The first thing to note is that when the item in question is something like a power or a specific feat, players can simply choose to not take it. If a group generally agrees that a particular character option makes no sense, then they can simply ignore that option and choose other things instead, as long as there are more believable options available.
This doesn't completely excuse the game from having unbelievable options. If it bothers many players, but one player in the group chooses it, it could affect the group's enjoyment. I think reasonable players should be willing to compromise on things like this, but in extreme cases it could be a major nuisance. It also puts the DM in a bind, because he might be forced to be the "bad guy" and tell one of his players that the thing he is doing that is completely within the rules is damaging the game.
When the unbelievable rule is something built into the core of the game, it is a much greater potential dealbreaker. For instance, although I had no problem with healing in 4e, I can understand people's frustration. It is not a mechanic you can simply opt out of. Another such mechanic would be daily powers on martial classes. Once again, I had no problem, but I can understand how it could really ruin the game for people.
Everybody has a different opinion on what is believable versus what is not. Modular mechanics like spells, powers, and feats are much more easily ignored by a group, so I think the designers should feel free to push things a little bit in those areas. Basic mechanics like a healing system are best handled by having a very believable system, preferably with optional rules for people who prefer other systems.
how much does the game need to cater to people's sense of believability?
Game mechanics effectively represent the 'physics' of the world. I personally feel that believability should be one of the primary goals of the game's core mechanics. Unbelievability can always be added later, but players should not be expected to opt out of unbelievable options that the core mechanics allow.
Basic mechanics like a healing system are best handled by having a very believable system
Although I agree, unrealistically simple healing seems like an integral part of D&D at this point. Truly realistic (and detailed) healing might be more suitable as an add-on now.
Basic mechanics like a healing system are best handled by having a very believable system
You'll still find people who are going to find it unbelievable.
Do you propose a minimisation - some sort of survey to test a sample demographics responces to various mechanics, looking for one that that gets it down to only ~5% of the sample that say 'No way, that healing makes no sense at all!'?
Magical healing, for example. This really depends of how you think about hit points. Are they really physical wounds? Or are hitpoints more of an abstraction that encompasses stamina, vigor and resolve. I like to think of them as the latter. This way, you don't have a level 20 barbarian getting shot by 35 arrows in a single game session (this has happened in our group). Rather than picture it that way.... he has been scraped and bruised and grown tired from dodging etc. etc. He is not actually wounded in any definitive way until he drops to 0. That hit, we can imagine, was an actual serious wound, just like bleed effects and the like.
This way, the healing granted to players by short rests really makes more sense. Magical healing can be a priest bolstering the resolve of an ally by lending him some of his own, or however you want to see it.
This is one of the reasons that I have always liked the Wounds/Vitality system (which I am, in essence, duplicating here in terms of flavor). It makes more sense in game, and helps make a lot of other things seem less flashy, and a bit more gritty.
But some mechanics are inherently unrealistic. Hit Points are the king of unrealism. It both encourages people to think of fighters as porcupines with dozens of arrows sticking out of their flesh, and that we should have in no way any expectation that all those arrows sticking out of him mean he is slower, less accurate, weaker, fatigued, or suffering blood loss. Hit points allow fighter to leap from canyons without fear of death. They let fighters shout "Go ahead and hit me" to the kobold, knowing its d6 damage won't have any effect on his 104-hp frame.
Anything related to hit points, including healing, is inherently unrealistic. So I find it very difficult to gauge when someone is going to say "That's unbelievable!" Martial healing? Proportional healing? Healing surges? I have no idea why any of these things are more or less believable in the context of the absurd unbelievability of hit points in the first place.
(Armor class, attack rolls, and damage rolls, too, but that's another story.)
Often mechanics in the game are criticized for being too unbelievable. A common example is the "Come and Get It" power, which allowed fighters to pull enemies to them. My question is: how much does the game need to cater to people's sense of believability?
It needs to cater enough to satisfy the players the game needs to succeed. That may seem like a trivial answer, but it is the truth. The game has to satisfy enough people to be successful, that is really all that really matters. There is not single level of realism that suits everybody, and in many cases it varies by campaign setting and style. Plus, which things bother people varies widely, it is often one of those things where either it bothers you or it doesn't and there is no particular rhyme or reason to which do and which don't.
That said, I do think 4e is pushing the outer edges of the level of believability that it could maintain and still be popular. 4e had a bunch of problems but the regular arguments over how characters often feel more like superheros then heroes and similar issues make me think this was getting in the way of the systems popularity.
Skelletons crawling up ropes I think Pirates of the Caribbean. Seems real enough. Frodo getting skewered by a cave troll's spear. Eh, ok, I'll buy the armor protected him and only caused him to be bruised and have the wind knocked out of him. A million machine guns unable to hit Rambo. No. If the mechanics get there, I put a halt to it.
On a side note, I have no idea why, but I have issues with people falling in movies. Even The Hobbit, which I loved, bothered the heck out of me. Those guys fell three or four times, often a hundred feet. Arghhh!!! Anyone else have issues like this with damage and movie characters?
There is a dissociation between what the player knows and does and what the character would observe. Hit points fall into this category. These are an artifact of the fact that it is a game and some aspects of the game are abstracted to make the game more playable.
Then there is a dissociation between what the character does and what the character observes. A character uses a power and - through no discernable force - affects what another creature does elsewhere. A marked creature continues to suffer the effects of the mark even if the figher leaves the room; a warlord shifts a character who is deaf and blind.
And yes - it may be difficult to determine which category some aspects of the game fall into. I consider Vancian spell limits to be of the first category, but I am sure that other people will jump in and explain why it is actually of the second category (and just as many will try to argue that a mark is actually the first category and I just lack the imagination to fluff it appropriately).
But that is how I see it - and dissociations of the first category I tolerate as necessary abstractions while dissociations of the second category rankle and I would prefer to have as few of them as possible in the 5e rules.
Carl
Magic.
Monsters that violate the most basic laws of reality, like the square cube law.
Active meddling gods.
Shapechanging that violates the law of conservation of mass.
Multiple sentient species.
Psionics.
Alternate dimensions.
If you can accept this, then Come And Get It should not bother you.
Often mechanics in the game are criticized for being too unbelievable. A common example is the "Come and Get It" power, which allowed fighters to pull enemies to them. My question is: how much does the game need to cater to people's sense of believability?
The first thing to note is that when the item in question is something like a power or a specific feat, players can simply choose to not take it. If a group generally agrees that a particular character option makes no sense, then they can simply ignore that option and choose other things instead, as long as there are more believable options available.
This doesn't completely excuse the game from having unbelievable options. If it bothers many players, but one player in the group chooses it, it could affect the group's enjoyment. I think reasonable players should be willing to compromise on things like this, but in extreme cases it could be a major nuisance. It also puts the DM in a bind, because he might be forced to be the "bad guy" and tell one of his players that the thing he is doing that is completely within the rules is damaging the game.
When the unbelievable rule is something built into the core of the game, it is a much greater potential dealbreaker. For instance, although I had no problem with healing in 4e, I can understand people's frustration. It is not a mechanic you can simply opt out of. Another such mechanic would be daily powers on martial classes. Once again, I had no problem, but I can understand how it could really ruin the game for people.
Everybody has a different opinion on what is believable versus what is not. Modular mechanics like spells, powers, and feats are much more easily ignored by a group, so I think the designers should feel free to push things a little bit in those areas. Basic mechanics like a healing system are best handled by having a very believable system, preferably with optional rules for people who prefer other systems.
Dragons? Ok.
Demon princes? Ok.
Floating castles? Ok.
Traveling to the 9 Hells? Ok.
A fighter that can move an extra 5'? Hold on now...
Look, if you can accept the fact that the craziest magic you can imagine works it should all be believable.
Let's see ...
Magic.
Monsters that violate the most basic laws of reality, like the square cube law.
Active meddling gods.
Shapechanging that violates the law of conservation of mass.
Multiple sentient species.
Psionics.
If you can accept this, then Come And Get It should not bother you.
For many who play D&D the only way to break the laws of physics is with magic. You can't use the existance of magic to excuse gamist mechanics that are unbelievable. Magic is the only excuse. All game mechanics are abstract rules that provide a close approximation of what one would expect in the real world. Anything else is just a mechanic for the sake of it.
You will suspend your disbelief when things are to your taste and complain about unbelievability or verisimilitude when they are not.
But it can only explain occuraces which are being affected by magic.
If there is no spell or magic acting upon a given observation the fact that somewhere else in the universe magic exists doesn't make the implausible believable.
If your character runs 90 mile an hour -- it is unbelievable. If your character was enchanted to somehow run that fast - OK (although it pushes the limts, magic can do amazing things). But in the absence of an enchantment on the PC - the fact that magic exists, even the fact that that specirfic enchantment might exist - does not suddenly mean that all believability is thrown out the window and 'anything goes'.
Magic only explains that which is being affected by magic.
Carl
I often look at it like a this: If a fantasy movie scene can show it to you and not break that "reality code," then I can describe a mechanic and not break the reality code.
