazed (2)." The target would then be moved to dazed 2, or one level of severity above its current dazed, whichever is higher; so a target at dazed 2 would move to dazed 3.

A side benefit is that this offers an elegant solution to the problem of elite/solo monsters and the action economy. Right now, solo monsters have all kinds of kludged-in defenses to keep them from being shut down by status effects. This would provide a much cleaner way of implementing that; for instance, a solo might have an ability that automatically reduces the severity of all status effects by 2 at the start of its turn.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Mechanics wise I see a carefully balanced encounter system (for fair challenges)... I see a reward system for completing challenges that affects one's power and capabilities, (now random with the most current rules as opposed to parcels). I see the majority of 4e players I speak to disregarding or changing the fiction and fluff of classes and powers on a whim (as long as they don't change those carefully balanced gamist keywords, effects, etc)... and it not having an effect upon the game through any mechanics of the actual game.




A carefully balanced encounter system can provide fertile ground for narrativist exploration of "premise" because one can address "premise" without having to worry about losing your method of agency, ie. your PC.  This isn't a necessary feature of Story Now (ie. narrativist) design; Burning Wheel doesn't use carefully balanced opposition, but that's a feature of the design - it uses failure to address premise.

What I think 4E is missing that would make it a good Story Now game is... well, let me paraphrase from The Forge's glossary what Story Now is:

Commitment to producing, heightening, and resolving a generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions through play itself.​ 
I think 4E is missing some key components:


It doesn't "spike" the game with problematic aspects of human interaction the way, say, _Sorcerer_ (demons = dysfunctional relationships) does.  

When you make a Dragonborn Fighter you don't have to deal with questions about, say, was Arkhosia's war against Bael Turoth just; should people show you respect or make you pay based on the actions of your ancestors; do you have a responsibility as a Dragonborn to protect those weaker than your kick-ass dragon self, or can you be selfish, even if everyone expects you to be the hero; etc.  The game kind of points in that direction but it doesn't make it a primary feature of play.

Now if you had something like a Key of Akrhosia (from _The Shadow of Yesterday_; this is the Key Conscience), which gave you:
 Minor Quest XP of your level every time your character helps someone who cannot help themselves;
 Minor Quest XP of your level every time your character defends someone with might who is in danger and cannot save themselves;
 Major Quest XP of your level every time your character takes someone in an unfortunate situation and changes their life to where they can help themselves;
 Double Major Quest XP of your level when you ignore a request for help, and you lose this Key for good.
In that case you wouldn't be able to ignore the problematic issues brought up by being a Dragonborn Fighter.

The reward system doesn't heighten those problematic aspects.  Again, looking at _Sorcerer,_ the way a PC's Humanity interacts with their Demon's Needs and Wants will tend to heighten the issues brought up by the dysfunctional relationship.

It doesn't guarantee resolution of those problematic aspects of human interaction, but then again most games don't.  _My Life With Master_ is an exception, where play is pretty much guaranteed to result in an end game that will put your choices throughout play in the spotlight.



pauljathome said:


> In all the 4th edition playing that I did (2 different campaigns with 2 completely different groups, several months of LFR, and a few mini campaigns) I don't think that I EVER saw these rules invoked.
> 
> Probably because the "do something cool" option was always LESS effective than just spamming ones At Will powers.




My thinking is that players in 4E have too many options that come from their powers to spend much time thinking about "doing something cool."



Mark CMG said:


> That'd be great, and it is process that I seek.  As you have probably seen by the rest of the thread, my wondering comes from the sameness I see in how it was actually handled in other editions and also in its possibility as an overarching model for a full RPG.




I tried to do this, more or less, with my hack.

[sblock]First, you describe your action.  Based on that description, modifiers are determined:

You use your strength and raw power - STR
You use your endurance and physical stamina - CON
You use your physical quickness and precision - DEX
You use your mental quickness and reasoning - INT
You use your mental stamina and willpower - WIS
You use your social force and presence - CHA

You attack with intent to hurt, maim, or kill - Proficiency (ie. weapon or implement proficiency, including feat, class, and item bonuses)
You directly affect an opponent - Skill
You move past an obstacle or hazard - Skill
You take a defensive action - No roll

If the action has a loose association with any other skills the character has, add +2
If the character has a situational, tactical, or positional advantage, add +2
If the action is following up on the character's last, successful action, add +2

Once you have the modifiers you determine the DC.  Once again, the DC is based on your character's action, and you pick the first one in the list that applies:

You try to aid someone else’s action - DC 10 + tier modifier
You try to grab, push, overpower, or manhandle the target - Fortitude
You try to touch or tag the target - Reflex
You try to attack someone's mind or convince someone of something - Will
You try to hurt someone physically - Armour Class
You are matching skills with someone - 10 + their skill
modifier
You are trying to do something else - DC set by Level

If the target has a situational, tactical, or positional advantage, add +2 to the DC
If you are targetting a specific location without a special power that allows for this, add +2 to the DC
If the target's action is to defend, add +2 to the DC
If you cannot see the target, add +5 to the DC
If the target has superior cover (eg. behind an arrow slit), add +5 to the DC

Anyone can determine modifiers but the DM vets them.[/sblock]


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I tried to do this, more or less, with my hack.
> 
> [sblock]First, you describe your action.  Based on that description, modifiers are determined:
> 
> ...





Thanks.  That's similar in many ways to my own system development for G&G.  Simple and straightforward.  Though I try to emphasize the shared elements, I think some folks stumble over the "DM vets" part as being problematic.  Sometimes there is a pushback against systems that don't spell it all out and also against anything that might look like the facilitator is actually a factor in how things play out.


----------



## rounser (Dec 30, 2011)

> What I think 4E is missing that would make it a good Story Now game is... well, let me paraphrase from The Forge's glossary what Story Now is:
> Commitment to producing, heightening, and resolving a generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions through play itself.



This strikes me as the kind of self-important pretentious goal that an arts faculty might ascribe to certain literature as a way of throwing the human condition into sharp relief.  I don't think that I know anyone who goes to the D&D game table with this as their idea of a good primary objective.  Incidental pathos of this sort can add depth, sure, but it strikes me as being like having a romantic relationship for the main objective of throwing the ills of the human condition (and possible solutions) into relief.  In other words, it strikes me as auxiliary and incidental to goings-on - great if it occurs, but the focus should be elsewhere.

I also suggest that the "arts faculty pretensions of finding a cure for the human condition through chinstroking literature" is not the sum of a narrative.  Maybe I'm missing the point, but D&D is far better at narratives of the Conan variety, where the ripping adventure yarn delivers no information about solving societal ills save for what can be done with a bold and violent mind and a quick blade.

In other words, just as the gamist perfection of pseudo-RPGs grown from D&D such as M:tG, Talisman and Heroquest (the Milton Bradley/Games Workshop one) have been attained and are known quantities as a gamist point of arrival for D&D (and therefore not a desirable destination for D&D itself, as these games are all limited in terms of their ability to map to RPG territory), so too the goals of literary style pretension are probably an undesirable primary objective for D&D.

D&D's metagame of worldbuilding cannot be dismissed.  Without sufficient simulation of generic fantasy tropes, D&D becomes a poor platform for cliched fantasy worldbuilding and adventure, which is arguably one of the main draws - maybe even the main point - of the game in the first place.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Thanks.  That's similar in many ways to my own system development for G&G.  Simple and straightforward.  Though I try to emphasize the shared elements, I think some folks stumble over the "DM vets" part as being problematic.  Sometimes there is a pushback against systems that don't spell it all out and also against anything that might look like the facilitator is actually a factor in how things play out.




That's why I like 4E, it can be pretty elegant in its base form (which I see as page 42 DCs & damages, defences, and modifiers to checks).

Anyway, I was one of those people who didn't trust the "DM vets" part of the system.  It was around when 4E came out and I started getting interested in the sort of exploration-heavy challenge-based play that (I feel) characterizes most of the OSR; I read those blogs, understood the DM's role in a different way, and saw how it wasn't a problematic part of the system.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

rounser said:


> (. . .) but the focus should be elsewhere.
> 
> (. . .) D&D is far better at narratives of the Conan variety, where the ripping adventure yarn delivers no information about solving societal ills save for what can be done with a bold and violent mind and a quick blade.





Many would say the same about efforts to force humor into RPGs from the top down: Better for that to come up at the table organically rather than to try and wedge it into the game by way of rules or published adventures that focus on humor.




rounser said:


> D&D's metagame of worldbuilding cannot be dismissed.  Without sufficient simulation of generic fantasy tropes, D&D becomes a poor platform for cliched fantasy worldbuilding and adventure, which is arguably one of the main draws - maybe even the main point - of the game in the first place.





Individual worldbuilding was definitely a focus of early D&D that has gotten less and less important to the design of the core game over time, IMO.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 30, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Anyway, I was one of those people who didn't trust the "DM vets" part of the system.  It was around when 4E came out and I started getting interested in the sort of exploration-heavy challenge-based play that (I feel) characterizes most of the OSR; I read those blogs, understood the DM's role in a different way, and saw how it wasn't a problematic part of the system.





Can you elaborate a bit more on this transition of thought?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> On fireball, though, I think the fact that the spell targets "creatures" is relevant - it suggests that the caster lacks discretion over who/what the spell affects. (In my game, when the wizard wanted to avoid setting fire to a library, he used an "enemies only" fire attack.)





Cool.  Obviously I personally agree with this assessment.  I apologize for guessing your view incorrectly.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Ok, pemerton... I'm a little confused here. As with many things in 4e I have seen two interpretations of how to set a DC in 4e. The first is by the level of the characters in the game (this was how I originally thought it was suppose to be, but was told I was doing it wrong by numerous fans of 4e)... the second, is by the "level" of the challenge you are facing. I'm curious as to which of these you follow.



By the level of the challenge, which if a creature/trap is equal to the creature/trap's level, if a skill check within the context of a combat encounter is equal to the encounter's level, and if a skill challenge is generally equal to the PCs' level.



Imaro said:


> If it's the first then I can see an argument for it being a safety net and limiting the risk of failure and consequences of success... but if you're going with the second interpretation of the rules, then I don't see how it does any such thing. Since you are now baseing the DC on the "level" of the challenge the PC's are facing and nothing inherently stops them from facing challenges beyond their means... except the DM (which would make it like any other version of D&D).



Where in the 1st ed DMG is a set of rules or guidelines for setting the difficulty of tasks - even combat tasks - in a way that will mesh with the mechanical capabilities of PCs of a given level? As Don Turnbull showed in his Monstermark article, Monster Level doesn't do this.

And unless it was in a supplement that I'm unaware of, 3E didn't give CR guidelines for challenges other than monsters and traps.



Imaro said:


> I'm also curious as to how you reconcile this with such things as the 9 different doors on page 97 of the Dungeon Master's Book with independent DC's based on their specific material... or even the hardcoded difficulties in the description of certain skills that seem based upon real world analogies?  Again this seems like one of those areas that even 4e isn't sure what playstyle it wants to support with it's mechanics.



The doors chart also has a "suitable for PCs of this level column".


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Cool.  Obviously I personally agree with this assessment.  I apologize for guessing your view incorrectly.



I did think about this some more after my earlier reply to your post. What I think your earlier post _did_ get right, in its diagnosis of the general vibe/orientation of 4e, is that the players' view of how the power should work should be given a significant degree of weight. In my own game, it seemed obvious both to me and to the player that a "creatures" burst/blast, as opposed to an "enemies" burst/blast, is not going to be very discriminating.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 30, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I like this idea. A suggestion to make it more streamlined: Instead of having a separate track for each power, why not add a "severity" to conditions? So you'd have something like:
> 
> *Dazed 1:* You cannot act out of turn and grant combat advantage.
> *Dazed 2:* You cannot act out of turn, grant combat advantage, and you only get one standard action per turn.
> ...





I like that.  It fits with some of the ideas I've tossed around in my head about how to make the orb wizard work.  One of my ideas was that effects imposed by an orb wizard would start at an increased severity.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 31, 2011)

tuxgeo said:


> [Emphasis added -- tuxgeo]
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry tuxego, but I don't believe this to be the case.

I've quoted the interview I believe pemerton is refering to (if this is not the case then I am sure he will correct me.)...

_*Wizards of the Coast:* As a designer, where do you look for inspiration—is every game session a chance to playtest new material? Do you house-rule constantly? Do you alter the rules of other games you play? _

_*Rob:* Inspiration for creative work comes from all over. I read a lot, mostly novels (science fiction/fantasy novels) and short stories and magazines of all types, ranging from Archeology and Scientific American to The New York Review of Books. I don't say much about such interests in WotC *D&D* work, but my personal blog at __robheinsoo.livejournal.com__ has more to say about how these interests intersect with gaming._
_Playing new games is always important. I'm interested in everything from WWII squad-level games to ancients miniatures to card driven games to *indie RPGs*. There are many design ideas and insights in games within these somewhat separate genres that haven't been taken advantage of by designers in the other genres. Dominion is the favorite game in my family at the moment, and it's a great example of a design that applied new ideas from one genre (*M:tG*'s draft format) to create something new in a different style of game (parallel deck-building)._


Or, from the article he linked...

*CH: What’s it like working on a game with such a big team? I’d imagine the game is pretty unique in that sense.*
_Rob: No other RPG’s are in this boat. There might not be anyone else out there who would publish this kind of game. They usually get entrenched in the simulation aspect._
_*Indie games* are similar in that they emphasize the gameplay aspect, but they’re super-focused, like a narrow laser. D&D has to be more general to accommodate a wide range of play._


Both of these instances refer to indie rpg's... not the site.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 31, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Can you elaborate a bit more on this transition of thought?




I guess it was because I was always interesting in producing an interesting story through play - Story Now, as explained above.  Since that was my main goal when playing RPGs, I saw the DM's role in a different way.  The DM wasn't supposed to be impartial, or so I thought; otherwise you couldn't create a story.

I stumbled on the Forge and played some of the games designed to produce what I wanted.  That scratched the Story Now itch, and once I knew I could reliably get what I wanted out of play, I could approach games in different ways.  

This was around when 4E was coming out (after a few years of playing various indie games) and I decided that I wanted to do the challenge-based thing with 4E.  I didn't know what I was doing as a DM - what my job was (if you look at some of my early 4E play reports that should be pretty obvious!).  I started reading the OSR blogs (like Grognardia) and I asked some questions here and I realized that the DM's job was to be impartial and, without caring what the outcome was - without any story that needed to be told - that was an easy thing to do.  Or easy enough to do so that play goals could be achieved.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 31, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I guess it was because I was always interesting in producing an interesting story through play - Story Now, as explained above.  Since that was my main goal when playing RPGs, I saw the DM's role in a different way.  The DM wasn't supposed to be impartial, or so I thought; otherwise you couldn't create a story.
> 
> I stumbled on the Forge and played some of the games designed to produce what I wanted.  That scratched the Story Now itch, and once I knew I could reliably get what I wanted out of play, I could approach games in different ways.
> 
> This was around when 4E was coming out (after a few years of playing various indie games) and I decided that I wanted to do the challenge-based thing with 4E.  I didn't know what I was doing as a DM - what my job was (if you look at some of my early 4E play reports that should be pretty obvious!).  I started reading the OSR blogs (like Grognardia) and I asked some questions here and I realized that the DM's job was to be impartial and, without caring what the outcome was - without any story that needed to be told - that was an easy thing to do.  Or easy enough to do so that play goals could be achieved.