Skelletons crawling up ropes I think Pirates of the Caribbean. Seems real enough. Frodo getting skewered by a cave troll's spear. Eh, ok, I'll buy the armor protected him and only caused him to be bruised and have the wind knocked out of him. A million machine guns unable to hit Rambo. No. If the mechanics get there, I put a halt to it.
On a side note, I have no idea why, but I have issues with people falling in movies. Even The Hobbit, which I loved, bothered the heck out of me. Those guys fell three or four times, often a hundred feet. Arghhh!!! Anyone else have issues like this with damage and movie characters?
Fantasy is fantasy imo
Exactly - Magic can explain a lot (although if you use it to explain everying = i.e. "a wizard did it" - it gets old fast).
But it can only explain occuraces which are being affected by magic.
If there is no spell or magic acting upon a given observation the fact that somewhere else in the universe magic exists doesn't make the implausible believable.
If your character runs 90 mile an hour -- it is unbelievable. If your character was enchanted to somehow run that fast - OK (although it pushes the limts, magic can do amazing things). But in the absence of an enchantment on the PC - the fact that magic exists, even the fact that that specirfic enchantment might exist - does not suddenly mean that all believability is thrown out the window and 'anything goes'.
Magic only explains that which is being affected by magic.
Carl
Who knows what inherent magic is common in exceptional characters or beings in a fictional world? Superman seems popular enough.
Let's see ...
Magic.
Monsters that violate the most basic laws of reality, like the square cube law.
Active meddling gods.
Shapechanging that violates the law of conservation of mass.
Multiple sentient species.
Psionics.
If you can accept this, then Come And Get It should not bother you.
For many who play D&D the only way to break the laws of physics is with magic. You can't use the existance of magic to excuse gamist mechanics that are unbelievable. Magic is the only excuse. All game mechanics are abstract rules that provide a close approximation of what one would expect in the real world. Anything else is just a mechanic for the sake of it.
The italics part has never been true of D&D even Gygax was saying that foremost D&D is a game not a sim.
For many who play D&D the only way to break the laws of physics is with magic. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
My response? "Get over yourselves."
They don't want it in their games? Fine. They can refuse to play a character with mechanics they don't like, or they can choose to ban those mechanics at their tables. They do NOT get to tell ME what I get to use with MY character or allow at MY table.
For many who play D&D the only way to break the laws of physics is with magic. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
My response? "Get over yourselves."
They don't want it in their games? Fine. They can refuse to play a character with mechanics they don't like, or they can choose to ban those mechanics at their tables. They do NOT get to tell ME what I get to use with MY character or allow at MY table.
yes however at some point they need to pick and chose rules to put in the book then we can all tear them up and make them our own
Exactly - Magic can explain a lot (although if you use it to explain everying = i.e. "a wizard did it" - it gets old fast).
But it can only explain occuraces which are being affected by magic.
If there is no spell or magic acting upon a given observation the fact that somewhere else in the universe magic exists doesn't make the implausible believable.
If your character runs 90 mile an hour -- it is unbelievable. If your character was enchanted to somehow run that fast - OK (although it pushes the limts, magic can do amazing things). But in the absence of an enchantment on the PC - the fact that magic exists, even the fact that that specirfic enchantment might exist - does not suddenly mean that all believability is thrown out the window and 'anything goes'.
Magic only explains that which is being affected by magic.
Carl
Who knows what inherent magic is common in exceptional characters or beings in a fictional world? Superman seems popular enough.
He is the way he is as a result of his origin. He is the sci-fi equivalent of 'enchanted' and thus able to exceed the physical limits on the rest of us. As is also true of Steve Austin (6m dollar man) - with an even more scientific analog to 'enchantment'.
The point is that - yes, some people can exceed the limits of 'believability' in fiction and in the game. But they do so for specific reasons that are unique to them. But the fact that they are not subject to those limitation does not suddenly mean that Lois Lane can fly or that Jimmy Olsen can run Mach 2.
Magic can explain why that guy can exceed the limits of physics. It doesn't generally justify everyone exceeding the limits of physics.
Carl
For many who play D&D the only way to break the laws of physics is with magic. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
My response? "Get over yourselves."
They don't want it in their games? Fine. They can refuse to play a character with mechanics they don't like, or they can choose to ban those mechanics at their tables. They do NOT get to tell ME what I get to use with MY character or allow at MY table.
yes however at some point they need to pick and chose rules to put in the book then we can all tear them up and make them our own
Its more likely they'll just refuse to buy the game and play something else that gets things right.
Exactly - Magic can explain a lot (although if you use it to explain everying = i.e. "a wizard did it" - it gets old fast).
But it can only explain occuraces which are being affected by magic.
If there is no spell or magic acting upon a given observation the fact that somewhere else in the universe magic exists doesn't make the implausible believable.
If your character runs 90 mile an hour -- it is unbelievable. If your character was enchanted to somehow run that fast - OK (although it pushes the limts, magic can do amazing things). But in the absence of an enchantment on the PC - the fact that magic exists, even the fact that that specirfic enchantment might exist - does not suddenly mean that all believability is thrown out the window and 'anything goes'.
Magic only explains that which is being affected by magic.
Carl
Who knows what inherent magic is common in exceptional characters or beings in a fictional world? Superman seems popular enough.
He is the way he is as a result of his origin. He is the sci-fi equivalent of 'enchanted' and thus able to exceed the physical limits on the rest of us. As is also true of Steve Austin (6m dollar man) - with an even more scientific analog to 'enchantment'.
The point is that - yes, some people can exceed the limits of 'believability' in fiction and in the game. But they do so for specific reasons that are unique to them. But the fact that they are not subject to those limitation does not suddenly mean that Lois Lane can fly or that Jimmy Olsen can run Mach 2.
Magic can explain why that guy can exceed the limits of physics. It doesn't generally justify everyone exceeding the limits of physics.
Carl
An adventuring party more closely resembles the X-men or Justice league then commoners, imo. Now I know people will say they ain't super-heroes, but by the time they hit level 9 in AD&D they were super heroes.
Exactly - Magic can explain a lot (although if you use it to explain everying = i.e. "a wizard did it" - it gets old fast).
But it can only explain occuraces which are being affected by magic.
If there is no spell or magic acting upon a given observation the fact that somewhere else in the universe magic exists doesn't make the implausible believable.
If your character runs 90 mile an hour -- it is unbelievable. If your character was enchanted to somehow run that fast - OK (although it pushes the limts, magic can do amazing things). But in the absence of an enchantment on the PC - the fact that magic exists, even the fact that that specirfic enchantment might exist - does not suddenly mean that all believability is thrown out the window and 'anything goes'.
Magic only explains that which is being affected by magic.
Carl
Who knows what inherent magic is common in exceptional characters or beings in a fictional world? Superman seems popular enough.
He is the way he is as a result of his origin. He is the sci-fi equivalent of 'enchanted' and thus able to exceed the physical limits on the rest of us. As is also true of Steve Austin (6m dollar man) - with an even more scientific analog to 'enchantment'.
The point is that - yes, some people can exceed the limits of 'believability' in fiction and in the game. But they do so for specific reasons that are unique to them. But the fact that they are not subject to those limitation does not suddenly mean that Lois Lane can fly or that Jimmy Olsen can run Mach 2.
Magic can explain why that guy can exceed the limits of physics. It doesn't generally justify everyone exceeding the limits of physics.
Carl
An adventuring party more closely resembles the X-men or Justice league then commoners, imo. Now I know people will say they ain't super-heroes, but by the time they hit level 9 in AD&D they were super heroes.
And may well have come across the opportunity to have themselves enchanted in one way or another. What's your point here?
Just because they are ninth level the laws of physics suddenly don't apply? Or because they are ninth, they have had the opportunity to find ways (typically magical) that break the laws of physics.
Carl
So it does seem that sheer willpower and determination can allow, in that universe things that wouldn't work in ours and still be consistent with the rules of that universe. Especially since the rules are arbitrary.
The normal laws of physics don't apply. Now do they? Time travel, wish, teleportation, none of those can exist with the physics of our universe (supposedly). Now with regards to the characters' universe the laws of physics if they encompass magic and divinities must be much different.
So it does seem that sheer willpower and determination can allow, in that universe things that wouldn't work in ours and still be consistent with the rules of that universe. Especially since the rules are arbitrary.
Does it?
Or does it seem that magic can allow, in that universe, things that wouldn't work in ours.
Characters can't fly through 'willpower and determination'. But they can fly through magic.
Etc. Etc. As nauseum.
Carl
The normal laws of physics don't apply. Now do they? Time travel, wish, teleportation, none of those can exist with the physics of our universe (supposedly). Now with regards to the characters' universe the laws of physics if they encompass magic and divinities must be much different.
So it does seem that sheer willpower and determination can allow, in that universe things that wouldn't work in ours and still be consistent with the rules of that universe. Especially since the rules are arbitrary.
Does it?
Or does it seem that magic can allow, in that universe, things that wouldn't work in ours.
Characters can't fly through 'willpower and determination'. But they can fly through magic.
Etc. Etc. As nauseum.
Carl
What are psionics again? Or ki? If the rules say it's sheer willpower it's sheer willpower in that universe. Just as people fly in the astral via will. Reconciling this universe with that universe cannot be done.
The typical answer of "because magic!" gets tiresome. Unfortunately, it doesn't make it any less true most of the time. Most people will watch Harry Potter movies and not question the wierd things that happen because 90% of the people on-screen are using magic. The physical rules of the real world go out the window when the supernatural is introduced. Let the guy in your favorite sports movie let loose with a mgical wand attack, though, and your suspension of disbelief will be shattered. No one thinks it's odd when a vampire turns into a wolf, then into a bat, then walks up the wall. Why? Because we've been led to believe that they can do those sort of things. In the supernatural context, what they're doing is normal and believable. Let that vampire wonder into the set of your favorite sitcom, though, and verisimilitude will surely take a major hit.
Think about Die Hard. Everyone knows that John McClane is a badass. He can consistently survive things no one in the real world could, but we accept it. Why? Because he's in an action movie, and action-movie guys do the impossible all the time. Let John McClane drop the guns, though, turn to face the bad guys, and let loose a fireball from his finger-tips. Just like that, suspension of disbelief is gone. Verisimilitude just got flushed down the swirler. Why? He's a badass, right? He can do the impossible, right? We know he can do amazing things, but we won't believe for a second that he can cast fireballs from his fingers. If, however, he was a D&D character, he could simply be a gish class or a multi fighter/wizard, and no one would think anything of it.
D&D (and other fantasy games) walks a tight line. Everyone that plays it goes into it expecting different things. I want a fighter that can do all the badass things John McClane can do. My buddy wants a wizard that can do all the things that Merlin can do. The DM wants to make the campaign a survival-horror, Resident Evil or Silent Hill setting. Those are three extremely different expectations being rolled into one game, not counting the other players or the specific ruleset being used. D&D is expected to be able to facilitate these expectations and run smoothly. I think it does a wonderful job of that (in most every edition). Every once in a while verisimilitude takes a little knock on the head, but it's to be expected. No one game can ever encompass all the expectations that every player brings with them without the occassional glitch in the Matrix. Best thing to do? Try not to worry about it too much. If it's not a constant suspension of disbelief, then it is not likely to be a big deal. If it is, though, and it's something you simply can't get over, then chances are A) you're trying to make the game do something it really wasn't meant to do, or B) the ruleset you're using is not the right one for you.
The AC system has always bothered me, for instance. You might be a level 20 fighter, a master swordsman, but you are nearly defenseless without armor or magical protection. One would think that a master swordsman would be able to ward off most attacks... but this isn't the case in D&D and never has been. He can just soak up a bunch of hits.
I am actually surprised that D&D has never made a solid attempt at an active defense system. Or at least a system of AC that scaled based on something other than armor. Armor as DR always made sense to me, and the conversion rules aren't terrible, but they always miss the other side of that equation.
Shields have also been undervalued and underpowered in D&D for a looooong time. Considering that a shield was the most important defensive tool of the pre-firearm soldier since, well forever, this has always been weird in my eyes. I mean, come on... a +1 AC? Really? A three foot wide, two inch thick, metal wrapped oak barrier, and that is all you get? I understand that there are balance issues to consider, but it still sucks.
The AC system has always bothered me, for instance. You might be a level 20 fighter, a master swordsman, but you are nearly defenseless without armor or magical protection. One would think that a master swordsman would be able to ward off most attacks... but this isn't the case in D&D and never has been. He can just soak up a bunch of hits.
Huh? Monks have gained a scaling AC starting since at least 3rd edition, and AC scaled with character level for everyone in 4E...
Shields have also been undervalued and underpowered in D&D for a looooong time. Considering that a shield was the most important defensive tool of the pre-firearm soldier since, well forever, this has always been weird in my eyes. I mean, come on... a +1 AC? Really? A three foot wide, two inch thick, metal wrapped oak barrier, and that is all you get? I understand that there are balance issues to consider, but it still sucks.
Strongly agree with this.
I'd say the Fighter's Parry seems like a good starting point to help shields out a bit here. Maybe damage from other sources can be mitigated by Parrying with a shield, namely ranged attacks and breath weapons?
The AC system has always bothered me, for instance. You might be a level 20 fighter, a master swordsman, but you are nearly defenseless without armor or magical protection. One would think that a master swordsman would be able to ward off most attacks... but this isn't the case in D&D and never has been. He can just soak up a bunch of hits.
Huh? Monks have gained a scaling AC starting since at least 3rd edition, and AC scaled with character level for everyone in 4E...
Shields have also been undervalued and underpowered in D&D for a looooong time. Considering that a shield was the most important defensive tool of the pre-firearm soldier since, well forever, this has always been weird in my eyes. I mean, come on... a +1 AC? Really? A three foot wide, two inch thick, metal wrapped oak barrier, and that is all you get? I understand that there are balance issues to consider, but it still sucks.
Strongly agree with this.
I'd say the Fighter's Parry seems like a good starting point to help shields out a bit here. Maybe damage from other sources can be mitigated by Parrying with a shield, namely ranged attacks and breath weapons?
I would be okay with that.... and I would actually be okay with those sorts of shield defenses being fighter-specific. I think that a fighter specializing in shields should get some pretty hefty defensive boosts rather than getting to deal damage with shield bashes (or both ideally). PF did a pretty good job of bringing shields back into relevance for 3.5, but mostly as really good offhand weapons.
In D&DN, the parry rules are underwhelming.... i agree that a damage reduction is a good way to go (because it seemlessly handles the difficulty of parrying a giant's club versus a kobolds short sword) but the cost is pretty heavy. Also, if a Shield Block ability restricts the use of parry or vice versa then its still no good.
Anyway, yeah.... shields... make em cool.
Just the abstract justification for a lot of things in 4e (ie you can only use CaGI once per encounter because it's physically taxing, or because enemies won't fall for it twice, or because the situation is only right once, whichever suits your mood best) puts a lot more pressure on the players to come up with a story for each action.
In 3e, I could make an attack and just say, "I swing my ax," and the game was careful not to give me many options that required complex justification beyond "it's magic." In 4e, almost every attack I make is some kind of special power, and many need a bit of elaboration to fit into the scenario. The famous example is knocking a slime prone: 4e basically says it's up to you how you describe disabling this ooze such that it can't move around without special effort.
In my mind the 4e system can be both more inspiring (because it forces me to think of new narrative justifications for my techniques) and more tiring or frustrating (because in practice I usually have to choose my character's actions first from an out of character tactical perspective, and then find a way to justify them from my CHARACTER'S tactical perspective, rather than just staying in my character's head and figuring out what he would do.) So I've already bought into the idea that it's part of my job as a roleplayer to make the narrative work - I just gripe when that work gets more annoying than rewarding.
Others, of course, think of these moments that FORCE you to justify the mechanics narratively as flaws in those mechanics.
My personal preference would be for something right between 3e and 4e. I don't mind if my fighter's mechanics require a little thought to explain, as long as there's a clear line from my character's tactics to my tactics as a player. (5e is doing a fine job of this so far IMO, including even the trickier stuff like the rogue's Taunt power. I might have to work to figure out how to trick an archer into rushing into melee, but so does my character, so there's no player/character divide created.)
I pretty much agree with mvincent here, although I always substitute "consistent" in place of "realistic"; the game world is a place, where the mechanics are the laws of nature. Whether or not those laws are realistic for our own world, I can believe in them just fine as long as they're internally consistent.
It falls on personal taste.
You will suspend your disbelief when things are to your taste and complain about unbelievability or verisimilitude when they are not.
There are some areas where verisimilitude makes sense. How much can a character carry? How fast can he run? How far can he jump? (Now, D&D has been really bad at this, and the current encumberance rules are absurd, but at least they try.)
But some mechanics are inherently unrealistic. Hit Points are the king of unrealism. It both encourages people to think of fighters as porcupines with dozens of arrows sticking out of their flesh, and that we should have in no way any expectation that all those arrows sticking out of him mean he is slower, less accurate, weaker, fatigued, or suffering blood loss. Hit points allow fighter to leap from canyons without fear of death. They let fighters shout "Go ahead and hit me" to the kobold, knowing its d6 damage won't have any effect on his 104-hp frame.
Anything related to hit points, including healing, is inherently unrealistic. So I find it very difficult to gauge when someone is going to say "That's unbelievable!" Martial healing? Proportional healing? Healing surges? I have no idea why any of these things are more or less believable in the context of the absurd unbelievability of hit points in the first place.
(Armor class, attack rolls, and damage rolls, too, but that's another story.)
I think those three posts sum it up pretty well.