I see what you mean.  For me, and I guess I learned this early, I realized that good characters and conflict make for good stories.  However, in games like RPGs (whether they are Storyteller games or not), there are other players besides the GM with character control.  Forcing a particular story is unsatisfying, even when it is a good story, because it is antithetical to the shared process.  So, as a GM, I make sure the characters not controlled by the other players are interesting (this includes both NPCs and "place") and I make sure there is always some friction, some obstacle, some conflict, and then I allow the story to unfold as it naturally would.  Not all stories need to be great or epic for them to be satisfying, but they do need (for the sake of the game) to be generated in this manner, IMO.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 31, 2011)

I wonder if part of that is because I started playing D&D in '87 and really got into it through the '90s.  I recall a Star Wars d6 book - one about how to be a GM - saying that, if your story was on a planet, you should (or it was okay to) improvise a blockade to keep the players on track.

Which is the kind of thing I did - up until I realized it didn't work (when it blew up in my face would be a better way of putting it!).  The problem was that I didn't know where to go from there, and neither did the people I was playing with (for the most part).


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 31, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I wonder if part of that is because I started playing D&D in '87 and really got into it through the '90s.  I recall a Star Wars d6 book - one about how to be a GM - saying that, if your story was on a planet, you should (or it was okay to) improvise a blockade to keep the players on track.
> 
> Which is the kind of thing I did - up until I realized it didn't work (when it blew up in my face would be a better way of putting it!).  The problem was that I didn't know where to go from there, and neither did the people I was playing with (for the most part).





Even when going in with the best of intentions you sometimes get an idea for something cool and try to wedge it in (and it usually blows in your face then also!).  This whole idea of saying "Yes" is part and parcel of the philosophy I outlined above too.  There's an old improv adage I sometimes quote and this is one of the times when it is appropriate to do so.  It says, "Let's go somewhere, anywhere, together."  It's tied to resisting the instinct to contradict (or control) by saying "no" and rather look for ways to build without forcing an agenda.  This is also why it's ill-conceived to think of the GM in an adversarial position (from either side of the screen).  That stance can only breed contrarian attitudes and cause players (including the GM) to adopt feelings that lead more quickly to deadends in a story rather than opening up options and allowing positive momentum to reign.  A story has fewer chances to fail if the possibilities are endless.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2011)

First off - the idea of basing the game on P42 is very cool.  You could dispense with a whole lot of stuff that way.  Classes and whatnot could get largely ejected.  Very cool for a rules light game.  Reminds me a lot of Savage Worlds although I wouldn't call SW a rules light game.  There was a recent bit in DDI Dungeon and Dragon that talked about pre-1st level PC's (and an adventure to boot) that ties very closely to this.  Everyone draws from the same pool of powers.  It's the personality of the player and the character he or she is trying to create that will determine which powers get used which, in turn, shapes the eventual character that's created. 

Very cool.

--------

On the whole "Nods to realism" thing.  John Scalzi in this article about flying snowmen hits this right on the head.  There was a discussion going on about how fast Gollum sinks into the lava in LotR.  The fact that from a realism POV, Gollum actually wouldn't sink in lava - it's too dense to sink into.

The discussion continues with an example where Scalzi's wife is reading a story to their daughter in which a snowman comes to life, dances around, eats soup and then flies away.  The wife gets annoyed with the story at that point because "At which point my wife got an unhappy look on her face and said ‘A flying snowman? That’s just ridiculous".  

Scalzi's reaction is priceless:  



> “To which I said: ‘So you can accept a snowman eating hot soup, but not flying?’ Because, you know, if you can accept the former (not to mention the entire initial premise of a snowman coming to life), I’m not sure how the snowman flying became qualitatively more ridiculous.




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?

But, at the end of the day, where we draw the line will always be different for all of us.  For me, I have no problem with a selectively targetting fireball.  There's a dozen different ways to describe it.  Obviously, though, there are others for whom this is problematic.  Same with various other mechanics (Healing Surge being a poster child).

I guess my question becomes, who should make that decision?  Should the game designers tell the players, "This is how X works all the time - change it if you want to." or should the designers tell the players, "This is the mechanical effects of X - you decide how it works." ?  Obviously 4e has gone with the latter approach.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Should the game designers tell the players, "This is how X works all the time - change it if you want to." or should the designers tell the players, "This is the mechanical effects of X - you decide how it works." ? Obviously 4e has gone with the latter approach.



IMO, the first is closer to what I want: "This is the definition of X. Here is what happens if you change it."

I want a toolbox, which opens up a world of new uses. I want to know what X is so that I can improvise its effects around it (even if some of those effects are horribly "unbalanced").

The other way around makes little sense to me. If I have to define X in terms of what it already does, that makes the reality of the numbers more important than the reality of the narrative. It's no longer me describing an event and extrapolating effects, it is now me describing an endpoint and working backwards from it. It's hard to be surprised, delighted, or excited by justifying or explaining. It's much easier to enjoy yourself when you don't know exactly where you're going.

Sort of...which kind of adventure would you rather have? An adventure that says "The Evil Necromancer is building his army of undead in the East!", that then lets you run with that situation, or an adventure that says "Plucky Heroes Kill Evil Necromancer", that then asks you to play Mad Libs, fill in the blanks, and tells you what your outcome is going to be before you even start it?

Which one is more fun for you?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 31, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> What I think 4E is missing that would make it a good Story Now game is... well, let me paraphrase from The Forge's glossary what Story Now is:
> 
> Commitment to producing, heightening, and resolving a generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions through play itself.​



If you look at how the notion of "narrativism" is actually _used_ by Ron Edwards, I think you'll see that that definition is too narrow. For example, Edwards (correctly, IMO) identifies The Dying Earth as aimed at narrativist play, but it isn't aimed at resolving the sort of premise described in the official definition. It's aimed at producing cynical humour in the course of play.

I tend to think of "narrativist" play in terms of the actual way The Forge uses the term, then, rather than the official definition - something like play aimed at producing something worthwhile from an evaluative/aesthetic perspective. This can be heavy, moral(-ish) stuff of the sort that Paul Czege produces, or lighter narrativism of The Dying Earth variety, where the aesthetic goal is humour. My game is certainly lighter than something like My Life With Master or Nicotine Girls. It's closer to 70s and 80s Marvel supers - fairly commonplace thematic stuff of the sort one might do using mainstream fantasy tropes.



LostSoul said:


> I think 4E is missing some key components:
> 
> 
> It doesn't "spike" the game with problematic aspects of human interaction the way, say, _Sorcerer_ (demons = dysfunctional relationships) does.
> ...



I think a lot of this is fairly easily achieved without having to drift very far (and not at all on action resolution, I don't think). It's all in encounter building and treasure awards.

As you say, the game points in the right general direction. If, as a GM, one builds encounters that pick up on those pointers, and has players who are interested in following those pointers, then nothing else needs to be done to make those issues emerge in play (for example, the action resolution mechanics, at least in my experience, doesn't make the game get bogged down in something else, like the minutiae of polearms or of exactly how hard it is to set a library on fire).

If treasure parcels are decoupled from killing enemies - very easily done - and follow wish lists put forward by players interested in following the thematic pointers, then there is no reward mechanism pulling away from the narrativist goal of play. It's equally true that there is no mechanism like (for example) the BW artha cycle to reinforce that goal, but as long as everyone at the table is on the same page, the game isn't prone to throwing up distractions and red herrings (quite different in this respect from more purist-for-system games, at least as I've experienced them).

As for your point about resolution, this is what (I hope) epic tier will be for. I already found the whole idea of taking a paragon path a very good opportunity to push the players into making some meaningful choices that ramify very interestingly in the themtically-oriented aspects of the fiction. This, I think, is the biggest drifting in the way my group has approached the game, because the rules as written are pretty silent about the story dimension of gaining a paragon path (or an epic destiny).


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 31, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think a lot of this is fairly easily achieved without having to drift very far (and not at all on action resolution, I don't think). It's all in encounter building and treasure awards.




I agree.  As I said before, the fact that players know what sorts of challenges they will face - in terms of in-game difficulty - allows players to make choices that can address Forge-defined "Premise," instead of worrying if their source of agency will evaporate - that is, if they take the wrong action their PC will die.

(I expected that "XP from Quests only" would be the most common house rule in 4E; I was wrong.)

I feel that 4E can be used as a Story Now game without any drifting; the problem I have with defining the game as such is that I don't think that people who aren't already familiar with those techniques will stumble upon that sort of play.

When you play _My Life With Master,_ it's hard to ignore "Premise."  I don't think that's the case with 4E.  That's why I think it's a stretch to define 4E as a Story Now game; I think the default play suggested by the game is Balesir's "light gamism", which I'd call exploration-light Step On Up play.  That is more or less what happened during my first campaign of 4E - even though I wanted it to be exploration-heavy Step on Up play.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 31, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I want a toolbox, which opens up a world of new uses. I want to know  what X is so that I can improvise its effects around it (even if some of  those effects are horribly "unbalanced").
> 
> The other way around makes little sense to me. If I have to define X in  terms of what it already does, that makes the reality of the numbers  more important than the reality of the narrative. It's no longer me  describing an event and extrapolating effects, it is now me describing  an endpoint and working backwards from it. It's hard to be surprised,  delighted, or excited by justifying or explaining. It's much easier to  enjoy yourself when you don't know exactly where you're going.



I don't buy that.

The poster child for "Here's the numbers, you define it" is the HERO system. The HERO system pretty much can interpret anything, because it is only numbers. It's very complicated, but it permits the creation of anything by having codified systems. Its most common or default use is creating superheroes - any power, any character, can be developed.

And to say those characters, those games, aren't narratively driven? Because the sky is the limit, that means that the narrative can fit the image of the character, _not_ the few options the system presents.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 31, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> In all the 4th edition playing that I did (2 different campaigns with 2 completely different groups, several months of LFR, and a few mini campaigns) I don't think that I EVER saw these rules invoked.
> 
> Probably because the "do something cool" option was always LESS effective than just spamming ones At Will powers.
> 
> ...




While I have personally not encountered this situation, I have certainly seen it mentioned often enough. I do believe that it has a great deal to do with presentation (bad communication being the heart of so many ills). Partly, though, I think it also stems from a bad assumption: That people would not only read, but internalize, the books. The DMG especially seems to have been neglected, possibly because so much of it is advice, which many won't feel they NEED to begin with.

As such, I think it would be fair to say that Page 42 needs to be revisited, expanded on, waved around, and possibly rolled up and used to bap people on the nose. The same issue exists with skill challenges and rituals to various extents. The rules are, more or less, fine, (for rituals this is more controversial...) but a significant portion of the audience doesn't get them yet, so further instructions and explanations are needed.

--

*General Request:*
For those in this thread who do not already do so, please seriously consider getting a little creative in your next adventure and set an example for anyone else in your group who may not even realize that creativity is an option. Kick a chair out from under someone. Start a fire. Throw some water on the floor to reveal an invisible foe. Tear open a sack of flour for a smoke screen. Use a chandelier to charge a flying creature. Use your AOE attacks as fireworks to impress the locals. Use Magic Missile to kill a bed bug infestation. *Drop a building on someone you hate.*


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Scalzi's reaction is priceless:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The comments under that article include counterpoints like "The reason it makes sense for the other things to be given a pass and  not the lava is that the those other things are intended to be  fantastical. The lava is supposed to merely be lava, or maybe especially  hot lava".

I mentioned upthread about reference points. The more "realistic" the campaign, the more common reference points the group can share.

However, as reference points fall away in high fantasy, how do you know  which reference points to hold onto and which to let go? How do you know  to treat that as "realistic" lava or "fantasy" lava? Do you hold onto some reference points -- at the risk of people poking fun at you for "overthinking" or criticizing you for being arbitrary -- or do you let go of almost ALL reference points -- at the risk of losing immersion and suspension of disbelief?

(It's probably why games like Call of Cthulhu are so immersive, everyone  can more or less fall naturally into a 1920's "realism" and focus on  being in the game.)

Not that the viscous lava thing ever occured to me as a problem, but it's not one of my subjectively important reference points. That a snowman should have difficulty eating hot soup probably wouldn't occur to me until I saw in a movie the hot steaming soup contact snow lips.

Now that it's conscious to me, I think it would interesting to have a story about a snowman that can't eat hot food -- converting a potential implausibility into a compelling story element. Which leads to this thought...

Usually for me, always saying "Yes" can be less interesting to the story than saying "no" via nodding to realism. Saying that bards can't insult skeletons to death is more interesting than saying they can. Lots of drama and tension and good stories (in real life as well as fantasy) is between what the character ideally wants to do vs a contrarion environment.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> /snip
> Which one is more fun for you?




Whereas I find the first option horribly restrictive.  Mostly because the rules can't possible cover all the "Here's how you can change it" options.  My issue with 3e (well, one of my issues, my primary issue simply being time investment- 3e expects too much homework for the DM for me) is that 3e tries to pre-define virtually every aspect of any event in the game.  I don't need that.  I'm perfectly capable of coming up with my own definitions and I'll think you'll agree that there are a number of players that are in the same boat.

I want the rules to tell me the mechanical stuff that happens - this power hurts this much, and then get out of my way.  From experience, the difference between the two approaches isn't all that large most of the time - the baseline assumptions are baseline for a reason:  They work most of the time.  But, having to shoehorn my game into what the game designers think my game should look like isn't my cup of tea and hasn't been for a really long time.

There's a reason I got out of 1e D&D when I did.  I jumped ship as soon as 2e came out because 2e was more open ended than how I interpreted 1e which I saw as primarily being about dungeon crawling and kill'n'loot ((Note, that was how I interpreted the game, not necessarily how the game actually was)).  3e was huge breath of fresh air because it gave me mechanics that actually worked out of the box.  Unfortunately that came with the cost of hours and hours of prep work outside of the game to try to keep my campaign alive.  4e has solved that problem by being WAY easier to prep.

Heck, how many times have you hit someone with a bench in 3e?  In nearly ten years of playing 3e, I never, ever saw an improvised weapon used.  In 4e?  Easy peasy.

To me, that's cool.  The mechanics direct the story, but don't provide the script.  In 3e, the mechanics provide the script and that's not what I want anymore.



LurkAway said:


> The comments under that article include counterpoints like "The reason it makes sense for the other things to be given a pass and  not the lava is that the those other things are intended to be  fantastical. The lava is supposed to merely be lava, or maybe especially  hot lava".
> 
> I mentioned upthread about reference points. The more "realistic" the campaign, the more common reference points the group can share.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2011)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The poster child for "Here's the numbers, you define it" is the HERO system. The HERO system pretty much can interpret anything, because it is only numbers. It's very complicated, but it permits the creation of anything by having codified systems. Its most common or default use is creating superheroes - any power, any character, can be developed.
> 
> And to say those characters, those games, aren't narratively driven? Because the sky is the limit, that means that the narrative can fit the image of the character, not the few options the system presents.




Ah, they aren't driven by narrative, though, they are driven by the stats.

Because the game is played with the stats. The stats are what overcome challenges. The stats are what provide conflict and excitement. The stats are the game experience. 

And, if the narrative doesn't affect the stats, the game leaves ONLY the stats, without context or meaning. 

Oh, it's easy to re-fluff, sure. But that's because those fluffy elements are essentially meaningless. They have no bearing on gameplay. Call a rabbit a smeerp if you want, but unless it is _different_, it's not interesting. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> horribly restrictive. Mostly because the rules can't possible cover all the "Here's how you can change it" options.




Here, I'd agree with a a lot of folks who see that the DM needs to be more of a judge, and less of a CPU. This spell creates a ball of fire. Heres' the typical effects. Want something more? Go for it, using the DM advice that has trained you to be able to take a game element and run with it, with confidence. 

No ruleset or person can see every ramification, but to me, that's incredibly liberating. It gives you a lot of ways to work with what the game gives you. This spell creates a ball of fire. Does it burn down the forest? Does it explode the doors off the hinges? Does it alert the nearby hobgoblins? Sure, maybe! If the DM allows that to happen. The DM is encouraged to think creatively based on what exists in the game, rather than about how to excuse a purely mechanical effect.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Heck, how many times have you hit someone with a bench in 3e? In nearly ten years of playing 3e, I never, ever saw an improvised weapon used. In 4e? Easy peasy.
> 
> To me, that's cool. The mechanics direct the story, but don't provide the script. In 3e, the mechanics provide the script and that's not what I want anymore.