Come and get it is a very close analog to a real life fencing move called an Invitation (or more simply a false opening) one time and the next time it may be Bilbo Baggins Taunting spiders in to run racing after him - inspite of being ranged web tossers
. Sometimes its pretty short range, watched a video of this boxer who leads with his jaw "but not really" as he is hunching back the adversary goes for it - he pedals back slightly then snaps his back upwards laying in with a vicious cross (lots of back in it) that cracks his flailing adversary incredibly solid ....it was hook line and sinker.
CaGi barely affects anything that isnt almost in melee range already (15 ft is so close you should be switching to a melee weapon unless you are a really uber snap shot - short draw expert able to respond in 1/2 second who was already going to attack him and he will likely get that attack in anyway.)
What are psionics again? Or ki?
Non-existent in my games.
As several earlier posters note, it comes down to which exceptions you're willing to make at your game table. After that, it's just a matter of narrative consistency, like it is with any fiction. If you're reading a book in which it's established that vampires are real, you'll go along with that...it doesn't mean that all *other* monstrous archetypes are suddenly real too, and you might well get annoyed when the author suddenly trots out a dinosaur. Look at how upset viewers get when a tv series, even one with fantasy physics like Star Trek, breaks the internal 'rules' which govern those physics within the show. Same thing.
Eventually, the game design is going to have to assume certain basic exceptions to real world physics, but not all. Despite the flexibility of DDN's modular design, they can't provide an entirely freeform "roll your own, kids," option because at some point the mathematical balance, and even the narrative balance, of the game will dissappear, and we won't even all be playing recognizably "D&D" any more. Them's the breaks. But I think that, given that limitation, there's a fairly great range available. Fighters at high levels can walk off cliffs. Mages can cast fireballs. And any table can decide "does not."
Let's see ...
Magic.
Monsters that violate the most basic laws of reality, like the square cube law.
Active meddling gods.
Shapechanging that violates the law of conservation of mass.
Multiple sentient species.
Psionics.
If you can accept this, then Come And Get It should not bother you.
For many who play D&D the only way to break the laws of physics is with magic. You can't use the existance of magic to excuse gamist mechanics that are unbelievable. Magic is the only excuse. All game mechanics are abstract rules that provide a close approximation of what one would expect in the real world. Anything else is just a mechanic for the sake of it.
The italics part has never been true of D&D even Gygax was saying that foremost D&D is a game not a sim.
I agree with Gygax, but abstract rules do not provide a simulation. I never said that. They simply approximate believability. For example, if we had Falling rules that did not approximate falling speed correctly everyone would rebuke them. Even the rules for breathing underwater are in the same boat.
The fact is we need intuitive rules that we can relate with, and since we relate to real world physics all our lives, approximations of the real world are needed in our fantasy worlds to keep the game grounded.
Not everyone uses the same laws of physics and laws of magicks, in the same universe. What is believable in one setting may not be believable in another, and only the DM, as custodian of the gameworld, can say what is and is not believable.
Anyone who says "Keep that unbelievable crap out of the book" is just being selfish. Ban it yourself, don't cop out and ask the system to do your job for you.
The responsibility begins and ends with the DM.
Not everyone uses the same laws of physics and laws of magicks, in the same universe. What is believable in one setting may not be believable in another, and only the DM, as custodian of the gameworld, can say what is and is not believable.
Anyone who says "Keep that unbelievable crap out of the book" is just being selfish. Ban it yourself, don't cop out and ask the system to do your job for you.
If several classes are tainted with that "crap" then its simply less work not to play that particular system.
The selfish ones are those who want to force that 'crap' on everyone and can't accept it as an optional set of playstyle specific rules.
Asking everyone else to not use things you don't like is not.
Reality is unrealistic... and I really dont like the narrow unrealities of some of the posters
Come and get it is a very close analog to a real life fencing move called an Invitation (or more simply a false opening) one time and the next time it may be Bilbo Baggins Taunting spiders in to run racing after him - inspite of being ranged web tossers .
The problem with Come and Get It isn't the general idea, it is the details of the implemenation. It is more then a false opening or a taunt because it works on unconcious creatures, it works on immobilized creatures,
Nope ... to the above the power doesnt work under those conditions.(a shift is a move action)
it works on creatures that can't understand you
Works fine thats why sometimes or even usually its just a false opening... luring the subject in to shifting to your position
and on ones totally unaware that you are there
All "attacks" by default make a subject aware you are there.
plus it has no size limitations so it is hard to describe as a physical action either.
Nope sometimes it CAN be a physical enforced action..and sometimes it cant.. but it doesnt need to be.
If they had picked one idea and built a power that works from that one idea with the limitations that idea would have, it would be fine. In creating a balanced but simplified power that has no limitations at all they open the door to all kinds of strange situations.
The only thing you got right is that it cant at all times be all the things it possibly could be...
Describe it appropriate to the situation just like I describe knockdown assault appropriate to the situation...
And locking things down to only one thing just begs for the Rogue fighting undead issue.
Well considering the first draft automatically pulled the targets and the attack was made after the targets were pulled, I am actually pretty sure the "flavor" was chosen first.
I think the designers chuffed on power design for many many powers, but you have to realize the 4e power structure was brand new to these guys. They had no clue what they were doing. I think that for the most part, they did desing powers fluff first mechanics second though.
For "come and get it" someone on the design team probably had just seen one of the Matrix movies where Neo uses his hand to motion "come and get it" and is immediately charged by dozens of Agent Smith clones. They then said, hey how do we desing something awesome like that in 4e, and decided on what mechanics best fit that in a very simple abstract sense (hence the auto-pulling on the pre-errata version).
Would the power have been "more realistic" if it required a bluff/intimidate/taunt check first, then an actual melee attack second, and if the movement counted against the targets movement on their next turn? Yes, definitely. Would the power have been 3x as complicated and taken 3x as long to resolve? Yes it would. I'm fine with eschewing realism for the sake of simplicity, while others are clearly not.
Yup they started from fluff that was awesome and the mechanics came out less awesome than they could but simple and functional
FEIGN DISTRESS
You appear to have made a critical tactical error, enticing nearby ennemies to seize this opportunity.Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy able to make an opportunity attack in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.I changed my mind about the Str vs. Will, as it can represent how the fighter alter his position. He doesn't have to bluff or act, he just sets a trap for the ones who can see him and continues to fight normally, as the trap is based on the fighter not conscious of having made a critical mistake.
So the goal is to do the good movements and attacks to set the trap, not to act as being weak or else.
Then Str attack, as normal for a fighter, vs the Will of the target, to see if the target finds the opportunity interesting enough to try his chance, makes sense.
I'd make it:
FEIGN DISTRESS
You appear to have made a critical tactical error, enticing nearby ennemies to seize this opportunity.Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy able to see you and react.
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you and is capable of moving. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.
For a 5E version I would write it as follows:
FEIGN DISTRESS
You appear to have made a critical tactical error, enticing nearby (within 15') ennemies to seize this opportunity. As an action, make a single charisma bluff contest opposed by your opponent's wisdom check. Any opponents who fail the contest will move towards you on their turn. You can use your reaction to attack one of these targets as it moves into reach.
A bit different. But both versions describe an action with the outcome determined by that action rather than describing an outcome and leaving it up to the player/DM to invent an action which might justify it.
Carl
Oh yes, I forgot the that forced movements are unhindered on this one.
For the 5E version, I would allow the two abilities, Charisma and the attack ability, Charisma to act as being in distress, and the normal attack to set a tactical trap.
And this time, you forgot a mechanical element ! Moving out of reach provokes opportunity attacks, and it dosen't seem to be your intention.
"Because magic!"
"Because movies!"
"Because realism!"
How about "Because it's a damn game!"? Seriously...some things will not be 100% realistic, believable, logical, or factual. Gloss over the minor pieces that bug you (tripping an ooze), change the parts that bug you a lot (pushing a dragon 10 feet and making them fall prone), and ban things you simply cannot accept under any circumstances (giant space hamsters).
It's a game and it's threads like these that make the designers job impossible.
I don't know which is worse anymore.
"Because magic!"
"Because movies!"
"Because realism!"
How about "Because it's a damn game!"? Seriously...some things will not be 100% realistic, believable, logical, or factual. Gloss over the minor pieces that bug you (tripping an ooze), change the parts that bug you a lot (pushing a dragon 10 feet and making them fall prone), and ban things you simply cannot accept under any circumstances (giant space hamsters).
Amen.
For a 5E version I would write it as follows:
FEIGN DISTRESS
You appear to have made a critical tactical error, enticing nearby (within 15') ennemies to seize this opportunity. As an action, make a single charisma bluff contest opposed by your opponent's wisdom check. Any opponents who fail the contest will move towards you on their turn. You can use your reaction to attack one of these targets as it moves into reach.
Carl
I was going to ask somebody to do that so we can look at this more in its proper context thanks.
so now we need a TAUNT right?
Can we give it a key word of deception or trick and give a fighter have an ability called Deceptive Stances.. that allow athletics / strength to actually entice without using that pretty face of his.
I find the presence of negative and postive energy planes to be unrealistic. I find the presence of Wish to be really unrealistic. I don't expect the designers to rewrite the game or include every other arbitraily acceptable level of realistic item just for me. I find the concept of having to choose a class unrealistic.
It's a game and it's threads like these that make the designers job impossible.
None of the above referenced anything that was natural. There is no glaring reason why the Positive plane is unrealistic or the Negative plane is unrealistic in the fantasy universe. There is no point in reality for which to compare it, it is completely subjective then.
To reemphasize:
The mechanics talk about the past, not the future. That's the big distinction that people who object to things like Come And Get It fail to understand. 4e powers are descriptive, not proscriptive. They do not say how things should look, they say how things did look. Maybe you insulted his mother. Maybe he tripped. Maybe the laws of gravitation went wonky. The result is that you did something, and then he ended up ten feet closer and you're about to smash him in the face. Whether there was even causality associated with Come And Get It isn't specified. It could have been pure, raw luck.
And that's not how D&D next is being designed
" This is one of the reasons why we state right up front that the basic flow of the game involves the player describing an action and the DM calling for a check (or attack, when relevant), because it reinforces that the character’s action comes first, and the game mechanic is merely used to help resolve the outcome."
Which is the way I've always DMed.
To reemphasize:
The mechanics talk about the past, not the future. That's the big distinction that people who object to things like Come And Get It fail to understand. 4e powers are descriptive, not proscriptive. They do not say how things should look, they say how things did look. Maybe you insulted his mother. Maybe he tripped. Maybe the laws of gravitation went wonky. The result is that you did something, and then he ended up ten feet closer and you're about to smash him in the face. Whether there was even causality associated with Come And Get It isn't specified. It could have been pure, raw luck.
And that's not how D&D next is being designed
" This is one of the reasons why we state right up front that the basic flow of the game involves the player describing an action and the DM calling for a check (or attack, when relevant), because it reinforces that the character’s action comes first, and the game mechanic is merely used to help resolve the outcome."
Technically, this isn't true. Look at the fighter maneuvers. You spend exptertise dice after the hit. They are basically "plot coupons". The order of resolution goes like this.
1) Fighter declares an attack
2) Fighter determines whether he hits with the attack
3) Fighter decides how he wants to spend his plot coupons WDD (for damage, knockback, disarm, trip, etc)
To reemphasize:
The mechanics talk about the past, not the future. That's the big distinction that people who object to things like Come And Get It fail to understand. 4e powers are descriptive, not proscriptive. They do not say how things should look, they say how things did look. Maybe you insulted his mother. Maybe he tripped. Maybe the laws of gravitation went wonky. The result is that you did something, and then he ended up ten feet closer and you're about to smash him in the face. Whether there was even causality associated with Come And Get It isn't specified. It could have been pure, raw luck.
And that's not how D&D next is being designed
" This is one of the reasons why we state right up front that the basic flow of the game involves the player describing an action and the DM calling for a check (or attack, when relevant), because it reinforces that the character’s action comes first, and the game mechanic is merely used to help resolve the outcome."
Next is not incompatible with what I described.
You're going too far into the past, now. When I say the power describes what did happen, I mean the attempt, not the result. The power doesn't tell me how I'm going to get a monster to move closer to me tomorrow. It does tell me that I want to get a mosnter to move closer to me now, when I'm using it - and here it's on me as the player to come up with a reason why that might happen in this exact circumstance. Note that I said might: it might, or it might not. That's when the DM calls for a check, and I make a roll. If success, then victory! The monster moves closer to me.
Why would you reflavor a power each and every time. Do wizards and clerics suffer from the same burden?
Because the situation is different.
Because you think it'll be cooler.
Because you feel like it.
And yes, wizards and clerics can reflavor their stuff just as readily.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />You say that like its a good thing..
That's because it is.
There still has to be a base line consistency.
You say this as if it were something other than completely subjective personal preference, and as if it should be enforced among other people who may not think the way you do.
They can run their games however they like. If you want a dude to jump 30 feet go ahead. Just don't make that the default of the game.
" This is one of the reasons why we state right up front that the basic flow of the game involves the player describing an action and the DM calling for a check (or attack, when relevant), because it reinforces that the character’s action comes first, and the game mechanic is merely used to help resolve the outcome."
And that is one of the few reasons I retain any hope for this edition. They have declared the intent that causality only works in one direction, from cause to effect.
The fluff of an action is the actual truth of what is happening. The mechanics are but a pale representation of that truth, translated into the imprecise language of gameplay.
There still has to be a base line consistency.
You say this as if it were something other than completely subjective personal preference, and as if it should be enforced among other people who may not think the way you do.
They can run their games however they like. If you want a dude to jump 30 feet go ahead. Just don't make that the default of the game.
I'm assuming you'd be equally emphatic in not making your preference the default of the game either?
Oh, wait, you're not.
Carl, my argument wasn't about the existence of such creatures, it was that under real world physics no 6ft tall 200 lb human could hope to hurt a 600 lb ogre, a 15 ft tall giant, a 15 ft tall animated solid iron golemn, or a 40 ft long scales as strong as steel dragon.
The same people who are ok with breaking physics to allow fighters to fight (and even kill) such creatures have said fighters jumping 30 ft breaks their V-tude, or fighters grappling such creatures breaks their V-tude, or fighters pushing through their pain to take a second wind breaks their V-tude, etc.
Barehanded absolutely not, a fighter unless he had that strength of an ogre should not be able to hurt it. The weapons are tools which give Mechanical Advantage.
Should a fighter be able to hurt an Iron Golem? Not with a regular weapon. With the magic weapon is it the magic or the weapon hurting the golem.
Physics in the D&D are not any more real world than they are in Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. There still has to be a base line consistency. The fighter needs to be able to fight those creatures for game functionality. Attacking creatures is one of the basic functions of the game. Some of the unbeleivable is accepted for that. ( And if Giants existed there is nothing physically impossible about a human sized person taking out a giant.) Basic game functionality does not need a fighter jumping 30 feet.
I use the action hero test. Action Heros endure and do things FAR beyond what a normal person can. The physics are broken for the required purpose of the film.
So I will accept an action star falling onto a car from 100 feet and climbing into the car.
I will not accept that action star (With the assumption he is not superhuman) picking up that car.
I have no problem with stretching the bounds of physicality. Sure, I do think that the characters can jump a bit further than really makes sense. But I'm willing to go with that on the grounds that it is simpler mechanically (ditto for what they can carry). It isn't far off - but sometimes simple rules have value for their own sake.
Jumping 30' is a bit excessive. Of course - unless they put in some pretty amazing feats, that won't be an issue in 5E anyway.
But my problem isn't with characters doing things they can do in the normal world, but doing them better. That is part of the genre - the heroes are larger than life and just that much better than us normal folk.
Jumping further fits because we can jump. Running faster fits because we can run. Flying... Oops. We can't fly. And thus neither can they without magic (and in answer to an earlier query: Ki and Psionics are both magic from the literary construction point of view. Whether the game calls them magic or not, they serve the same function in literature and thus are ways to break the rules of the physical world. They are supernatural whether tagged as magic or nto).
Pulling the deaf, blind, paralyzed quadroplegic across the room - another thing which no analog in the laws of physics and thus something which requires a supernatural agent to justify.
And my problem isn't with Come and Get It. My problem is with the design philosophy which led to Come and Get It. It is the 'preset outcome first, post-facto rationalized action to justify it later (if at all)' approach. Come and Get It is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. So just not taking Come and Get It isn't the solution. The solution is to not support that design philosophy in the first place.
As I've said before - just about every power in 4E could be turned around and made to function from action to outcome. It might impose some limits on a few powers (such as the fact that Come and Get It requires the creature to be aware of you and able to move). But it also opens those powers up to more imaginitive uses.
In 5E the decision to work from action to power doesn't mean that any particular power is automatically off the table (that has more to do with the outcome of the power itself).
It just means that they should be designed with a focus on the causal action not the resulting outcome when describing how the power works.
Carl
Why would you reflavor a power each and every time. Do wizards and clerics suffer from the same burden?
Burden? I thought that was the advantage of the more mundane classes? they get to roleplay their powers.
It's fighter magic!
How did he come by that magic then?
By being an awesome fighter. I don't think a fighter needs magic to do supernatural stuff I just accept it as part of the game. But if it bothers others so much they can just call a fighter and a rogue subclasses of a wizard and be done with it.
the word is supernatural for a reason. How did the fighter get the SUPER part? I don't accept that the super is an assumed part of the game, unless there is an agent like Magic, Ki, or psionics to cause it.
And my problem isn't with Come and Get It. My problem is with the design philosophy which led to Come and Get It. It is the 'preset outcome first, post-facto rationalized action to justify it later (if at all)' approach. Come and Get It is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. So just not taking Come and Get It isn't the solution. The solution is to not support that design philosophy in the first place.
The actual problem is that that wasn't the design philosophy that 4e used. That's the caricature that people who hated 4e during its launch promulgated, which is not the same thing.
And my problem isn't with Come and Get It. My problem is with the design philosophy which led to Come and Get It. It is the 'preset outcome first, post-facto rationalized action to justify it later (if at all)' approach. Come and Get It is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. So just not taking Come and Get It isn't the solution. The solution is to not support that design philosophy in the first place.