Improvised weapons existed in all e's, and I saw plenty of bare-fisted brawls or odd tools. It's not hard to do for me, since the rules support me if I want to do that, and allow me to futz if I don't like what they are. 3e's tightly integrated system makes futzing tougher, but it I didn't feel the need to futz as much. It also happened in 2e, whenever a party member "chucked a rock at it." I've never needed tightly bound resolution mechanics to do that, but I have used solid existing rules or improvising guidelines.

I don't see descriptive rules elements as providing a script. I see them as providing PROPS. How you use them is up to you (and a judge is needed to make sure the uses are vaguely balanced and fair), but the game doesn't tell you what they're used for. 

It's fun like the old Whose Line game "Props" is fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oViGsUZM6-U

The idea isn't to use the props in one and only one way. The fun comes from thinking of different ways to use the equipment you have. Narrowly defined effects are good for one and only one thing (the effect they provide). Broadly defined tools are useful in MANY different ways.

There's not just one thing Super Strength or Fireball can do. There's as many things they can do as your imagination can come up with (and your DM can allow. ).

_aside_: Personally, I feel that because D&D adventures consist of four major activities (combat, exploration, interaction, and discovery), most effects only need to be described mechanically in those broad terms. That's actually a pretty small continuum of mechanical needs. Fireball burns monsters, clears flammables, and is pretty useless at the other two things. Given that framework, I can improvise quite well within it, giving a wizard who wants to use it to, say, impress thee locals, a chance to do it if I feel it's warranted.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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.



Ya, because people aren't technically interested in the "truth". They're interested in stories that deliver a certain experience. I agree with you that I couldn't care less about the viscosity of lava, because it's not an interesting question to me. Whether Gollum sinks into the lava or burns atop the lava -- it doesn't change the story much either way.



> 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).



I guess the designers start by recognizing that almost nobody is fundamentally interested in the scientific "truth" of what is a realistic fireball. Rather, they are interested in stories about fireballs that can cause collateral damage more than stories of fireballs that don't, because it's something they can relate to better and thus suspends disbelief, and also it creates interesting conflicts of interests and tactical choices.



> 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.



IMO I wouldn't be defeatist about it. Most people don't give up entirely on something just because they can't achieve perfection.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 31, 2011)

Who are these people who want fireballs to be hot enough to melt gold? I'm aware that's what it says in the pre-4E rulebooks, but that doesn't make it a good idea. In fact, it seems pretty silly and implausible to me, not to mention a pain in the neck from a game perspective. After every battle where a _fireball_ was thrown, you want to list off the plunder and try to figure out which items were and were not melted?


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 31, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Who are these people who want fireballs to be hot enough to melt gold?




Well, I guess I'm one of them. Basically because, with a _nod to realism_, I don't mind that a fireball is that hot. Realistically speaking, something doesn't melt just because it's exposed to _x_ temperature, it melts because it's exposed to _x_ temperature for a _y_ period of time (depending upon it's mass, shape, and other factors). So, a fireball can be hot enough to melt gold, without destroying the loot (because it happens too quickly).

However, paper and cloth (etc.) instantly immolate, and living creatures die from intense burns to skin and lungs (or flash steamed ala slimes, cytoplasmic wall integrity fatally compromised ala gelatinous cubes, bones cracked and structurally compromised ala zombies, etc.).

God! I Loooooove Realism!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2011)

El Mahdi said:
			
		

> Well, I guess I'm one of them.




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.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 31, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2012)

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 (Jan 1, 2012)

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 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2012)

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 (Jan 2, 2012)

> 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 (Jan 2, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2012)

BryonD said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 2, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 2, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> *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.



Ya, according to this survey about 22% of gamers are Storytellers, or perhaps "narrativists", who enjoy shaping the story. But 22% of gamers are Character Actors, who enjoy *inhabiting* the story, and to do that, you need a somewhat predefined world in which to explore.

I was wondering how "gritty" fireball rules would work, without being too complicated. I thought:

1) As a general rule of thumb, if a power reduces a PC to 0 hp, the PC suffers the full physical/biological effects ie., acid burns that require magical healing, burnt clothing and scorched armor from fire, etc.

2) If such a power does not reduce the PC to 0 hp, the PC has evaded the brunt of the damage  (player may narrate accordingly) and takes no collateral damage.

3) If a PC is caught in an area effect with no partial cover and cannot evade with a 5' step (or move action by spending an action point), the PC cannot save for 1/2 damage, and takes collateral damage as if reduced to 0 hp (yet miraculously alive).

#1 models the "realism" baseline that fireballs, etc. kill and burn anyone and everything caught in the blast. #2 is based on the "realistic" genre convention that protagonists always manage to evade or find cover against fiery magic, dragon fire, etc. #3 is based on the "realistic" genre convention that I've never seen a protagonist take the full force of a fire blast and survive unscathed. #3 also makes pre-combat strategy vitally important, ie., never face a dragon on an open field, try to fight a dragon in an area with lots of partial cover (ruins, boulders, etc).


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 2, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> Ya, according to this survey about 22% of gamers are Storytellers, or perhaps "narrativists", who enjoy shaping the story...




Just so you know, "storytellers" are about as far from "narrativists" as one can get.  I can understand why they would appear superficially the same, and it is a testament to how screwed up those words have been narrowly applied that they are polar opposite definitions.  This gets back to defining what you mean by "story" before you can talk about it meaningfully.

Roughly, "storytellers" are in the camp of, "DM tells a story with the adventure, which the players inhabit--and if run well, tweak and characterize." Handled poorly, it is pure railroad.  Whereas, "narrativists" are in the camp of, "DM pushes situation via the adventure, which the players react to--and if run well, proactively drive."  Handled poorly, it is pure players making up the description of how they look cool. 

The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most.  The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Just so you know, "storytellers" are about as far from "narrativists" as one can get. I can understand why they would appear superficially the same, and it is a testament to how screwed up those words have been narrowly applied that they are polar opposite definitions. This gets back to defining what you mean by "story" before you can talk about it meaningfully.
> 
> Roughly, "storytellers" are in the camp of, "DM tells a story with the adventure, which the players inhabit--and if run well, tweak and characterize." Handled poorly, it is pure railroad. Whereas, "narrativists" are in the camp of, "DM pushes situation via the adventure, which the players react to--and if run well, proactively drive." Handled poorly, it is pure players making up the description of how they look cool.
> 
> The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most. The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.




We should probably keep in mind these are just models different people use to talk about games. These terms are going to be treated a lot more casually by poll respondents and players out there. To many storyteller doesn't necessarily mean what you indicate here (and even narrativism has splintered with there being a somewhat strict definition adopted by people on the forge but a much looser definition used by the wider gaming community).


----------



## Greg K (Jan 2, 2012)

Crazy Jerome,

Based upon your descriptions of storyteller and narrativist, most people I know are the latter.  We still very much want a simulated world.



Crazy Jerome said:


> Just so you know, "storytellers" are about as far from "narrativists" as one can get.  I can understand why they would appear superficially the same, and it is a testament to how screwed up those words have been narrowly applied that they are polar opposite definitions.  This gets back to defining what you mean by "story" before you can talk about it meaningfully.
> 
> Roughly, "storytellers" are in the camp of, "DM tells a story with the adventure, which the players inhabit--and if run well, tweak and characterize." Handled poorly, it is pure railroad.  Whereas, "narrativists" are in the camp of, "DM pushes situation via the adventure, which the players react to--and if run well, proactively drive."  Handled poorly, it is pure players making up the description of how they look cool.
> 
> The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most.  The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 2, 2012)

Well, I said they were "rough" definitions. 

Does anyone see "storyteller" now and not think D&D 2E, White Wolf, and the kind of adventures that were spawned for them?  

I'll grant that in the 1E days, I thought of myself as a "storyteller" DM.  But the actual practice was more like what I described as "narrativist".  Also, the Forge "narratisvism" is, of course, a fairly extreme version.  But it is also a reaction against the style characterized and centered on White Wolf mehanics (e.g. mechanics that roughly simulate a world if you don't think about them too much, but if followed halfway faithfully in that manner lead to all kinds of situations that in no way match the story.)  One can share the reaction against that style without going full Forge.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 2, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> We should probably keep in mind these are just models different people use to talk about games. These terms are going to be treated a lot more casually by poll respondents and players out there. To many storyteller doesn't necessarily mean what you indicate here (and even narrativism has splintered with there being a somewhat strict definition adopted by people on the forge but a much looser definition used by the wider gaming community).




Right, which is the key points.  You can't use that survey to say anything meaningful about people who want or don't want a simulated world.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Right, which is the key points. You can't use that survey to say anything meaningful about people who want or don't want a simulated world.




Sure, but that isn't something the survey is intended to answer. That is the downside of models (including models like GNS, threefold, etc), how you divide things up will produce blindspots. This one is no different.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 2, 2012)

Alright, forget the survey, I'll try again...

With an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset alone, nodding to "realism" is a tricky beast, because there's almost no reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group. It's as challenging as acting in front of a blue screen.

With a very crunchy simulationist ruleset (or crunchy modular/optional rules over the ultra-light core ruleset), the rules themselves can act as reference points for what is "realistic". Those reference points, however, can be imperfect or mismatched like with fireballs that don't do collateral damage or jumping off 100" cliffs and surviving.

Alternatively, with an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset combined with a comprehensive default campaign setting, then you can instead nod to "realism" by referencing the in-game/fictional "rules". For example, if you combine Page 42 with a Star Wars setting, then you don't need rules to tell that you light sabres and wookies are "realistic" for that campaign.

I find that with D&D, the rules are a major way to determine what is "realistic", instead of referencing the fluff to learn what is "realistic". Probably because D&D fluff (in novels or supplements) isn't quite cohesive or reliable or dependable enough to understand what is "realistic" for PC behavior and world building.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 2, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> With an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset alone, nodding to "realism" is a tricky beast, because there's almost no reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group.





Do you mean to say, "because there's almost no *Rules-Oriented* reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group."  From my perspective, reference points are what a setting, GM instruction, and group discussion are meant to engender.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 2, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Do you mean to say, "because there's almost no *Rules-Oriented* reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group."



Yes. Did you read the next few paragraphs, where I specifically contrasted rules-oriented reference points vs setting-oriented reference points? I think you somehow missed it


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 2, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> Yes. Did you read the next few paragraphs, where I specifically contrasted rules-oriented reference points vs setting-oriented reference points? I think you somehow missed it





Nope.  You seem to argue that it is possible from both sides (rules "realism" and non-rules "realism") and I just wanted to be clear before making my own statement that "realism" is better delineated in the "setting, GM instruction, and group discussion."  Thanks.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 2, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Nope.  You seem to argue that it is possible from both sides (rules "realism" and non-rules "realism") and I just wanted to be clear before making my own statement that "realism" is better delineated in the "setting, GM instruction, and group discussion."  Thanks.



Yes, I argued that nods to "realism" is theoretically possible via one way or the other (or a compromise/combination of both). Disclaimer: I didn't make a judgement call on which is "better". In the case of an ultra-light ruleset (vs something like 3E), the rules-oriented reference points are missing, so there really isn't a choice, is there?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 2, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> Yes, I argued that nods to "realism" is theoretically possible via one way or the other (or a compromise/combination of both). Disclaimer: I didn't make a judgement call on which is "better". In the case of an ultra-light ruleset (vs something like 3E), the rules-oriented reference points are missing, so there really isn't a choice, is there?





I, however, was making a judgement call.  The "nod to realism" in my estimation is a relative condition based on setting and group dynamics.  As such, a ruleset without a tight setting errs to try and include such a condition.  A ruleset that is meant to be setting free (or nearly so), would do better to allow the setting material and the group guide "realism" within the individual game and have the rules strive for internal balance without dictating a level of "realism."  Just my opinion, of course, but I think it is a better approach.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 2, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> I, however, was making a judgement call. The "nod to realism" in my estimation is a relative condition based on setting and group dynamics. As such, a ruleset without a tight setting errs to try and include such a condition. A ruleset that is meant to be setting free (or nearly so), would do better to allow the setting material and the group guide "realism" within the individual game and have the rules strive for internal balance without dictating a level of "realism." Just my opinion, of course, but I think it is a better approach.




Yes.  You also need to distinguish between those who want developed backgrounds versus "develop in play".  And then you need to distinguish between those who want a mutable ruleset that will be deliberately mutated for each campaign, versus those that want to beat the ruleset into something they like, and use it for a long time.  That doesn't even include preferences and abilities on improvisation, either.

Say I start next month with nothing but p. 42, and run a highly "develop in play" game from scratch.  Nothing is established at all, not even a character's name, until it arises in play.  But once it arises, we record it--either as a detail or as at least a pattern that applies.  So if Yzgote the Wizard manages something like "fireball", and we decided at the time he can do that or something like it once per day, then that is established.  

There would be some groups doing that who would be interested in building up the details over time, and then playing not only with those details in the same system, but in the same campaign world.  The more they add, the more interesting it gets.  Over time, it might even turn into something that other people could pick up, play, and produce similar play experiences.  

Not me.  I might have fun running that kind of game, but the last thing I'd want to do is use all that material as a starting point for a new game.  In part, it would be a pain to organize and use productively.  However, mainly my objection would be too many reference points have constrained future play.  Isn't that the objection a lot of people have with Forgotten Realms?  

To cater to both audiences, you need reference points that are clearly optional and examples, but still evocative.  That's a tall order.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 2, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> The "nod to realism" in my estimation is a relative condition based on setting and group dynamics. As such, a ruleset without a tight setting errs to try and include such a condition...




I don't entirely agree with this. A can and do understand the dangers of making a game system that attempts to be as realistic as possible right from the start. I think that can also nullify attempts at incorporating a "complexity dial" (I think it would, by definition, be quite complicated right from the start).

But completely ignoring realism in the base system, and leaving it entirely up to setting or groups I think is a mistake. I find that it's much easier to "ignore" realism in favor of gamist or narrativist play, than it is to try and add realism back in later. I think it leaves setting authors/designers, DM's and groups in a situation having to almost "re-write" the rules chasis in order to even nod to realism, let alone go full out simulationist.

I think in order to pull off a system with variable style focus and complexity, the starting rules have to have a nod to all styles in it's chasis.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 2, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Does anyone see "storyteller" now and not think D&D 2E, White Wolf, and the kind of adventures that were spawned for them?



Agreed.



Crazy Jerome said:


> The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most.  The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.



I'll trust your intuitions on this, but want to add, based on _my_ intuitions: the narrativists will react poorly to the storytelling/simulation techniques that "storytellers" in the White Wolf/2nd ed style want!



Mark CMG said:


> From my perspective, reference points are what a setting, GM instruction, and group discussion are meant to engender.



Agreed.



El Mahdi said:


> I find that it's much easier to "ignore" realism in favor of gamist or narrativist play, than it is to try and add realism back in later.



I've never tried to go in the direction of adding simulation into a non-simulationist game. But I find that it can easily become a big (and annoying) challenge to try to drift/hack a simulationist ruleset into non-simulationist play, because the simulationist aspects of the rules keep throwing themselves in the way and sucking up time and energy at the table.



LurkAway said:


> With a very crunchy simulationist ruleset (or crunchy modular/optional rules over the ultra-light core ruleset), the rules themselves can act as reference points for what is "realistic". T
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think genre/setting is adequate for D&D as for Star Wars. And if, at a given table, it fails to be so - ie there are disagreements over what is genre-permissible - I don't think a ruleset is going to save things, because the disagreements will just spill over into disagreements over what should be house-ruled. And if a GM has enough authority to hose down house-ruling disagreements, s/he should have enough authority to hose down disagreements about the limits of genre/setting.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I've never tried to go in the direction of adding simulation into a non-simulationist game. But I find that it can easily become a big (and annoying) challenge to try to drift/hack a simulationist ruleset into non-simulationist play, because the simulationist aspects of the rules keep throwing themselves in the way and sucking up time and energy at the table.