The actual problem is that that wasn't the design philosophy that 4e used. That's the caricature that people who hated 4e during its launch promulgated, which is not the same thing.
OK. That is the design philosophy which its powers demonstrate.
I'm assuming it was intentional.
The whole "The power works as you describe it." Etc. approach is exactly what I don't like about it.
After playing the game every week since it was released I haven't seen any evidence to contradict that philosophy.
Don't get me wrong. It's a fun game. But its strengths are in the mechanical, tactical combat department - not the more fluffy storytelling department.
How would you describe the design philosophy which led to the powers of 4E and their lack of any described actions and their sole focus on outcomes.
Carl
the word is supernatural for a reason. How did the fighter get the SUPER part? I don't accept that the super is an assumed part of the game, unless there is an agent like Magic, Ki, or psionics to cause it.
Clearly, they have harnessed the power of awesomeness and tapped into the "forces of cool" to do these things.
That you're being contrary for no discernible reason other than to be contrary really isn't their problem.
A common conceit and one encouraged by the rulebooks, was that you could declare that certain things that the Storyteller hadn't excluded happened to be in the right place at the right time. So, for example, fleeing from an enemy, you jump through a three-story window and use your magic to prevent your fall from killing you. What magic was it? Well, coincidentally, beneath the window was a dumpster filled with discarded foam, packing peanuts and cotton. Was there a dumpster there previously? Who knows. Unless the storyteller had described what was beneath the window, there may have been. So all your magic did was ensure it was true.
D&D doesn't do that, even in 4e, because magic had very concrete descriptions. Cast this spell. The spell does X. X fits the spell description precisely. Done. no need to justify after the fact.
I often felt similarly about the need to post hoc justify 4e powers. Okay, I used CaGI to pull the zombie away from my wizard. How did I do that? Well, did I taunt him? Zombies aren't really tauntable. Did I attract his attention? Zombies don't generally change targets once they have one. So, I cut my hand and sprayed some blood his way to lure him over? Um... okay. We'll go with that. Meanwhile, combat is stalled while the group tries to narrate what just happened. It turned powers into a chore. One of my players had his fighter retrain out of CaGI because he just found it too annoying to justify everything all the time.
Its powers don't demonstrate that, not if you actually understand what the devs told you to do in 4e. How long you've been playing is irrelevant, if you really think that it's the power telling you what to do, you've been doing it wrong, for all of that long time.
No - the problem is that it is NOT the power telling me what to do.
It is the power telling me what the outcome is. And unless I just rip out the text and houserule the whole thing (I'm sorry, the deaf barbarian is looking the other way and doesn't hear your 'Come and Get It') it breaks the suspenstion of disbelief.
And the ability to create a justification for the outcome is not a solution. It is the problem.
So show me how its done that doesn't require me to invent an explanation for each and every prescribed outcome.
Please.
Explain the fighter's Mark in a way that doesn't require a new situational explanation for every fight the fighter is in.
What does the fighter do that results in its effects. And why do they persist even if the fighter leaves the room?
How does Come and Get It pull that quadroplegic across the room to me?
Carl
A common conceit and one encouraged by the rulebooks, was that you could declare that certain things that the Storyteller hadn't excluded happened to be in the right place at the right time. So, for example, fleeing from an enemy, you jump through a three-story window and use your magic to prevent your fall from killing you. What magic was it? Well, coincidentally, beneath the window was a dumpster filled with discarded foam, packing peanuts and cotton. Was there a dumpster there previously? Who knows. Unless the storyteller had described what was beneath the window, there may have been. So all your magic did was ensure it was true.
That's like adventuring with a Hitchhiker's improbability drive....
That'd be awesome!
It is the 'preset outcome first, post-facto rationalized action to justify it later (if at all)' approach. Come and Get It is a symptom of the problem
Its powers don't demonstrate that, not if you actually understand what the devs told you to do in 4e.
But that's what you said was going on!
To reemphasize:
The mechanics talk about the past, not the future.
Its powers don't demonstrate that, not if you actually understand what the devs told you to do in 4e. How long you've been playing is irrelevant, if you really think that it's the power telling you what to do, you've been doing it wrong, for all of that long time.
No - the problem is that it is NOT the power telling me what to do.
It is the power telling me what the outcome is. And unless I just rip out the text and houserule the whole thing (I'm sorry, the deaf barbarian is looking the other way and doesn't hear your 'Come and Get It') it breaks the suspenstion of disbelief.
And the ability to create a justification for the outcome is not a solution. It is the problem.
So show me how its done that doesn't require me to invent an explanation for each and every prescribed outcome.
Please.
Explain the fighter's Mark in a way that doesn't require a new situational explanation for every fight the fighter is in.
Carl
So, if you fail in your responsibilities as a roleplayer and don't come up with a good explanation for how something is going to work before you try it and instead just say "Well, the power works as advertised" that's the system's fault?
Why shouldn't you be required to invent an explanation for each and every prescribed outcome? You ask that of the players even in a more limited, "sense-based" outcome list, with things like "a Kobold will die when you cut its head off." That the explanation is immediately obvious and often goes unsaid does not mean that it doesn't exist.
That's like adventuring with a Hitchhiker's improbability drive....
That'd be awesome!
It's awesome for exactly one encounter, and then it's increasingly nonsensical as your city becomes filled up with dumpsters of foam, and people keep leaving fully loaded semiautomatic rifles and wads of cash under couch cushions for the flimsiest of reasons.
And my problem isn't with Come and Get It. My problem is with the design philosophy which led to Come and Get It. It is the 'preset outcome first, post-facto rationalized action to justify it later (if at all)' approach. Come and Get It is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. So just not taking Come and Get It isn't the solution. The solution is to not support that design philosophy in the first place.
The actual problem is that that wasn't the design philosophy that 4e used. That's the caricature that people who hated 4e during its launch promulgated, which is not the same thing.
I beg to differ.
Everytime you hear someone say "Just reflavor your powers", they're promtoting just that philosophy. It doesn't matter exactly how you get to the preset outcome, so you can put whatever flavor you want in there, however each power is limited to what the rules text says, and there's very little beyond that. So the message we get from that is pretty clear: Flavor is irrelevant and replaceable, but rules text is sancrosanct. And that's fans of 4E saying that, not naysayers. In fact, it's even cited as a strength of 4E by some supporters.
And the developers themselves even promote this rules-first philosophy. There was actually a 4E session shown with one of the D&D developers as DM. In that session someone tried to use an attack power (I believe eldritch blast) to destroy a door and the DM woudln't let him because the power stated it had a target of "one creature", even though you know... basic attack says that as the target as well. And this was one of the D&D developers making that ruling.
Things like that set the tone against out of the box thinking. The emphasis has moved away from creativity and innovation and to mindless adherence to the rules.
That's like adventuring with a Hitchhiker's improbability drive....
That'd be awesome!
It's awesome for exactly one encounter, and then it's increasingly nonsensical as your city becomes filled up with dumpsters of foam, and people keep leaving fully loaded semiautomatic rifles and wads of cash under couch cushions for the flimsiest of reasons.
And this is something other than awesome...how?
So, if you fail in your responsibilities as a roleplayer and don't come up with a good explanation for how something is going to work before you try it and instead just say "Well, the power works as advertised" that's the system's fault?
The system is handing out chores. That is in fact the system's fault. My responsibility as a roleplayer should not necessarily be to justify the mechanics. I shoul jjust have to play my character and the mechanics should support that, not cause me to pause after I roll dice to shoehorn the results into the game world.
So the message we get from that is pretty clear: Flavor is irrelevant and replaceable, but rules text is sancrosanct.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
So, if you fail in your responsibilities as a roleplayer and don't come up with a good explanation for how something is going to work before you try it and instead just say "Well, the power works as advertised" that's the system's fault?
The system is handing out chores. That is in fact the system's fault. My responsibility as a roleplayer should not necessarily be to justify the mechanics. I shoul jjust have to play my character and the mechanics should support that, not cause me to pause after I roll dice to shoehorn the results into the game world.
Why are you pausing after you roll dice, and not pausing before you choose which power to use?
Failures to adequately use the system may be a valid complaint that the system didn't explain itself as well as it needed to, but it's not grounds to complain that the system had some universal flaw. My experiences are a counterexample, and one is all you need.
Its powers don't demonstrate that, not if you actually understand what the devs told you to do in 4e. How long you've been playing is irrelevant, if you really think that it's the power telling you what to do, you've been doing it wrong, for all of that long time.
No - the problem is that it is NOT the power telling me what to do.
It is the power telling me what the outcome is. And unless I just rip out the text and houserule the whole thing (I'm sorry, the deaf barbarian is looking the other way and doesn't hear your 'Come and Get It') it breaks the suspenstion of disbelief.
And the ability to create a justification for the outcome is not a solution. It is the problem.
So show me how its done that doesn't require me to invent an explanation for each and every prescribed outcome.
Please.
Explain the fighter's Mark in a way that doesn't require a new situational explanation for every fight the fighter is in.
Carl
So, if you fail in your responsibilities as a roleplayer and don't come up with a good explanation for how something is going to work before you try it and instead just say "Well, the power works as advertised" that's the system's fault?
Why shouldn't you be required to invent an explanation for each and every prescribed outcome? You ask that of the players even in a more limited, "sense-based" outcome list, with things like "a Kobold will die when you cut its head off." That the explanation is immediately obvious and often goes unsaid does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Wait - now you say that is the design philosophy but now I'm a bad roleplayer if I think my abilities should be based on actions rather than outcomes.
Ok.
The point is: If the ability specifies an action then I as a roleplayer can look for ways to creatively use that action to do FAR more than the intended outcome of the power.
On the other hand: If the ability specifies an outcome, then I as a roleplayer can look for ways to creatively explain that outcome by inventing actions which might have led up to it. But I can't really change the outcome.
And the former (to me, at least) represent true creativity, creativity that matters, because it affects the outcome of what happens in the game. The latter represents false creativity, creativity that ultimately doesn't matter, because the outcome was predetermined by the power chosen.
And I'd rather play in a game which focuses on the former rather than the latter.
Carl
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
It's because they want creativity with thier effects, not just creativity with their flavor text.
Thinking outside the box isn't describing your ray of frost as being an icelance instead of a blue beam, it's using it to free a puddle in front of a charging orc and getting him to slip on it. It's being able to use the same effect that pulls an orc to grab keys off a guard or pull a statue down from a cliff.
So the message we get from that is pretty clear: Flavor is irrelevant and replaceable, but rules text is sancrosanct.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
See above.
It 'stifled creativity' in that it changed it from coming up with creative and unexpected outcomes and turned it into an exercise in creatively justifying preset outcomes.
And yes, that is stifling.
Carl
It is the 'preset outcome first, post-facto rationalized action to justify it later (if at all)' approach. Come and Get It is a symptom of the problemIts powers don't demonstrate that, not if you actually understand what the devs told you to do in 4e.
But that's what you said was going on!To reemphasize:
The mechanics talk about the past, not the future.
Argh. You've misunderstood.
The mechanics talk about the past, the fluff talks about the future. The power includes both. It doesn't write down the fluff, but it includes the fluff. What's written down diverts responsibility for the fluff onto the player and away from the rulebook. And isn't that exactly what roleplaying is all about?
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
It's because they want creativity with thier effects, not just creativity with their flavor text.
Thinking outside the box isn't describing your ray of frost as being an icelance instead of a blue beam, it's using it to free a puddle in front of a charging orc and getting him to slip on it. It's being able to use the same effect that pulls an orc to grab keys off a guard or pull a statue down from a cliff.
Exactly!
Carl
So the message we get from that is pretty clear: Flavor is irrelevant and replaceable, but rules text is sancrosanct.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
See above.
It 'stifled creativity' in that it changed it from coming up with creative and unexpected outcomes and turned it into an exercise in creatively justifying preset outcomes.
And yes, that is stifling.
Carl
Nevermind the part where it didn't do anything whatsoever to whether or not you could come up with creative and unexpected outcomes, I guess?
Why are you pausing after you roll dice, and not pausing before you choose which power to use?
Why does that matter? Either way, I have the chore of justifying the power. I do it either after I roll or before the roll, but either way I'm the one with the chore and I'm the one who has to step out of character to justify the power I am contemplating using.
So, if you fail in your responsibilities as a roleplayer and don't come up with a good explanation for how something is going to work before you try it and instead just say "Well, the power works as advertised" that's the system's fault?
Why shouldn't you be required to invent an explanation for each and every prescribed outcome? You ask that of the players even in a more limited, "sense-based" outcome list, with things like "a Kobold will die when you cut its head off." That the explanation is immediately obvious and often goes unsaid does not mean that it doesn't exist.
In most of the encounter groups I run, it takes a few sessions before the players (mostly all walk ins) are comfortable describing their powers to the group.
Many of my 4e sessions the players just say "I use X to do Y".
I try to set the example with monster powers but the casual encounters crowd rarely bites.
If I played it with my standard groups they would do a better job.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
It's because they want creativity with thier effects, not just creativity with their flavor text.
Thinking outside the box isn't describing your ray of frost as being an icelance instead of a blue beam, it's using it to free a puddle in front of a charging orc and getting him to slip on it.
Nice, or like when Bender from Futurama is playing D&D and he casts fireball into a river to cause steam as a distraction for them to escape a red dragon.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
It's because they want creativity with thier effects, not just creativity with their flavor text.
Thinking outside the box isn't describing your ray of frost as being an icelance instead of a blue beam, it's using it to free a puddle in front of a charging orc and getting him to slip on it. It's being able to use the same effect that pulls an orc to grab keys off a guard or pull a statue down from a cliff.
Exactly!
Carl
Not being creative with your effects in 4e is not the system's fault, it's yours. Before 4e, there wasn't any option to get anything interesting other than being creative with effects. But you, like so many poor souls, seem to think that because you're given a power, you can't ever do anything else. That's explicitly stated to not be the case in 4e, yet for some reason people like you continue to believe it is.
What's written down diverts responsibility for the fluff onto the player and away from the rulebook. And isn't that exactly what roleplaying is all about?
No, it's not what roleplaying is all about. Roleplaying is about me playing my character, not me deciding how the rest of the world works around the mechanics I invoke.
And if it's the DM who has to decide how CaGI or similar powers manifest, because he's the one who does decide how the world works, then my selection of this power is forcing the DM to come up with an ad hoc justification or requiring him to nix use of the power because he can't come up with a reaosnable justification. And either way, roleplaying is paused while the DM or player tries to justify in his head the power he is contemplating (as player) invoking or that the player has already invoked (if the onus is on the DM).
So no. Flavoring "The target is pulled up to 2 squares adjacent to the fighter" is not the epitome of roleplaying.
Why are you pausing after you roll dice, and not pausing before you choose which power to use?
Why does that matter? Either way, I have the chore of justifying the power. I do it either after I roll or before the roll, but either way I'm the one with the chore and I'm the one who has to step out of character to justify the power I am contemplating using.
You always have to justify what you're doing, even if you're doing one of the hallowed Improvised Actions that allow for "good roleplaying."
Why are you stepping out of character to justify the power you are contemplating using? Figuring out how to apply your prior training to the current situation is exactly an in-character exercise.
The justification always has to happen. It always has, and it always will.
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
And if I have sand in my pockets?
And if it's the DM who has to decide how CaGI or similar powers manifest, because he's the one who does decide how the world works, then my selection of this power is forcing the DM to come up with an ad hoc justification or requiring him to nix use of the power because he can't come up with a reaosnable justification.
How is this not the case for every single choice a player makes!? From "Can I play a Halfling" to "Can I use my Thief of Legend feature to steal his cold blue eyes?", how is this not the case always?
So, if you fail in your responsibilities as a roleplayer and don't come up with a good explanation for how something is going to work before you try it and instead just say "Well, the power works as advertised" that's the system's fault?
My responsibility as a roleplayer is to play the role, in-character. Acting as the character, I decide to do something, and then the game system translates that into mechanic language in order to resolve it. I probably have a pretty good idea of what the outcome of my action might be, but my only choice is what to do and not what its results will be.
Telling the player to choose a result and then try to justify how you got there is meta-gaming - it's out-of-character thinking - and it's not what I signed up for when I said I wanted to play a role.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
And I disagree with that message; I would say that the only thing worth paying money for is a consistent guide for how to convert fluff into crunch.
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
And if I have sand in my pockets?
You're also naked.
...some stashed where the sun don't shine?
Telling the player to choose a result and then try to justify how you got there is meta-gaming - it's out-of-character thinking - and it's not what I signed up for when I said I wanted to play a role.
And that's the backward, distorted way that people have read 4e powers, and not how they were supposed to be read.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
It's because they want creativity with thier effects, not just creativity with their flavor text.
Thinking outside the box isn't describing your ray of frost as being an icelance instead of a blue beam, it's using it to free a puddle in front of a charging orc and getting him to slip on it. It's being able to use the same effect that pulls an orc to grab keys off a guard or pull a statue down from a cliff.
Exactly!
Carl
Not being creative with your effects in 4e is not the system's fault, it's yours. Before 4e, there wasn't any option to get anything interesting other than being creative with effects. But you, like so many poor souls, seem to think that because you're given a power, you can't ever do anything else. That's explicitly stated to not be the case in 4e, yet for some reason people like you continue to believe it is.
In the instance your replying too, it seems that the confusion is not that you cannot do anything BUT a power, but instead you cannot use a power for anything BUT what it SAYS. that is how I treat powers. the power says it does Y, so it only does Y. I describe them in different ways, but that is no different than how I described combat in AD&D.
I am finding few of the people actually narrate their powers in 4e, both in the games I observed and the games I run. I find I am adding all the narration to make up for this.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
It's because they want creativity with thier effects, not just creativity with their flavor text.