The closest I have come to trying that is trying to make Fantasy Hero more simulationist than it is.  Of course, Hero is a hybrid anyway, and because it is already modeling effects instead of processes, and then demanding that you provide the flavor, this isn't as big a deal as it would be with a more pure system.  Plus, and supporting your point, half the trouble for (4th ed. FH) is not so much setting up reference points for the fiction in a effects-based game, as it is coping with the superhero simulation that was still very present in the rules.  It doesn't help any that the skills in 4th edition Hero are a mishmash of genre expectations, simulation, and apparently trying to "split the baby" design goals. 

Thus, I think that effect-based design is a good neutral starting point for a game that is design explicitly to be drifted into one of several competing gaming styles, but hardly the whole solution.  Page 42 being one of the more effect-based parts of 4E makes it as good a candidate as any in that ruleset, as such a starting point.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 3, 2012)

Really, one of the biggest stumbling blocks for any design focused on simulation, that is meant to apply to a wide audience, is that it is hard not only to drift it out of simulation, but also harder to drift it to other simulation.  Or at least it is once those other simulations become different enough to deserve that label.

GURPS probably pulls off that trick as well as anyone, and it still feels like "GURPS with magic" or "GURPS with laser rifles" or "GURPS with fluffy, psionic rabbits" no matter how much you change the simulation.

This is a fundamental problem that D&D has fought with since the first new class was introduced and any kind of option discussed.  Take, for example, the fighter class, and at 4th level the fighter gains some kind of ability.  If you limit it to one particular ability, you are making a strong statement about the world being simulated.  You can try to make that ability broadly useful and characteristic to compensate, but you can't entirely avoid that strong statement.  OTOH, if you let the fighter pick from a list of three to five abilities, you have now, inevitably, watered down each possible simulation just a little.  (Well, maybe not with the fighter, because some good choices can be made here.  But across all classes and levels, you'll have some mistakes.)

Pull those abilities out into "feats" or "powers" or "magic items appropriate for about 4th level" or any number of things, and you'll become more flavorful, but inevitably lock the simulation down even more.  

Thus, as was stated by someone a few weeks back, the answer that often gets suggested is, "Make a fighter class with few or even no choices that exactly models what I want in my game."  The designers can't do that.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> Alright, forget the survey, I'll try again...
> 
> With an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset alone, nodding to "realism" is a tricky beast, because there's almost no reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group. It's as challenging as acting in front of a blue screen.
> 
> ...




However, all you're doing is dumping the work of making something "realistic" onto the game designer rather than with the individual group.  And, as has been amply demonstrated, what I or you might find "realistic" could be completely different.  Thus, by defining a baseline "realism" in the rules, you turn off anyone who disagrees with your view of realism.

OTOH, no one comes to the game a blank slate.  Most gamers are going to have at least a basic knowledge of genre conceits based on fiction - dragons are big and scary, getting hit with a sword hurts, wizards do magic.  That sort of thing.  There's more than enough genre fiction out there in a multitude of forms that it's a pretty easy assumption to make.

So, why not start with a mechanical framework (page 42) that tells you what the ballpark should look like relative to a given level?  Then the players can determine what they feel is realistic.  If a fireball does X damage, that will get established at the table.  It might do different damage next time, depending on the narrative that's going on - after all, fireball's actually DO do different damage based on die roll and level right now.  

The group will determine what is consistent.  

The downside of this is that this kind of game really, really doesn't appeal to a casual gamer.  It requires that the players be invested in making sure that the game is fun, rather than playing on autopilot and relying on the mechanics.

I could maybe see a basic version of the P42 D&D being much more structured - say up to about 5th level where you establish pretty strong thematic elements in the characters and the world around them.  Once everyone is on the same page, then you open things up to our putative Page 42 D&D and let the players take a much greater level of control over the game.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> However, all you're doing is dumping the work of making something "realistic" onto the game designer rather than with the individual group.  And, as has been amply demonstrated, what I or you might find "realistic" could be completely different.  Thus, by defining a baseline "realism" in the rules, you turn off anyone who disagrees with your view of realism.



I could have the same problem if the system is dumping the work of making something "realistic" on the game group, and then when I define what I might find realistic and have the narrative control to alter the story accordingly, I could completely turn off any player who disagrees with my view of "realism".

So if the problem has to do with individual disagreements over "realism", then why is each group assumed to be capable and willing to easily deal with the ongoing conflict resolution? At least with a published product, everyone can know what to expect from the system or setting before the session. I don't see why overall one way must be worse or better than the other.

This may be sound bad, but theoretically/ideally, I'd like to trust a great professional author (for setting-oriented reference points) or a great professional designer (for rules-oriented reference points) more than Bob who never thinks about D&D until the session or Joe who spends hours determining how quickly Gollum sinks depending on viscosity of lava or Jane who wants to jump off 100' cliffs just because. And God forbid if I was in the same group as an another Enworld user with an equally opinionated but opposite playstyle 

Or to put it another way, I can act in front of a blue screen if left to my own imagination. However, if I have to co-act in front of a blue screen with multiple strangers and no script, I think everyone would pause frequently to inquire, argue and resync. However, if the blue screen is replaced with a scene-specific background, I think that will more likely unite everyone (at least compared to a blue screen).

For that reason, I have staked my position that a ultra-light ruleset is best with a comprehensive campaign setting to most easily achieve cohesive nods to realism. If you don't care about nods for realism or the group happens to agree on mostly everything, it doesn't matter.


----------



## talok55 (Jan 3, 2012)

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 (Jan 3, 2012)

> 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 (Jan 3, 2012)

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 (Jan 3, 2012)

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 (Jan 3, 2012)

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 (Jan 4, 2012)

talok55 said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

talok55 said:


> 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.



Bedrockgames said:


> 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).



Bedrockgames said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Balesir said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Balesir said:


> 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.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 4, 2012)

Balesir said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> (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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> ...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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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).
> 
> ...




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 (Jan 4, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> 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 (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> 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.





Bedrockgames said:


> 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).





Bedrockgames said:


> 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>
> 
> ...



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.



Bedrockgames said:


> 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.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> To satisfy many 4E players, you *must* keep the essential part of the healing surge in some form.



Yes.

This is one iteration of a pattern throughout 4E that has created a problem for WotC that likely can not be undone.

While there were clearly people who didn't like 3E, it was overall hugely popular.  And there are still MANY 4E fans who insist that they liked 3E but prefer 4E because to them it plays EXACTLY like 3E, only fixed and easier.  And they are telling the truth.  But that's the issue.  3E was highly adaptable and a ton of people played it in a vast range of ways.  But it required *adaptation* to really be this person's or that person's preference. 

So if you were one of those people who played 3E in a style that would now be recognized as consistent with 4E then you LOVE 4E.  It is your old 3E with all the adaptations and fixes built in so you don't have to do it.  And if you are that guy there is no reason you would or SHOULD ever go back.  For that slice of the gaming marketplace 4E is hands down superior.  

But if you are not in that slice 4E might be just a different but still just as good alternate, or it may be a failure.  And clearly there are enough people in that last group to matter.  But now you can't get them back without losing people that have been very specifically catered to.

Where there once was a highly diverse collection of types all adequately pleased under one tent, there are now smaller sub groups that are not readily inclined to be content in each other's tents any time soon.

The milk is spilled.
The genie is out of the bottle.
Pick your cliche.


----------



## Jack7 (Jan 5, 2012)

Mark, the answer for me is:

realistic enough to be magical and  mysterious and miraculous in any world, magical and mysterious and miraculous  enough to be real in our world.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> 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.




Whether or not an impale/wound mechanic exists in 4E isn't the issue, the issue is a portion of gamers have been using HP to describe wounds for a very long time. In previous editions this didn't present a consistency issue (because only magical healing or rest would heal HP). But in 4E, because a healing surge could follow a description of a serious wound, this produced inconsistencies in what was going on in the game for people. 



> 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
> ...




1 & 2 are probably a result of a number of different things, but the reason for doing 1 or 2 aren't why consistency matters, consistency matters because people doing 1&2 express concern when healing surges produce inconsistencies when pursuing 1 or 2. The problem healing surges create for players doing 1 & 2 is almost always an issue of consistency (which results in strained believability). 



> 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.




But, if I understand your use of process simulation (and I am not sure I do), we aren't talking about people treating the mechanics as such. We are talking about a basic desire for the game not to disrupt willing suspension of disbelief. This is very different from wanting detailed simulation of reality. What I am saying is the designers can aim for playability, but they will also need to keep believability in mind as they do so. This may mean something like healing surge has to be removed because it produces too many believability issues for a fair number of gamers. But it doesn't mean the next edition of D&D needs to be rolemaster. 



> 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.




I mean it is the standard. It is what most people cut their teeth on and what most people play. It has been the go to game. This means they have a much bigger audience to consider than say Savage Worlds. If they want to stay the go to game, they can't do so by appealing to a narrow segment of the D&D audience. That means if they cater too much to one crowd, they could lose another. They really need to walk more of a middle path here. Which is why I suggest they hold playability, believability and flavor in balance. A lot of people feel that playability was pursued at the expense of the latter two.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Yes.
> 
> This is one iteration of a pattern throughout 4E that has created a problem for WotC that likely can not be undone.
> 
> ...




If it can be undone, then the only way I see is a rather small core ruleset that is neutral on all these issues. That is, it goes back to adequately pleasing that diverse collection under one tent by itself. Then, it has to have options that fit well onto that core and produce the experiences of people who expect more. 

That means that healing surges can't be in that small core (and probably not "heal skill" or readily available cure light wand wounds, either, if you want to appeal to pre 3E players). But then those things must be available in options that work with that core and don't feel tacked on. Of course, not all of them have to work in every combination. You just need to be able to say that surges or something very much like it is one way of handling the adventure pacing problem, and it isn't a kludge. Or you can use more 3E-centric options, and those aren't kludges either. Dont like the core, pick your poison out of a few alternates. 

I think this can be done, if it is designed into the game from the get go, and targetted at things like healing surges and CLW wands that have been issues in the past. I don't think it can work with a simple core put together as a closed engine, and then other things tacked on haphazardly afterwards--as nearly all D&D options, and a few core pieces, have been designed in every version to date.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Whether or not an impale/wound mechanic exists in 4E isn't the issue, the issue is a portion of gamers have been using HP to describe wounds for a very long time. In previous editions this didn't present a consistency issue (because only magical healing or rest would heal HP). But in 4E, because a healing surge could follow a description of a serious wound, this produced inconsistencies in what was going on in the game for people.




I would say that D&D hit points have always presented consistency issues. It has been a bone of contention almost since D&D launched. The 4E method is the most consistent version of D&D hit points ever produced (though hardly perfect). This necessarily imposed on some of the ways that people rationalized the inconsistencies, but not all. 

It didn't affect my view of hit points much at all, because all the things that people say 4E made suddenly unbelieveable *were already unbelievable to me*, and already rationalized has highly abstract, rough narration and pacing tools. Others had different rationalizations that also survived contact with 4E largely intact. Then others found themselves "forced" into new rationalizations (for them) that they were willing to accept. Others found that they could not accept the new rationalizations and/or were unwilling to be so forced.

You can't fix that by making the rules more consistent. You'd have to go back and make them more inconsistent again, so that all those competing rationalization have a toe-hold.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> But, if I understand your use of process simulation (and I am not sure I do), we aren't talking about people treating the mechanics as such. We are talking about a basic desire for the game not to disrupt willing suspension of disbelief. This is very different from wanting detailed simulation of reality. What I am saying is the designers can aim for playability, but they will also need to keep believability in mind as they do so. This may mean something like healing surge has to be removed because it produces too many believability issues for a fair number of gamers. But it doesn't mean the next edition of D&D needs to be rolemaster.




What I understand process simulation to mean is to distinguish it from result simulation versus some form of narrative or dramatic metagaming construct. D&D has never been pure in its approach to its mechanics. So we are talking about pressure to push an impure mechanic more towards one thing or another, not absolutes here.

The forms as they might exist in D&D might be thought of as roughly like this, using the canonical example of the swashbuckler swinging on the chandileer:

Process simulation - Mr. Swash has excellent dexterity (or balance skill or "swinging from ropes" skills--details are somewhat optional). He makes some kind of check, swings to a spot that the angle of the rope indicates is possible, bumps the orc mercenary over the rail, and lands gracefully with rapier extended, and then attack the evil gnome warlock. Each thing that was done, you do in order, using an ability and/or roll. If the checks are made, the effort is largely successful. If not, it gets interrupted (falling off the rope, missing the gnome, etc.) 

The expectation is that following the process will produce results consistent with the desired fiction. If Mr. Swash wants to swing on ropes a lot, he will need sufficient skill to make swinging on ropes a high percentage task.

Result simulation - There are perhaps only three critical spots in this action--the swing, the orc bump, and the gnome skewering. (For more gonzo action, less critical bits, for more realistic action, more.) If the rope has to be deftly slashed loose before the swing, this probably isn't a check. In the process version, it would be. The critical thing is the swing itself, and anything else is at most a modifier, but mostly color. If the rope is thick, there may be a "swashbuckling" check or a general Dex check that is abstractly determining did Mr. Swash get where he wanted, how he wanted? If he succeeds, fine. If not, most likely the DM handles narration of some kind of failure or it is implied (i.e. a simple miss of the gnome, on that check).

Any number of gaming constructs, by themselves or applied to either of the above -- Fearing a failed check, or after already failing one, Mr. Swash uses an action point to improve the roll. He is just that good, as a heroic swashbuckler. The DM and/or player may or may not narrate using the resource, or it may be assumed to roll into fate or other thing difficult to pin down. One example of a purer versions (there are several), is that the roll doesn't determine success at all, but rather the parameters or consequences of the action. If Mr. Swash says he swings to the balcony, he so swings. The check is to determine how slickly he does this, whether he impresses his lady fair, or any number of options presumably important to the player and/or the character--and probably explicitly stated by the player before the roll.

A lot of times, the action in D&D is simple but abstract enough that you can fudge these differences in your mind, and it doesn't matter. But as pemerton has pointed out before, the Basic D&D saving throw is a form of the gaming construct that falls mainly in that third camp. You can see the difference with the orc in the otherwise small empty room:

1. The fighter rushes in and swings his sword. Almost all process simulation, albeit abstract. He moves per movement rate. He swings, rolling based on his skills. If he misses, either he misses entirely or the orcs armor made the blow null. If he hits, something substantial was done. 

2. On the hit, the damage roll occurs, which is subtly result oriented. It doesn't matter how well he hit or where. If he rolls fairly high on the d8+3, he may take the orc down. If he rolls low, he will injure the orc but not take him down. It is entirely up to a person to narrate this in the fiction. (Again, not pure here, very subtle shift, which becomes obscured as the monsters get enough hit points to avoid take down from single hits.)

3. Then the wizard, foolishly fireballs the room. Thanks to the confined space, all three need to make saving throws. The wizard, standing in the doorway, can plausibly try to dive around the corner. But the orc and fighter only have their armor, maybe a shield, and each other to block damage from a blast that entirely fills the room. There is no simulated process or result that is consistent with the orc being fried by this and the fighter walking away slightly scorched. Nevertheless, with the gaming construct of the saving throw, the fighter may get lucky and escape this mistake--or not. If you can narrate something that works for you, you can gloss over this. But it is still there. Try hard enough, and you'll eventually come up with a theoretical situation that blows your suspension of disbelief--the fighter is bound hand and foot, spread-eagled, naked, and the wizard fireballs from 6 inches away, directly into his face. (It was a wizard that rolled a 3 on Wisdom.)


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

If it is not obvious, the problem with process simulation to produce believable results is two-fold:

1. The process becomes overly detailed to try to account for every result via the process. This is what pushing D&D towards Rolemaster would be doing, and is not the objection in this discussion, as few here have even hinted at it. For 4E fans, this is mainly a slipperly slope concern.

2. The process produces results that are not consistent with the desired fiction and/or results that are believable in some circumstance but not in others. 

If you want swashbucklers swinging on ropes, but it takes an attack to cut the rope to make it available to swing on, this is potentially consistent with the process, but not what you want. You want to cut something, swing a blade as you grab the rope. OK, next action we'll get to you doing the actual swing, by which time the orc has leaped from the balcony and the gnome warlock has fried you. A good DM will gloss over these things, of course, and work around this problem. (That is, the DM running an otherwise process simulation will suddenly develop a passion for result simulation that gets turned off again as soon as it can. Don't blink; you might miss it.)

A better game might enshrine exceptions to the process simulation, so that beginning DMs don't have to figure them out themselves. The Take 10 rules in 3E are such a rule. They do have a considerable benefit on handling time, too. This is not an accident, as process simulation rules carried one iota too far nearly always have handling time consequences that are excessive compared to the payoff.

The 4E healing surge is a gaming construct that, among other things, says, "You are going to let the party buy CLW wounds and heal themselves up most fights anyway, but you still want them to eventually get worn down. To save time and confusion for everyone involved, let's just cut out the middle man and set up a framework that establishes that kind of pacing." Obviously, the conceptual jump is greater, and in the interest of handling time it has abandoned simulation concerns. However, there is nothing inconsistent with this method.

And if you want to put the simulation back, as I said right after 4E launch, all you have to do is houserule that using surges takes healing magic, and then charge an appropriate amount for potions and CLW wands. Voila! If your concerns are not just suspending your disbelief, but distaste of the mechanic, limited healing by character, or other such thing, then my suggestion may not work. However, then your concerns are no longer exclusively suspending disbelief, and should not be portrayed as such.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> 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.




The problem with that is, you'll lose 20-30% of your customers if you enforce a particular view of realism as well.  Those who did go to 4e aren't going to be happy with a 3e style realism bar.  There's a reason they changed to 4e.

So, you're kinda pooched either way.  You're going to lose that 30% no matter what you decide.

I'm just rather happy that after 30 years of game development, things finally fell my way instead of yours.


--------------

CJ - those last two posts are just excellent.  Well said.  I've often said that my beef with 3e mechanics is that the mechanics dictate the action more often than not.  And, because, to borrow your terminology, they are Process Mechanics, they often make doing anything out of the box too difficult to try.

For example, my 4e Warlord frequently uses bull rush (because of a magic item that allows him to push an extra square) in combat.  Because we tend to have prop filled encounter spaces, pushing someone two squares often has a fun result - such as pushing someone out the window.

Now, for me to do this in 3e would be very difficult.  Bull Rush draws an AOO, which possibly does bad things to me depending on what exactly I'm bull rushing, then I have to make the opposed strength check, again, depending on what I'm pushing, my chances of success are rarely great - let's say 50%.  So, I get smacked for my efforts, have only about a 50% chance of success (at best) and, if I fail, fall back prone at the target's feet, drawing easy attacks from the target plus an additional AOO for standing up.

That's just too high of a cost for pushing someone out the window.  Possibly drawing 2 AOO's, plus giving a +4 bonus to a full attack from the baddy means that if I fail, I'm going to get chewed severely.

So, I can't recall ever seeing bull rush used in 3e.  It might have happened, I just can't off hand recall it.

There's, for me, where the nod to realism becomes problematic.  It stifles creativity because, in order to be "realistic" anything that is non-standard carries too much chance of failure.  If it didn't, it would become a typical action.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> There's, for me, where the nod to realism becomes problematic. It stifles creativity because, in order to be "realistic" anything that is non-standard carries too much chance of failure. If it didn't, it would become a typical action.




It can just as easily go the other way, too.  The base 3E rules, with the right character, make a lance user versus a slow monster total nonsense compared to what other characters can do.  (This is not theoretical.  It is a problem we had in our campaign.)   3.5 handled this by explicitly toning down some of the options so that a lance charge no longer followed the process logic of how lances, charges, and mounted combat worked, but to provide results more consistent with what people expected of such a charge.  (I forget the exact changes as it has been awhile.)

But you'll note that you can have the same problems with the other options.  If you bake in "cinematic" results too tightly, you'll frustrate people that want more grit--or vice versa.  If you bake in such results with metagaming constructs to smooth out the rough edges, you'll get the complaints we here about 4E all the time (in some place or another), because to do so is to ignore process almost entirely.  

This is why my preference for a "central" D&D is mainly results-based, about halfway between grit and gonzo, with dials to transparently move those results either way.  Then tack on filters to make it easier to add/exclude elements that just are not going to work with your preferences (i.e. bull rushes that don't work at all, Come and Get It)--don't even pretend that everything is going to work for every preference.  Then intersect the whole things with several metagaming constructs that are optional, and individually so.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's just too high of a cost for pushing someone out the window.




IMO, the 3e rules for most things outside of "attack with your weapon" were pretty unnecessarily complex. OAs are never any fun, IMO, period. 

I think this was largely a sort of "hidden class feature" of Fighters, since Improved Bull Rush and Improved Trip and the like were valuable combat feats. If you re-created an effective bull-rusher in 3e, it would have a lot more feats, and a lot fewer deliberate class features.

IMO, I think a more...blatant...way to do this might be to include "bull rush" as a martial power that has a standard attack and effect, much as 4e does. I like this change. However, I think "I push him out the window" should be available to any character -- all they might have to do is use a Page 42-like reference to perform a stunt and do it. Martial characters do it more and better, since they have a consistent ability to use.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 5, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> However, I think "I push him out the window" should be available to any character -- all they might have to do is use a Page 42-like reference to perform a stunt and do it.



A combat action like 'push' vs a power called Defenestrate is an extreme but good example of what's happening psychologically for me with process simulation vs results-oriented simulation.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 5, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> A combat action like 'push' vs a power called Defenestrate is an extreme but good example of what's happening psychologically for me with process simulation vs results-oriented simulation.




I have the same problem with turn-based initiative.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 5, 2012)

A somewhat late response, as I've been caught up in a few matters recently.



Mark CMG said:


> Me, too, but what if the crunchy bits followed the narrative bits instead of the other way around?  With the crunch guided by some simple overarching principle(s) along the lines of a Page 42?  The narrative aspects would also, thereby, determine the depth of the realism for any given, individual campaign and/or setting.



Really, I don't think it matters whether narration follows crunch or crunch follows narration. The problem happens when the narration turns out to be more or less effective than the DM thinks it should be (a yardstick that would vary from DM to DM) and the DM has to choose between sacrificing consistency (or "realism") or game balance.

With experience and hindsight, of course, we could pick narrations that are less subject to abuse (or nerfing) in a wider variety of situations and thus satisfy the needs of both balance and realism. However, if we have become wedded to certain narrations, then changing them becomes problematic.

For example, if you wanted to narrate a magical effect that:

(1) Could be used by a relatively low-level wizard and 
(2) dealt fire damage
(3) in an area 
(4) to all creatures, friend and foe,
(5) that could be reduced or even evaded completely by non-magical means

there are a variety of ways that this could be (better, IMO) narrated instead of as an exploding ball of flames that completely filled the area (point 5, in particular, makes this specific narration problematic in some cases). However, because _fireball_ is such an iconic spell, we continue describing exploding balls of fire in our games, and just try to work around the corner cases (sacrificing either balance or realism, to taste) when they do show up.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> 1 & 2 are probably a result of a number of different things, but the reason for doing 1 or 2 aren't why consistency matters, consistency matters because people doing 1&2 express concern when healing surges produce inconsistencies when pursuing 1 or 2. The problem healing surges create for players doing 1 & 2 is almost always an issue of consistency (which results in strained believability).



Yes, but the _reason_ they get this consistency problem is because, by doing 1 and 2, they are treating metagame rules as if they were process simulation.

This is why I think the simulation issue is more fundamental than the realism issue - not that I'm really trying to persuade you of this - it's obviously something on which reasonable minds might differ! - but to try and articulate a different perspective.



Bedrockgames said:


> But, if I understand your use of process simulation (and I am not sure I do), we aren't talking about people treating the mechanics as such. We are talking about a basic desire for the game not to disrupt willing suspension of disbelief. This is very different from wanting detailed simulation of reality.



By "process simulation" I don't mean detailed simulation of reality. I mean the action resolution mechanics - the actual things the players do, like generating random numbers and applying modifiers from their character sheets - corresponding in a fairly tight way to events in the fictional gameworld.

In D&D, for example, the die roll to hit is traditionally seen as corresponding to something in the fiction - the PCs swinging of the sword or pulling of the bowstring, for example.

But not all action resolution mechanics are process simulation. In 1st ed AD&D, for example, Gygax states expressly in the DMG that a successful saving throw might correspond to finding a niche in an otherwise bare rock face - in this case rolling the successful saving throw doesn't really correspond to the PC doing anything in the fiction, but rather permits the player to narrate something that otherwise couldn't be narrated - namely, his/her PC's hiding behind a niched to avoid the dragon breath.

As CrazyJerome has explained here and elsewhere, hit points have been fuzzy between process simulation, and metagame. 4e pushes them strongly in the metagame direction. All the consistency problems with healing surges, though, come from treating them (and saving throws for dying) as process simulations.

If the above attempt to distinguish species of mechanics didn't make sense, here is a passage from Ron Edwards that is what I personally have in mind:

In Simulationist play, _cause _is the key, the imagined cosmos in action...

*Resolution mechanics*, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of _what_, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.​
The mechanics - the things we do at the table to play the game - model ingame causal processes - hence (assuming I'm not misunderstanding CrazyJerome) "process simulation".


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I  of the ways that people rationalized the inconsistencies, but not all.
> 
> It didn't affect my view of hit points much at all, because all the things that people say 4E made suddenly unbelieveable *were already unbelievable to me*, and already rationalized has highly abstract, rough narration and pacing tools. Others had different rationalizations that also survived contact with 4E largely intact. Then others found themselves "forced" into new rationalizations (for them) that they were willing to accept. Others found that they could not accept the new rationalizations and/or were unwilling to be so forced.
> 
> You can't fix that by making the rules more consistent. You'd have to go back and make them more inconsistent again, so that all those competing rationalization have a toe-hold.




I think here it is a matter of degree. I don't doubt your experience with healing surges, and I agree hp have always had some consistency/ believability issues. But what healing surges did for many was create more clear inconsistent results in play. HP presented problems but for many of us they were a happy medium and it was fairly easy to describe 20 points of damage as a serious wound without running into inconsistencies. Obviously HP didn't simulate wounds well at a granular level but the point is lots of people could easily describe the wound without having the mechanic undo what they just described. Healing surges presented an issue for such gamers because suddenly what you just described can evaporate after a HS. 

I think you and I actually agree on a lot of things here, but it seems we are using the term consistently in different ways. My concern is whether the mechanics produce inconsistencies in the setting or flow of the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

I believe the term process simulation is creating far more confusion than clarity here.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> .
> 
> As CrazyJerome has explained here and elsewhere, hit points have been fuzzy between process simulation, and metagame. 4e pushes them strongly in the metagame direction. All the consistency problems with healing surges, though, come from treating them (and saving throws for dying) as process simulations.




This paragraph makes sense (thigh I am beginning to think process simulation is a jargony term for fairly simple and intuitive concept). sure that makes sense and doesn't contradict what I've been saying which is D&D has occupied more of a middle ground when it comes to believability and playability. This has enabled it, IMO, to attract a larger audience. By suddenly focusing on one or the other, it loses part of it's fan base. 



> In Simulationist play, _cause _is the key, the imagined cosmos in action...
> 
> *Resolution mechanics*, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of _what_, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.​
> The mechanics - the things we do at the table to play the game - model ingame causal processes - hence (assuming I'm not misunderstanding CrazyJerome) "process simulation".


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Ron Edwards:
> In Simulationist play, _cause _is the key, the imagined cosmos in action...
> *Resolution mechanics*, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of _what_, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during ...​





I realize lots of people here find Ron's writing on things like GNS helpful, and if that works for you great. But I don't find that stuff very helpful for me in terms of play or design.​


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I realize lots of people here find Ron's writing on things like GNS helpful, and if that works for you great. But I don't find that stuff very helpful for me in terms of play or design.



I have to second that. Also, the writing style comes across to me as overly verbose and I think rather pretentious for the context IMHO, so my eyes keep glossing over it. He's also on record for stating that "Simulationism is NOT an actual outlook  or goal, unlike Narrativism or Gamism. Nor is it a "design dial," as  many have suggested. No, we think that Simulationism is a form  of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either  Gamism or Narrativism." He seems very serious about his roleplaying philosophy but I have trouble taking it seriously. Perhaps his position has moderated over the last decade, but I don't think it has much place in my nods to realism.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> I have to second that. Also, the writing style comes across to me as overly verbose and I think rather pretentious for the context IMHO, so my eyes keep glossing over it. He's also on record for stating that "Simulationism is NOT an actual outlook or goal, unlike Narrativism or Gamism. Nor is it a "design dial," as many have suggested. No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism." He seems very serious about his roleplaying philosophy but I have trouble taking it seriously. Perhaps his position has moderated over the last decade, but I don't think it has much place in my nods to realism.




I think Edward's has a very clear style, and it is one that either attracts or repels. I will say the few times I've dealt with him on his forum (for stuff like announcements) he has been a very nice guy. I think he just has very strong views and convictions about gaming. He tends to approach things with a lot of certainty...this sometimes leads him to dismiss positions others value IMO. The biggest problem he faces, in terms of attracting an audience, is he has developed a very extensive vocabulary of terms with precise definitions. While I am sure the glossary is primarily about achieving clarification of ideas, it presents a very real communication issue (and in my view overcomplicates some relatively simple concepts). Just not my cup of tea.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> And if you want to put the simulation back, as I said right after 4E launch, all you have to do is houserule that using surges takes healing magic, and then charge an appropriate amount for potions and CLW wands. Voila! If your concerns are not just suspending your disbelief, but distaste of the mechanic, limited healing by character, or other such thing, then my suggestion may not work. However, then your concerns are no longer exclusively suspending disbelief, and should not be portrayed as such.




There remain believability issues with this. For one thing, why am I am being assured access to magical healing at a set rate each day? Unless you are suggesting that the HS hinge on access to things like wands and potions (in which case, why even have the healing surge, why not just go back to wands and potions healing a certain amount of damage with each use). Also woudn't this cap my magical healing? If I am out of healing surges, would I not be able to use a wand or potion? 

My problem has never been with the mechanic itself. In fact healing surges were something people had talked about and houseruled long before 4E came into being. In my own group we discussed employing such a mechanic. I just always kept running into believability issues with it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> If it is not obvious, the problem with process simulation to produce believable results is two-fold:
> 
> 1. The process becomes overly detailed to try to account for every result via the process. This is what pushing D&D towards Rolemaster would be doing, and is not the objection in this discussion, as few here have even hinted at it. For 4E fans, this is mainly a slipperly slope concern.
> 
> 2. The process produces results that are not consistent with the desired fiction and/or results that are believable in some circumstance but not in others.




I tend to think #1 can be reduced by a more abstract design (e.g.: zooming out from the direct detail of multiple steps of what it takes to perform the action, and simply encompassing the entire attempt in one die roll). 

I tend to think #2 falls into the camp of trying to impose order on chaos (having a "desired fiction" in the first place seems problematic for a game involving 6 autonomous human beings), and/or ignoring the DM's imperative to adapt the rules to the situation (which abstract rules help more with). 

I still am in broad agreement that a Pg42-like "core" is a good way to go, in part, but IMO, it needs to "realistically" conform to the world, as well, in some abstract sense. It doesn't need to be very detailed out of the box for me, but it DOES need to mesh up with the idea that the rules elements are tools that can be used in a variety of creative ways, not just outcomes that you then have to justify.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 5, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I tend to think #1 can be reduced by a more abstract design (e.g.: zooming out from the direct detail of multiple steps of what it takes to perform the action, and simply encompassing the entire attempt in one die roll)...




That's a good point, and one I've come to notice on my own while working on my houserules.

Mechanically, I have found that a lot of times it does work better to use a more abstract process to determine success, and leave the specifics of it (the nod to realism) up to the DM's (or players) narration.

But I do so looooove elegantly and realistically designed mechanics.  I want a mechanical answer to everything, but I know it's just not possible...at least short of an AI programmed for RPG resolution considering all possible variables - a D&D _Watson_).   (Maybe WotC and IBM can forge a partnership.)

It's an extremely fine balance for a designer to navigate.

I'll be interested to see if Monte and company are up to the challenge.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> A somewhat late response, as I've been caught up in a few matters recently.
> 
> Really, I don't think it matters whether narration follows crunch or crunch follows narration. The problem happens when the narration turns out to be more or less effective than the DM thinks it should be (a yardstick that would vary from DM to DM) and the DM has to choose between sacrificing consistency (or "realism") or game balance.
> 
> ...





This is problematic both in that it shakes the foundations of the sense of wonder and creates inconsistency in that it requires mechanical re-explanation.  If it was more clear what could be done narratively, and the mechanics followed the flow, some of the problems created by your check list are removed, IMO.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> If it didn't, it would become a typical action.



Not to dispute your opinion in any way, but to simply present the other point of view: 

That is on my list of beefs with 4E.  Things that should be cool become too easy and thus just become typical actions.  

I *DO* see Bull Rush attempts in 3E.  I wouldn't say I see it in every game, or even every other game.  But I do see it.  And I think I see it in what, to me, is a completely healthy organic frequency driven not by having a daily or encounter based power to use or lose but instead by making the call when the circumstances fit.

And yes, sometimes they don't work.  But they often do work and because the nods to realism make them harder and not "typical", the successes feel HEROIC, like they should.  

I also dispute that your description fits your claim of mechanics controlling actions.  On very cursory inspection your logic appears to hold up.  But what you leave out is that those mechanics are themselves FIRST controlled by the narrative merits.  Bull Rushing is not heard because the mechanics say so.  Bull Rushing is hard because it SHOULD BE from a narrative, heroic point of view.  The mechanics then simply come along for the ride in a manner that supports providing the opportunity for failure and only through that opportunity for failure a related opportunity for glory.  

I think looking at a list of powers and describing a narrative that complies with the results dictated by the selected power is a much better example of mechanics controlling actions.

Again, not disputing anything about how you have fun.  Just presenting an alternative.  I'm also glad that after thirty years of design the focus fell to you side if you felt neglected before.  But I am also glad that the market showed clear resistance to this deviation as well.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

I think there are serious flaws in Edwards' work.  One thing I think he presents very poorly, but has a grain of truth to it, is that there is a tendency of fans of "simulation" to ascribe more capability to processes than they really can carry.  (And in custom software development, dealing with users, I've found this not limited to table top games, either.  It is a huge problem with some users, that want the clicks of the mouse to exactly mimic how they do things now, using paper, instead of thinking about what the real process is, and streamlining that.  If you want to drag the things you throw away to an icon of a trashcan, that may help a new user.  But if you insist that everything be like that, you'll unnecessarily complicate the work for everyone else.)

Or as Einstein said, for every problem, there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong.  For every problem of believability, there is some gamer on a forum that says, essentially, "just model how the character does it in the rules, and everything will work out."  A lot of times, that is the wrong answer.  However, you can't simply dismiss the process answer out of hand.  Sometimes it is the right answer (or at least the best one that is still feasible), as perhaps with the trash can icon.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> This paragraph makes sense (thigh I am beginning to think process simulation is a jargony term for fairly simple and intuitive concept). sure that makes sense and doesn't contradict what I've been saying which is D&D has occupied more of a middle ground when it comes to believability and playability. This has enabled it, IMO, to attract a larger audience. By suddenly focusing on one or the other, it loses part of it's fan base.




It is simple, but it is not easy.    The players should rarely, if ever, even care.  The DM should only grasp the distinction well enough to have a good flow to his game--and most of that will arise intuitively in a good system, without necessarily thinking in design terms.

One of the reasons that it can be this way is that often in D&D, the distinction does not matter.  In Red Box, if your starting fighter swings his sword at an orc, you can easily treat that check and described action as all three at once:  process, result, and drama/narrative.  This is because in this case, the process of swinging the sword, the likely results, and the described action are highly in sync.  You might be a bit put off when you miss and the orc kills you the next round, but you'll quickly adapt the presumed narrative to, "Oh, this isn't exactly a story.  This is D&D, where Joe Fighter goes into the dungeon and dies in the first 15 minutes."  Or your DM might have fudged the process or the results so that the narrative was more what you had in mind.  (That is, the DM had at least intuited these disconnects.  So the player need not.)

The problems are all in the edge cases--even if some of the edge cases are fairly prominent in certain playstyles.  People have been leaving D&D for other pastures since their were other pastures for this very reason.  Heck, often people were building those other pastures because of these kind of problems.  When you hit one of these problem cases, the answer is often tricky.  One can't get beyond "just model what the character does" as the default answer until one accepts that there might be limits to that method.  And in fairness, we've already seen the same thing on the other side.  "Just narrate it" is not always a good answer, either.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> One thing I think he presents very poorly, but has a grain of truth to it, is that there is a tendency of fans of "simulation" to ascribe more capability to processes than they really can carry.



Absolutely true.

I have no doubt whatsoever that someone critical of my playing style preference could sit at my table and make comment after comment about where the reality of what happens falls short of the ideal I describe.

But I know two things.
One is that I've had players from other groups join into my games and comment afterward about how the level of depth is distinct from other games they have played in.  So you don't need to be anywhere near perfect to achieve and prefer superior.
The second is that we are talking about mechanics.  And if you want to strive for an ideal you should look for mechanics that also strive for that same ideal.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I tend to think #1 can be reduced by a more abstract design (e.g.: zooming out from the direct detail of multiple steps of what it takes to perform the action, and simply encompassing the entire attempt in one die roll).
> 
> I tend to think #2 falls into the camp of trying to impose order on chaos (having a "desired fiction" in the first place seems problematic for a game involving 6 autonomous human beings), and/or ignoring the DM's imperative to adapt the rules to the situation (which abstract rules help more with).
> 
> I still am in broad agreement that a Pg42-like "core" is a good way to go, in part, but IMO, it needs to "realistically" conform to the world, as well, in some abstract sense. It doesn't need to be very detailed out of the box for me, but it DOES need to mesh up with the idea that the rules elements are tools that can be used in a variety of creative ways, not just outcomes that you then have to justify.




I think there has to be some of all the methods, because while I love abstraction personally, I think there are limits to what it can deliver.  I think details have to be there, but they need to be carefully chosen to maximize the gains while minimizing the side effects.  

While I appreciate highly consistent mechanics, I suspect there may be a bit of an "uncanny valley" effect in such game rules, that directly affects suspension of disbelief.  It is possible that carefully selected areas for details could mitigate this.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> There remain believability issues with this. For one thing, why am I am being assured access to magical healing at a set rate each day? Unless you are suggesting that the HS hinge on access to things like wands and potions (in which case, why even have the healing surge, why not just go back to wands and potions healing a certain amount of damage with each use). Also woudn't this cap my magical healing? If I am out of healing surges, would I not be able to use a wand or potion?
> 
> My problem has never been with the mechanic itself. In fact healing surges were something people had talked about and houseruled long before 4E came into being. In my own group we discussed employing such a mechanic. I just always kept running into believability issues with it.




In order:

You aren't now being allowed access to a set amount of healing each day.  If you run out of potions and wand charges, you can't use any of the cap that is remaining.

You keep the healing surge because the idea here is not to make a mechanic that is perfect for a particular style, but easily adapting one that other people like to a different style.  "Just drop it" is great for you, but sucks for all the people that like it. Not to mention people like me that may play it differently from campaign to campaign.  And if believability is the only problem with it, then it really isn't that hard to adapt.

As presented, it would cap your healing.  If that also offends your suspension of disbelief (or perhaps merely doesn't fit with the conception of the game world you are playing in right now), this is equally easy to fix.  If that is the problem, remove the limit on surges and simply use the value of the surge.  Place the surges in the potions and wands.  Now you have something that works very much like 3E rules, without the, "wizard with his piddly hit points gets a heck of a lot more out of CLW than the fighter does at the same relative damage spot" problem.  You'll be firmly now in the "operational healing must be strategically managed" camp, but presumably that is what you wanted.

There might be other nuances.  I don't know exactly what you might want in a given game to feel as if everything was sufficiently believable.  But my point is that* IF* your issue with surges is solely one of suspension of disbelief with surges, there is some fairly simply tweaking of those rules than can be discovered and implemented that will address those concerns.  

OTOH, if the concern is more, for example, lingering issues with suspending disbelief with hit points in general, and "healing surges" being a central mechanic is throwing those in your face all the time, then maybe not.  But at that point, if you state that healing surges are the devil in the garden, when all was fine before, you are no longer self-reporting correctly.   Perhaps, D&D is not the best fit.  Obviously, only you and your group would really know.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2012)

Or...I could just drop healing surges and save myself the work. I think a better approach is to start with normal HP as default and have healing surges as an add-on optional rule. Since people in my camp never ran into many issues with hp (I found it a happy medium for what D&D does), but someone in your camp feels HS adds something to the game experience, this would seem the least intrusive solution to both sides.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> The second is that we are talking about mechanics. And if you want to strive for an ideal you should look for mechanics that also strive for that same ideal.




Ideal for whom? The mechanics that I would design to fit my specific groups' preferences would be significantly different from those that I would design for D&D players in general--if in some hellish alternate universe, I was so inflicted on you guys. Occasionally I read things here that make me doubt the writer has considered that distinction at all. 

One of the reasons I keep reading what you write is that I know you understand it, but rarely share my preferences.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Or...I could just drop healing surges and save myself the work. I think a better approach is to start with normal HP as default and have healing surges as an add-on optional rule. Since people in my camp never ran into many issues with hp (I found it a happy medium for what D&D does), but someone in your camp feels HS adds something to the game experience, this would seem the least intrusive solution to both sides.




Sure. If you don't mind those niche issues like the wizard/fighter healing discrepancy, that would be a good option.

You'll note that I advocate precisely that for a 5E that had a small core and then supplements to support 3E and 4E style play. As long as we aren't talking about embedding 3E assumptions back into the game instead of healing surges, and have left room for healing surges to be an option, I've got no beef with that. 

They can't always make a single rule that works for everyone, or even most everyone. They could sometimes make a rule that is easily adapted to two or three otherwise mutually exclusive approaches.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Sure. If you don't mind those niche issues like the wizard/fighter healing discrepancy, that would be a good option.



Mind you, he might not have a specific issue with the idea that a cleric can cast a healing spell and restore 25% of any PC's hit points. However, he might have issues with:

1. The cleric can do so as a minor action (healing is too easy).

2. The cleric can do so two or three times after taking a short rest (healing occurs too frequently).

3. The warlord can do the same, anyone can take a second wind during combat, and anyone can spend healing surges during a short rest (non-magical healing).

I have made the point that healing surges are often blamed for issues that are actually related to healing powers or the idea of non-magical healing. To be fair, he did mention that he had an issue with the limitations on magical healing, which is related to healing surges. (Although there are healing powers such as _cure light wounds_ and _lay on hands_ which do not require the target to spend a healing surge.)


----------



## FireLance (Jan 5, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> This is problematic both in that it shakes the foundations of the sense of wonder and creates inconsistency in that it requires mechanical re-explanation.  If it was more clear what could be done narratively, and the mechanics followed the flow, some of the problems created by your check list are removed, IMO.



Sure, but "what could be done narratively" is not always apparent at first blush. _Fireball_ as an exploding ball of fire probably worked quite well at first. However, when you introduce non-magical abilities that allow you to remain completely unaffected by a magical attack (such as Evasion), then you get problems. If you decide, for narrative reasons, that you cannot avoid all damage from a _fireball_ with Evasion, then (if you value game balance) you should make it a higher-level spell, or otherwise balance it against spells which narratively can be completely avoided such as _lightning bolt_.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Sure, but "what could be done narratively" is not always apparent at first blush. _Fireball_ as an exploding ball of fire probably worked quite well at first. However, when you introduce non-magical abilities that allow you to remain completely unaffected by a magical attack (such as Evasion), then you get problems. If you decide, for narrative reasons, that you cannot avoid all damage from a _fireball_ with Evasion, then (if you value game balance) you should make it a higher-level spell, or otherwise balance it against spells which narratively can be completely avoided such as _lightning bolt_.





Sure, I see your objection and have given some thought to that problem in regards to a narrative-first ruleset.  The component, which exists in all types of RPGs, that mitigates the problem is that the GM describes the actual results.  A player can only explain what they are attempting, the consequences of the action are in the GM's purview.  This is problematic with rulesets that dictate mechanical results as a given and then, as if to add insult to injury, tack on a set narrative to those mechanics.  This is why RPG rulesets that go too far in trying to curtail the role of the GM tend to bring about such controversy, IMO.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Ideal for whom?



It doesn't matter who.

I consider my statement to be universally true regardless of the specific ideal in question.  I said "an ideal".  I didn't say "the ideal".  

I think it is fairly obvious that I was specifically speaking about my own personal ideal in that context, but it doesn't change the open-ended nature of the statement.

But very specifically I was angling at the point you referenced which suggested that simulationists (such as myself) may believe that mechanics can do more than they really can.  I can easily see how in a reading of debates that it could sound that way.  But that is because in the debates we all do tend to promote our own ideals.  But the suggestion that there is a flaw in the position because reality does not fully achieve a particular ideal does not stand up to serious consideration.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> As long as we aren't talking about embedding 3E assumptions back into the game instead of healing surges, and have left room for healing surges to be an option, I've got no beef with that.



Are you suggesting that 3E, as-is, does not leave room for surges?

I would certainly agree with you that the game does not presume them and was not built with them in mind.  

But playing a stable, functional, and reasonably balanced game of RAW 3E with surges as a single house rule would not be difficult at all if one was so inclined.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Not to dispute your opinion in any way, but to simply present the other point of view:
> 
> That is on my list of beefs with 4E.  Things that should be cool become too easy and thus just become typical actions.
> 
> ...




Heh.

Those examples that you see, are they done by characters who have deliberately been designed to do them?  IOW, the player has taken the Improved Bull Rush feat (and associated feats) in order to be able to do this?  Which means that they actually aren't "thinking outside the box" since their character is specifically designed to include bull rushing in their box.

((I can't believe I just said bull rushing in their box - sigh))

Again, I disagree.  I see bull rushing happening, or whatever non-standard action for that matter, when it would be appropriate and believable in the fiction of the game.  There's a guy standing near a window, pushing him out that window isn't really too much of a stretch.  It's something that happens all the time in genre fiction.  So, I don't want it to be limited to the Bull Rushing specialist. 

Because that's where I get kind of bogged down in 3e.  Trying anything that is non-standard is just so punishing.  Success at a bull rush is not particularly high.  You need a target that is significantly weaker than you (very limiting), plus probably a charge (which is a point I do like) to have any real chance of success.  If the target is equal to you in strength, your odds of success are just so low that the cost of the attempt (possibly two AOO's, one at +4, plus granting the other guy a full attack at +4) means that I never saw it attempted.

What did you do to make it more palatable?  Or were your players simply not concerned with the odds?  Or, was the only time you saw bull rushes when they were done by characters who specialized in it?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Are you suggesting that 3E, as-is, does not leave room for surges?
> 
> I would certainly agree with you that the game does not presume them and was not built with them in mind.
> 
> But playing a stable, functional, and reasonably balanced game of RAW 3E with surges as a single house rule would not be difficult at all if one was so inclined.




That I actually kinda agree with.  I know that I had toyed with the idea in 3e with simply allowing PC's to regain all their HP after each encounter, simply because that was what was happening anyway in my games - they typically used healing wands.

So, porting in 4e style healing surges into a 3e game would probably not be all that difficult.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Heh.
> 
> Those examples that you see, are they done by characters who have deliberately been designed to do them?  IOW, the player has taken the Improved Bull Rush feat (and associated feats) in order to be able to do this?  Which means that they actually aren't "thinking outside the box" since their character is specifically designed to include bull rushing in their box.



Interesting claim for someone who likes to demand iron clad evidence of things.....

I can not recall anyone every playing a character with IBR.  



> Again, I disagree.  I see bull rushing happening, or whatever non-standard action for that matter, when it would be appropriate and believable in the fiction of the game.  There's a guy standing near a window, pushing him out that window isn't really too much of a stretch.  It's something that happens all the time in genre fiction.  So, I don't want it to be limited to the Bull Rushing specialist.



Cool, we agree.  And it isn't in my game + it is not overly easy and is awesome and heroic when achieved.  I love it.



> Because that's where I get kind of bogged down in 3e.  Trying anything that is non-standard is just so punishing.  Success at a bull rush is not particularly high.  You need a target that is significantly weaker than you (very limiting), plus probably a charge (which is a point I do like) to have any real chance of success.  If the target is equal to you in strength, your odds of success are just so low that the cost of the attempt (possibly two AOO's, one at +4, plus granting the other guy a full attack at +4) means that I never saw it attempted.
> 
> What did you do to make it more palatable?  Or were your players simply not concerned with the odds?  Or, was the only time you saw bull rushes when they were done by characters who specialized in it?



Well, first I don't spend a lot of time getting hung up on this stuff.  As I've said before, it comes down to the "being in the novel" mindset.  The player's bull rush when they want to bull rush.  Yeah, they don't ever bull rush stone giants.  I'm ok with that.  But they do bull rush foes and they sometimes fail and they sometimes succeed.  You presumption of failure is, ime, flawed from a practical point of view, and also, COMPLETELY IMO, flawed from a being in the spirit of forget the math a be a HERO point of view.

I can think of one element I'll concede to you and that  is Action Points.  I do use those.  And I do know that I've seen them used in conjunction with BR.  But I've also seen them without.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> That I actually kinda agree with.  I know that I had toyed with the idea in 3e with simply allowing PC's to regain all their HP after each encounter, simply because that was what was happening anyway in my games - they typically used healing wands.
> 
> So, porting in 4e style healing surges into a 3e game would probably not be all that difficult.



Trailblazer nods to this a bit as well.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2012)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You presumption of failure is, ime, flawed from a practical point of view, and also, COMPLETELY IMO, flawed from a being in the spirit of forget the math a be a HERO point of view.




Ahh, your players didn't care about the odds.  Fair enough.

On a practical level though?  Given equal strengths, I've got a 50:50 chance of success.  A bit better with a charge.  50:50 to move someone back 5 feet vs giving up 1 automatic AOO, 1 more AOO at +4 when I stand up and a full attack at +4?  That's not good enough for me.  It's simply not worth it.

Yeah, it's easy enough to say, "forget about the math!" but, after the first failure and getting your ass handed to you, I'm thinking most players are pretty rational actors and are going to remember that bull rushing=really bad idea.  But, then again, I've never seen anyone play who completely forgets the math.  I've never played that way, nor could I to be honest.  

I KNOW what the math says.  For me to be true to my character, who is also trained in combat, HE knows what the math says in this system.  Bull rush=high chance of failure with very high penalties for failure vs my standard attack routine which equals moderate chance of failure with no penalties.  Not a hard decision to make.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, it's easy enough to say, "forget about the math!" but, after the first failure and getting your ass handed to you, I'm thinking most players are pretty rational actors and are going to remember that bull rushing=really bad idea.



Shrug.  Again, it works plenty often enough.  It also fails enough to (A) be reasonably "nodding to realism" and (B) make those successes heroic and awesome.

Most players I've gamed with are pretty fun intensive actors and what they remember is that time a great roll on a bull rush saved the day and if you want a fun "rush" during your game then Bull Rush, in the right time and place, amongst plenty of other optional tactics, equals an awesome idea.

Again, you are framing everything as if it were doomed.  It doesn't work out that way.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 6, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Sure, I see your objection and have given some thought to that problem in regards to a narrative-first ruleset.  The component, which exists in all types of RPGs, that mitigates the problem is that the GM describes the actual results.  A player can only explain what they are attempting, the consequences of the action are in the GM's purview.  This is problematic with rulesets that dictate mechanical results as a given and then, as if to add insult to injury, tack on a set narrative to those mechanics.  This is why RPG rulesets that go too far in trying to curtail the role of the GM tend to bring about such controversy, IMO.



Possibly, but the flipside is that game systems that require the DM to decide on the results each time the player takes an action (as opposed to simply applying a ruleset) also place quite a great burden on the DM. 

Just to cite an example, I doubt that I would ever voluntarily run a game of White Wolf's Mage because every time a PC wanted to use magic, I would have to decide which schools were involved and to what extent. Admittedly, it could simply be because I've only given the system a cursory glance through, but coming as I did from a D&D background, I didn't even feel like giving the system a chance because it seemed like a lot of effort to do what, in D&D, would essentially boil down to: I use Spell X.

Mind you, the system you have in mind could be a happy medium - more flexible than standard D&D, more concrete guidelines than standard Mage. You might even be able to retain the iconic spells as standard effects which could be varied by an additional or a harder check. Want a _fireball_ that only targets enemies, or which doesn't burn up the papers in the library or set fire to the deck of the ship everyone is fighting on? Maybe the Arcana DC goes up by 2 to 4 points.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 6, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Possibly, but the flipside is that game systems that require the DM to decide on the results each time the player takes an action (as opposed to simply applying a ruleset) also place quite a great burden on the DM.
> 
> Just to cite an example, I doubt that I would ever voluntarily run a game of White Wolf's Mage because every time a PC wanted to use magic, I would have to decide which schools were involved and to what extent. Admittedly, it could simply be because I've only given the system a cursory glance through, but coming as I did from a D&D background, I didn't even feel like giving the system a chance because it seemed like a lot of effort to do what, in D&D, would essentially boil down to: I use Spell X.
> 
> Mind you, the system you have in mind could be a happy medium - more flexible than standard D&D, more concrete guidelines than standard Mage. You might even be able to retain the iconic spells as standard effects which could be varied by an additional or a harder check. Want a _fireball_ that only targets enemies, or which doesn't burn up the papers in the library or set fire to the deck of the ship everyone is fighting on? Maybe the Arcana DC goes up by 2 to 4 points.





I don't think of it so much as a burden as allowing the GM to provide consistency as it applies to an individual setting, and I don't simply mean consistency of a single setting from GM to GM but rather the setting as the GM wishes to present it in the singular gaming group experience.  While a ruleset can help provide mechanical consistency over the course of a campaign, if the rules are tied to narrative cues as professed by the combination of setting, GM oversight, and player invention, that consistency becomes a framework for making sure the rules don't contradict themselves as well.  This allows the game, any RPG, to provide a more immersive experience within a given setting rather than creating an environment where players look for to the rules to predetermine their options, in turn opening up the world of possibilities in any given moment.  This engenders a gaming mentality where players think in terms of their interface with the game as character in an environment rather than merely numbers to be weighed against the situational numbers the game presents regardless of setting or GM.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 6, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> A player can only explain what they are attempting, the consequences of the action are in the GM's purview.



That is exactly how I first learned to play D&D.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 6, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Are you suggesting that 3E, as-is, does not leave room for surges?
> 
> I would certainly agree with you that the game does not presume them and was not built with them in mind.
> 
> But playing a stable, functional, and reasonably balanced game of RAW 3E with surges as a single house rule would not be difficult at all if one was so inclined.




If all you wanted was the surges, sure, you could do that.  If you want the narrative pacing mechanism that surges are the central part of, no, it would take a bit more work.  

Now, I don't see much point in having the surges unless you also want the narrative pacing.  When I developed a house rule for Fantasy Hero that was all but "surges" in concept, something like the 4E pacing was definitely what I had in mind.  And I got to "surges" after trying a bunch of other things that didn't work. (My implementation wasn't nearly as elegant as 4E surges, but then that was me working alone with a single group. )

There might be something else majorly useful in the surges that I'm not aware of, though.


----------



## Tovec (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> On a practical level though?  Given equal strengths, I've got a 50:50 chance of success.  A bit better with a charge.  50:50 to move someone back 5 feet vs giving up 1 automatic AOO, 1 more AOO at +4 when I stand up and a full attack at +4?  That's not good enough for me.  It's simply not worth it.




The presumption was that character A who has no implements randomly charges character B and attempts to knock them out the window?

How much of a chance would YOU like if I did that to you? 100?

Also, if they're both unarmed then there is no AOO. Have to be armed for that.

Plus, you are forgetting if they did it during surprise round. Just saying.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2012)

Tovec said:


> The presumption was that character A who has no implements randomly charges character B and attempts to knock them out the window?
> 
> How much of a chance would YOU like if I did that to you? 100?
> 
> ...




I'd like a lot better than 50:50 considering the consequences for failure.

Look, we'll flip a coin.  If you win, I give you five dollars.  But, before we flip, I get to punch you in the mouth.  Plus, if you fail I get to kick you in the nads and the step on your ankle while you're on the ground.

Fair deal?  Didn't think so.  The reward is nowhere near good enough for the risk.

Your quibbles are just that, quibbles.  You're actually arguing my point for me by reducing the number of possible times it would succeed - need an unarmed opponent, need surprise, etc.

And, let's not forget, that this is actually LESS attractive the higher level my character is.  The odds don't really change because it's stat, not level based, but now I'm giving up additional attacks or actions to do something that has a low chance of success and high penalties.

Now, obviously my players are different than BryonD's.  I have no idea how to motivate people to be quite frankly that unaware of the game.  Look, if the opponent is one size larger than you, you might as well not even bother trying.  It's got both the size bonus against you and in all likelihood stronger than you.  If your character is small, you might as well forget about it at all.  Even if the opponent is medium, many medium creatures have a fairly high strength score.  A base orc has a 17 Str - +3 to it's base check.  Even against this, you're not much better than 50% at best.  And probably lower.

Again, the chance of success just isn't worth it.  I've never actually seen bull rush used in 3e.  Apparently BryonD has, but, again, his case is very different than mine because his players are, in my mind anyway, not rational actors.  That or they like rolling up new characters a lot.

This basically illustrates why I have such a problem with process based Simulation.  It makes any action that is not expressly permitted so difficult that it's just not worth it and players IME don't even try.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This basically illustrates why I have such a problem with process based Simulation. It makes any action that is not expressly permitted so difficult that it's just not worth it and players IME don't even try.




Your first sentence doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on your second.

There's nothing inherent to "process-based simulation" that necessarily means that actions that are not allowed are made impossible.

The 3e bull rush rules can be kind of trash (and, like many non-attack options in 3e, they kind of are, IMO) without that impugning an entire method of action resolution.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2012)

KM, the problem is though, the more random chances you add into the process (the more "realism points" I guess you could call it) the greater the chance of failure.  Process based Simulation needs to make those kinds of calls doesn't it?  You can't abstract it all to a single die roll because now you're no longer doing process based Sim.  

I have nothing against simulation inherently, but, I find that process based Sim falls down when in actual play because the odds start stacking up against you so quickly.  Because the goal is believability, the cost/benefit isn't grounded in "What will make people want to do this and use this in the game" but in "How will this better simulate the action in the fictional space?"  

And, when you start injecting realism like that, of course game play takes a back seat.  It has to.  Anything that is covered by the process becomes the default because it's the most reasonable/believable series of actions.  Anything that falls outside that default by definition has to have less chance of success.  Unfortunately, that includes things that might be interesting, but really aren't as effective as the default actions.

So, you wind up with things like Bull Rush where, from a process Sim viewpoint, makes perfect sense.  As Tovec points out, what should be the chance of success?  How good should it be?  My answer to that is not going to make process Sim players happy.  

My response is, it should work as often as would make it more interesting to use in the game and it should be as effective as the narrative warrants.   The bad guy gets tossed off the roof more often than he doesn't because that would result in more interesting play (for me).  If the bad guy doesn't get tossed off the roof very often, and the costs for trying are too onerous, then a rational player simply won't bother trying it at all.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Process based Simulation needs to make those kinds of calls doesn't it? You can't abstract it all to a single die roll because now you're no longer doing process based Sim.




I'm not sure that it necessarily has to force a "roll for every part of the action." It seems to me that as long as the rules encompass the outcomes, making the rules simpler and more direct are not negative things.

I mean, in the Actual World, hundreds of thousands of micro-decisions are made and executed all just to twiddle your thumbs. Pretty sure no one is demanding mechanics for all of that, just for "enough" of that.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Because the goal is believability, the cost/benefit isn't grounded in "What will make people want to do this and use this in the game" but in "How will this better simulate the action in the fictional space?"




I think most people will freely acknowledge that you must account for playability. The goal is ultimately to play a game, after all, even if that game is grounded in a simulation of action.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So, you wind up with things like Bull Rush where, from a process Sim viewpoint, makes perfect sense. As Tovec points out, what should be the chance of success? How good should it be? My answer to that is not going to make process Sim players happy




I think the important question isn't "how SHOULD it work?" but "how do we WANT it to work?" It's a subtle distinction. Tovec's example of two people pushin' each other around isn't taking into account, for instance, the idea of a D&D milieu where I am not me, I am a big strong warrior with big strong muscles and a big strong axe, and I should be able to shove some orcs around, probably. 

Because that's what we're "simulating." Not reality, but a heroic world. And it's only ever a "simulation." It's never exactly accurate to the real thing.

The 3e rules for "bull rush" aren't any great paragon of simulation. They "make sense," but that doesn't mean different rules won't also make sense (though it kind of does mean that the 4e rules where no one can push anyone unless they have a magical power that lets them doesn't make much sense).


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think the important question isn't "how SHOULD it work?" but "how do we WANT it to work?" It's a subtle distinction. Tovec's example of two people pushin' each other around isn't taking into account, for instance, the idea of a D&D milieu where I am not me, I am a big strong warrior with big strong muscles and a big strong axe, and I should be able to shove some orcs around, probably.
> 
> Because that's what we're "simulating." Not reality, but a heroic world. And it's only ever a "simulation." It's never exactly accurate to the real thing.




A big part of the point I've been trying to make is that a lot of simulation advocates do ask "how should it work" instead of "how do we want it to work". Or rather, they assume that there is no distinction in those questions whatsoever, because what they want is for everything to act as they think it should. 

These are the people (some on these forums) that advocate as Hussar has indicated, and pile on details and rolls until the thing doesn't really work at all. But you are entirely correct that you can abstract a process sufficiently that it will work just fine. But in order to do that, you have to know to ask the question in the way you said. 

BTW, Bull rush in our 3E campaign got used several times--until the players realized that it was seldom a good option, where upon the began to ignore it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2012)

Y'know, it strikes me that even modern computer games that turn up the simulation to 11 (Minecraft, or Dwarf Fortress, forex), the question still is, "How do we want it to work?"

In Dwarf Fortress, forex, your dwarves go insane, or get depressed if their friends die. They have _emotions_. But it's important for gameplay that those emotions get expressed in a particular way (suicide, maniacal rampage, etc.) that affects the entire fortress. 

So it's an extensive simulation of an emotion, but the effect is realized in gameplay -- it's about the chaos that a crazy dwarf might cause.


----------



## Tovec (Jan 6, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> BTW, Bull rush in our 3E campaign got used several times--until the players realized that it was seldom a good option, where upon the began to ignore it.




In 3e, it was a sup-par option _because_:
1. it didn't damage the enemy as much as a full attack
2. movement is a cost, not a simulation
Ie. The fighter can't effectively stop enemies from approaching the party wizard, not really.

In OUR games we used bull rush plenty, but we used it as a means to an end. Yes the fighter did (and _should_) have a better chance of it than the wizard but that didn't stop the wizard from trying every once in a while.
It was used when we needed to knock the enemy out the window, or to move them back. It is a mechanic which doesn't work when the point of the game is to merely "hit the enemy with my weapon until dead". That isn't what it was designed for.

In 4e, it isn't an option because:
A. every character can't just do it, they need a power
B. it isn't special because if you have it as a power then it is used just to move someone around the board, err, room.
Ie. First Player: I knock the guy back 3 squares and he is prone.
Second Player: Cool, I use my encounter power to advance 3 squares and wail on him.

4e doesn't solve the root problem Hussar or Crazy Jerome seem to be having. All it does is give people who are trained in it a higher chance of succeeding. 
I find this part particularly laughable as that is how it worked in 3e too - with the aid of feats, buffs and picking your moment - all of which they claim are an unfair deal.

Oh [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - yes, it is a crappy result if you are untrained and fail the check. But in 4e, if you are untrained you can't do it at all.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jan 6, 2012)

Tovec said:


> In 4e, it isn't an option because:
> A. every character can't just do it, they need a power
> B. it isn't special because if you have it as a power then it is used just to move someone around the board, err, room.
> Ie. First Player: I knock the guy back 3 squares and he is prone.
> Second Player: Cool, I use my encounter power to advance 3 squares and wail on him.



...Except that in 4e it is still something that everyone can do. It is one of the "Default Attack Powers" that "Any creature can use". (RC p.215)

Your second point makes no sense. That's all pushing a creature has _ever _done. And you can still push someone out a window, over a ledge, etc. It doesn't even require a DM call (Forced Movement, RC p.211-212).

It's fine to argue that you don't like 4e. It's a matter of preference, and I respect that. That said, if you're going to argue about the rules, it helps to have read them.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 6, 2012)

Tovec said:


> 4e doesn't solve the root problem Hussar or Crazy Jerome seem to be having. All it does is give people who are trained in it a higher chance of succeeding.
> I find this part particularly laughable as that is how it worked in 3e too - with the aid of feats, buffs and picking your moment - all of which they claim are an unfair deal.




Well, this specifically is not a huge problem for me either way. Long before 3E was launched, I was consciously using vertical space and other location elements to create more "action movie" scenes in my gaming. But this was hardly limited to pushing people off of ledges or out of windows. We were more interested in things such as rolling the barrels of lamp oil down the ramp, off the ledge, and tossing torches after them. (Or with Arcana Evolved, conjured fire monkeys. Man, I loved that little guy!) So "bull rush"--however conceived, is not that critical in and of itself.

But on the math and who can do what, I'd say that you are not taking page 42 into account. Nor is this limited to my preferences for how action resolution is conceived or approached. In Fantasy Hero, it is a mix of simulation techniques, with a few other things thrown in, but pushing someone off a ledge is a combo or reasonable abilities that everyone has, which can be enhanced by a specialist. It got used well by the specialists and some by everyone else. In 4E, the same results held, though the means are signficantly different--"stunts" are required for just anyone to do it in spectacular fashion. In 3E, in contrast, the problem is that the non-specialist who is remotely aware of the results has no interest in doing this whatsoever, while the specialist is *too* interested in doing it all the time (aka the tripping expert). 

If you approach D&D from the mindset of, "the fighter can stop people getting past me to smack the wizard because it says in the description of my class that I can do that"--such that you can ignore the plain fact of the mechanics not in any way really supporting that--then "bull rush" will work for you more or less in any system, as long as you name it right and give the people that ability that you think should have it. OTOH, if you want "action hero" results, and are willing to sacrifice a bit of the tyranny between direct cause and effect, then the first approach will not satisfy you. In that case, the game doesn't do what it says it does on the tin.


----------



## Tovec (Jan 6, 2012)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> ...Except that in 4e it is still something that everyone can do. It is one of the "Default Attack Powers" that "Any creature can use". (RC p.215)
> 
> Your second point makes no sense. That's all pushing a creature has _ever _done. And you can still push someone out a window, over a ledge, etc. It doesn't even require a DM call (Forced Movement, RC p.211-212).
> 
> It's fine to argue that you don't like 4e. It's a matter of preference, and I respect that. That said, if you're going to argue about the rules, it helps to have read them.




I'm unfamiliar with RC, it has something to do with not buying MORE books for a system I dislike. I refer to buying MORE, because I DO have the PHB, MM and DMG. I never realized what I SHOULD have spent my money on was the Rules Compendium. (Well, what I should have spent my money on was Pathfinder but whatever.)

My point A was that by default, in the PHB for example - not the RC, you can't bull rush someone anymore. Anything you don't have a rule for, or has to be made up, is suddenly impossible. Not hard, not difficult, but impossible. Unless of course you make something up - which happens to be a main gripe I have with 4e.

My point B was that EVERYONE gets a "pushback" power of some sort or stripe, like everyone gets a teleport-like ability and everyone can hit for about equal damage, unno cus the edition is "balanced". If EVERYONE can do it, and they can do it at least once a day, with little or no difficulty, then it becomes less special. My Point B also comes up a little later when I reply to Jerome (see below).




Crazy Jerome said:


> Well, this specifically is not a huge problem for me either way. Long before 3E was launched, I was consciously using vertical space and other location elements to create more "action movie" scenes in my gaming. But this was hardly limited to pushing people off of ledges or out of windows. We were more interested in things such as rolling the barrels of lamp oil down the ramp, off the ledge, and tossing torches after them. (Or with Arcana Evolved, conjured fire monkeys. Man, I loved that little guy!) So "bull rush"--however conceived, is not that critical in and of itself.



I'm glad you do, I don't see what either edition has to do with this? 3e did it differently than 4e, that is all. Either way, someone who has abilities can do it better than someone without. In 4e however if you DON'T have the ability you can't do it at all, whereas in 3e it was just more difficult.



Crazy Jerome said:


> But on the math and who can do what, I'd say that you are not taking page 42 into account. Nor is this limited to my preferences for how action resolution is conceived or approached. In Fantasy Hero, it is a mix of simulation techniques, with a few other things thrown in, but pushing someone off a ledge is a combo or reasonable abilities that everyone has, which can be enhanced by a specialist. It got used well by the specialists and some by everyone else. In 4E, the same results held, though the means are signficantly different--"stunts" are required for just anyone to do it in spectacular fashion. In 3E, in contrast, the problem is that the non-specialist who is remotely aware of the results has no interest in doing this whatsoever, while the specialist is *too* interested in doing it all the time (aka the tripping expert).



I don't take page 42 into account anymore than I take Rule 0 into account with 3e. I DO very much and heavily agree that in BOTH editions if you have the ability to do it (or do it well) then you want to do it as much as possible. That is a failing for BOTH editions, not just 3e. (Nemesis, read this part)



Crazy Jerome said:


> If you approach D&D from the mindset of, "the fighter can stop people getting past me to smack the wizard because it says in the description of my class that I can do that"--such that you can ignore the plain fact of the mechanics not in any way really supporting that--then "bull rush" will work for you more or less in any system, as long as you name it right and give the people that ability that you think should have it. OTOH, if you want "action hero" results, and are willing to sacrifice a bit of the tyranny between direct cause and effect, then the first approach will not satisfy you. In that case, the game doesn't do what it says it does on the tin.




If I approach the game with the mindset that the rules are made of jell-o I can do a number of extraordinary things with jell-o too. I don't see your point here.
Why is it tyranny to want a system that describes events in a way resembling reality, instead of one resembling a cartoon? (Note I didn't say realistic or realism.) Yes, in real life, it is tricky knocking someone over, or out a window, and I think there should be a certain amount of difficult to do it in the game too. (Here too Nemesis.)

In 4e however your choices are:
1. Have the power, do it, success. Don't have the power, can't do it.
2. Make something up.

In 3e it was:
1. Have the feats, do it (well), success. Don't have the feats, maybe still do it.
2. Don't have to make something up. Still CAN if something isn't working for you, but don't HAVE TO.

The downside with both is that if you have the power/feats you are going to want to do it it whenever the opportunity arises, I'll certainly agree with Crazy Jerome on that.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jan 6, 2012)

Tovec said:


> I'm unfamiliar with RC, it has something to do with not buying MORE books for a system I dislike. I refer to buying MORE, because I DO have the PHB, MM and DMG. I never realized what I SHOULD have spent my money on was the Rules Compendium. (Well, what I should have spent my money on was Pathfinder but whatever.)
> 
> My point A was that by default, in the PHB for example - not the RC, you can't bull rush someone anymore. Anything you don't have a rule for, or has to be made up, is suddenly impossible. Not hard, not difficult, but impossible. Unless of course you make something up - which happens to be a main gripe I have with 4e.



PH1 p.287 - Bull Rush is listed.

And further, anything you don't have a rule for, that is what page 42 is for. So, possible, depending on the DC. No different than before.



> My point B was that EVERYONE gets a "pushback" power of some sort or stripe, like everyone gets a teleport-like ability and everyone can hit for about equal damage, unno cus the edition is "balanced". If EVERYONE can do it, and they can do it at least once a day, with little or no difficulty, then it becomes less special. My Point B also comes up a little later when I reply to Jerome (see below).



Your point B is not accurate either. There are plenty of things that characters of different stripes can do better than others, or exclusively.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> It's fine to argue that you don't like  4e. It's a matter of preference, and I respect that. That said, if  you're going to argue about the rules, it helps to have read  them.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 7, 2012)

Tovec said:


> I don't take page 42 into account anymore than I take Rule 0 into account with 3e. I DO very much and heavily agree that in BOTH editions if you have the ability to do it (or do it well) then you want to do it as much as possible. That is a failing for BOTH editions, not just 3e. (Nemesis, read this part)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think we will just have to agree to disagree.  I don't think your perception of 4E is very accurate, and I don't see much real interest in getting a more accurate one or understanding why it works the way it does.  Which is fine; it's a free country.  So let's just drop it.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> If all you wanted was the surges, sure, you could do that.  If you want the narrative pacing mechanism that surges are the central part of, no, it would take a bit more work.
> 
> Now, I don't see much point in having the surges unless you also want the narrative pacing.  When I developed a house rule for Fantasy Hero that was all but "surges" in concept, something like the 4E pacing was definitely what I had in mind.  And I got to "surges" after trying a bunch of other things that didn't work. (My implementation wasn't nearly as elegant as 4E surges, but then that was me working alone with a single group. )
> 
> There might be something else majorly useful in the surges that I'm not aware of, though.



Oh, I agree with you that fitting one piece of 4E (be it surges or whatever else) is vastly easier than converting the entire feel.  You specified surges here and I responded to that.

But I would NEVER claim that a true 4E fan should expect to have the same experience by simply tweaking 3E.  4E is custom built for that specific market niche.

What I have said and will continue to say is that 3E can do a very good job of providing a game for people who like the 4E style and it can also do a very good job of offering a game for people who like the style I like.

4E, OTOH, does an outstanding job of providing the 4E style and a poor job of providing my personal style.  Why would any 4E fan accept very good when they can have outstanding?

I've also said before that if I'd never heard of RPGs and someone showed me 4E I'd think it was the coolest thing ever.   I'd love it.  At least until I found even better games.  But keep that in mind when I say "poor".  It is certainly relative.  But the word still fits given the other options that do exist.


----------



## Tovec (Jan 8, 2012)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> PH1 p.287 - Bull Rush is listed.
> 
> And further, anything you don't have a rule for, that is what page 42 is for. So, possible, depending on the DC. No different than before.



Well I'll be damned. I'm genuinely surprised it was found in the 4e PHB. On this, and this alone, I will relent. Yes, I didn't go looking. I avoid things that annoy me - strangely this conversation doesn't seem to apply.

Also my comment about rule, I mean, page 42 was that it is as good and valid as rule 0.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> Your point B is not accurate either. There are plenty of things that characters of different stripes can do better than others, or exclusively.




Yes, but as per MY read through and the reviews of others: the game was built with a specific design goal. That goal was to make all powers and classes relatively balanced compared to each other of the same level. This means that while some classes will be better at doing things, or will have different (often utility) powers, that many of their combat abilities are jarringly similar. It is something that illustrates my later problem, when I replied to Crazy Jerome, that both in 3e and 4e if you have an ability that pushes someone back you want to use it over and over and it becomes less cool and less special. It becomes something that you use "just because" instead of something you use for flavour or for tactical reasons.

I notice you didn't really respond to any of my other concerns, Nemesis, why not?

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] - YES I certainly agree to let bygones be bygones. I don't want to fight, all I want to do is set the record straight, as I'm sure many in this thread have wanted to. I am NOT trying to convince you or anyone that 4e is "wrong" but I do have valid concerns. If you'll look, you'll see that I often agreed with the basic points you were trying to make - especially about the wish of players to repeatedly use powers "just because" they have them.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jan 8, 2012)

Tovec said:


> I notice you didn't really respond to any of my other concerns, Nemesis, why not?



Mostly because I stopped caring some time ago about this thread. I realized, as CJ did, that it wasn't going anywhere. There are lots of attitudes in this thread that people hold, including my own, that simply don't want to change.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that 4e is the holy grail of D&D. I don't believe that it is, though to date, I find it offers the most freedom to let me determine fluff as I see fit, while still providing a mechanically more balanced play experience at the table.

That said, there are a lot of folks that have misconceptions about it, and like you, I would like nothing more to "set the record straight," as you say. And, like you, I have "valid concerns" about other editions, which, having played them, have decided do not work as well for me as 4th does. Speaking for my group, it has actually proved liberating, as we no longer have to deal with "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage." In general, we have found a lot of concepts easier to realize, without having to hunt down mechanical representation for every idea. So if anything, moving to 4e has actually improved our roleplaying experience. As gamers, and role-playing gamers specifically, what more could we ask for?

At the same time, I fully acknowledge that not all gaming groups share this experience. And that's fine. Going by your response to CJ, I think we're actually on the same page with that notion.

There is an implication within the D&D community (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) that because the mechanical elements of 4e are more blatantly gamist than before, that all people who enjoy the game are somehow less into roleplaying than those who prefer other editions or games (i.e. Doing It Wrong, No True Scotsman, etc). I find that irritating and seek to dismiss that notion for the needlessly divisive fiction that it is.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 8, 2012)

Yeah, I see it that we hit that point of fruitlessly circling around the drain without getting anywhere.  The kind of thing, where if we sat down face to face and played some games for a few months, and talked about it a lot, understanding would finally be reached--but the outcome would be, "Oh, I see--but I still don't want to do that."  So why waste the time? 

Admittedly, part of my reaction is directed at others not even participating in this thread, that have lately shown a much harder and more antagonistic side of this same issue.  If we keep circling this drain, I'm liable to get frustrated, and then go vent it by lowering myself to their level, and probably get suspended in the process.  I'd rather not, for several reasons.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 10, 2012)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> There is an implication within the D&D community (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) that because the mechanical elements of 4e are more blatantly gamist than before, that all people who enjoy the game are somehow less into roleplaying than those who prefer other editions or games (i.e. Doing It Wrong, No True Scotsman, etc). I find that irritating and seek to dismiss that notion for the needlessly divisive fiction that it is.



I also find this irritating.


----------