Thinking outside the box isn't describing your ray of frost as being an icelance instead of a blue beam, it's using it to free a puddle in front of a charging orc and getting him to slip on it. It's being able to use the same effect that pulls an orc to grab keys off a guard or pull a statue down from a cliff.
Exactly!
Carl
DMG, page 42, done. Move on.
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
And if I have sand in my pockets?
You're also naked.
...some stashed where the sun don't shine?
Well in the arbitrary case where you are naked and unarmed, you simply don't use the "sand in the eyes power"*
*note: the sand in the eyes power doesn't actually exist. It is amusing how much people bring up this power though...
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
Moe Howard eye poke.
Slash above the eyes, getting blood in them.
Took me three seconds.
In the instance your replying too, it seems that the confusion is not that you cannot do anything BUT a power, but instead you cannot use a power for anything BUT what it SAYS. that is how I treat powers. the power says it does Y, so it only does Y. I describe them in different ways, but that is no different than how I described combat in AD&D.
Yes. And this is your choice. You've managed to be consistent in this choice across editions. Yet, somehow, people like Carl who were fine with allowing things to have results that aren't explicitly stated in one edition feel prohibited from doing so in others. That's the discrepancy I'm pointing out, that no system can adequately address. It's a personal behavior at that point.
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
And if I have sand in my pockets?
You're also naked.
...some stashed where the sun don't shine?
Well in the arbitrary case where you are naked and unarmed, you simply don't use the "sand in the eyes power"*
*note: the sand in the eyes power doesn't actually exist. It is amusing how much people bring up this power though...
Yes, yes it does. Rogue Level 7 attack power, Player's Handbook.
Actually, the message is that flavor is the thing that you actually get creative with, and the rules text is the only thing that's worth paying money for rather than doing yourself.
The same people who make the argument you've made also tend to insist that 4e stifled creativity. How that cognitive dissonace is held in the brain successfully, I do not understand.
It's because they want creativity with thier effects, not just creativity with their flavor text.
Thinking outside the box isn't describing your ray of frost as being an icelance instead of a blue beam, it's using it to free a puddle in front of a charging orc and getting him to slip on it. It's being able to use the same effect that pulls an orc to grab keys off a guard or pull a statue down from a cliff.
Exactly!
Carl
DMG, page 42, done. Move on.
What's done, brazier damage scaling with character level?
Who's spending the time and resources to make dungeons spotless? Talk about unrealistic, even the most OCD BBEG wouldn't bother.
People trying their absolute hardest to justify their dislike for a mechanic out of sheer contrariness. Regardless of how silly it makes them sound.
Who's spending the time and resources to make dungeons spotless? Talk about unrealistic, even the most OCD BBEG wouldn't bother.
Gelatinous cubes
Telling the player to choose a result and then try to justify how you got there is meta-gaming - it's out-of-character thinking - and it's not what I signed up for when I said I wanted to play a role.
And that's the backward, distorted way that people have read 4e powers, and not how they were supposed to be read.
Explain. Because that also sounds like what you said earlier..
"Why shouldn't you be required to invent an explanation for each and every prescribed outcome? "
You say that you should be required to invent an explation for each and every prescribed outcome - and then you say that choosing a result and justifying how you go there is backward distored reading of the powers.
Which is it.
Do you agree that 4E powers specify outcomes and (as you indicated elsewhere) transfer the responsibility for explaining the actions that led to that outcome from the rules to the players.
Or is it a misunderstanding of 4E to say that?
Carl
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
Moe Howard eye poke.
Slash above the eyes, getting blood in them.
Took me three seconds.
Wow, so I could re-flavour burning hands to be vomiting on people?
In the instance your replying too, it seems that the confusion is not that you cannot do anything BUT a power, but instead you cannot use a power for anything BUT what it SAYS. that is how I treat powers. the power says it does Y, so it only does Y. I describe them in different ways, but that is no different than how I described combat in AD&D.
Yes. And this is your choice. You've managed to be consistent in this choice across editions. Yet, somehow, people like Carl who were fine with allowing things to have results that aren't explicitly stated in one edition feel prohibited from doing so in others. That's the discrepancy I'm pointing out, that no system can adequately address. It's a personal behavior at that point.
That is because other editions specified the action. 4E either had no actions specified or turned them into fluff - along with repeated assurances that the fluff was meaningless and we could just refluff it to whatever fit our whim of the moment. Granted, what we finally agreed to as a group was that the fluff was actually part of the rules (which most people I know would say is not the case in 4E). Thus the fluff explanation a) could limit the outcomes if it didn't fit (sorry, no sand here) and it also could open the game up to new outcomes. But this was a house rule and not part of the game itself. The game itself made it pretty clear that the fuff was not binding.
Carl
You say that you should be required to invent an explation for each and every prescribed outcome - and then you say that choosing a result and justifying how you go there is backward distored reading of the powers.
Which is it.
Both. Let me explain using a less controversial example.
I know that things can be sharp. I know that things that are sharp are good at cutting things, particularly if they're moving at high speed. Therefore, if I move a sharp thing at high speed, it should be good at cutting something that I'm moving it toward. Therefore, a longsword attack deals 1d8+Str damage.
That is the process as how it's supposed to be done. And for something like a simple longsword attack, it's done subconsciously. But that justification still exists, and isn't any less necessary just because it's familiar. But do you understand now, why saying "1d8+Str damage" and trying to work back a justification for it is backwards?
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
Moe Howard eye poke.
Slash above the eyes, getting blood in them.
Took me three seconds.
Wow, so I could re-flavour burning hands to be vomiting on people?
Maybe, if your DM seems to think it could work. After all, you can probably vomit about once an encounter before your stomach is empty and, in some roundabout way, you could say your stomach acid burns a bit, but won't actually be setting anything on fire so much as just ruining it with your vomit. But then, it's magic.
But you're leading to some kind of silly trap statement with that offering so, whatever.
So, here's a challenge to the "creativity of effects" crowd:
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Okay, I'll bite.
You could do something that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the rules whenever it seemed like it would follow logically from the abilities you did have. For most humanoid characters with strength and dexterity above 3, that meant any sort of physical activity that a normal person could do (possibly with a check required), because we had some pre-conceived notion about what it means to be a humanoid with those particular characteristics. For spellcasters, that involved figuring out the one truth behind how a spell actually worked and then extrapolating from there; if the gust of wind spell can mechanically push a target back or blow a projectile out of the sky, then that's because it creates a strong burst of wind, and thus it can do anything that you would expect a gust of wind to do.
So, here's a challenge to the "creativity of effects" crowd:
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Okay, I'll bite.
You could do something that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the rules whenever it seemed like it would follow logically from the abilities you did have. For most humanoid characters with strength and dexterity above 3, that meant any sort of physical activity that a normal person could do (possibly with a check required), because we had some pre-conceived notion about what it means to be a humanoid with those particular characteristics. For spellcasters, that involved figuring out the one truth behind how a spell actually worked and then extrapolating from there; if the gust of wind spell can mechanically push a target back or blow a projectile out of the sky, then that's because it creates a strong burst of wind, and thus it can do anything that you would expect a gust of wind to do.
So why doesn't this work in every RPG ever, if you want it to? Either it's cheating because it's against the rules, or it's fun because it's creative. Somehow it's the latter with earlier editions, and the former with 4e? Why?
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
Moe Howard eye poke.
Slash above the eyes, getting blood in them.
Took me three seconds.
Wow, so I could re-flavour burning hands to be vomiting on people?
Maybe, if your DM seems to think it could work. After all, you can probably vomit about once an encounter before your stomach is empty and, in some roundabout way, you could say your stomach acid burns a bit, but won't actually be setting anything on fire so much as just ruining it wi
I do like this for re-fluffing: a Warforged could be a Gnome in a construct he made (he's in the chest cavity, like that little alien guy in the head of that other dude in Men in Black.
So, here's a challenge to the "creativity of effects" crowd:
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Becasue the rules set an atmosphere of improvisation. I remember in the 2E players handbook, there was an example of someone using a horn of blasting to collapse a dungeon corridor on a group of orcs. There were spells like open-ended illusions that were almost exclusively designed for creativity.
There were other examples in the book about people improvising stuff. You were encouraged to use thigns like 10 ft poles and poke around dungeons for traps. Another method of improvisation. The traps back then interacted in some physical manner. If it was a tripwire, then your pole could trip the wire. If it was a series of darts that fired out of the lock of a chest you could avoid them by opening the chest from the side. These kinds of descriptions are often absent from more modern adventures, as a trap is summed up an attack roll and a damage roll, but it often has little logic beyond that.
I mean I have watched some of the videos of 4E sessions being played by the developers, and really, they play it very similar to how I play it. But there's minimal improvisation and mostly worried about using the stuff on your power cards against the monsters. It's much to do with the atsmophere and how things are set up, because 4E has a preordained mechanical result, but not much logic behind it. Hell I don't even know what an eldritch blast actually does, or what the wound from one looks like. Is it a bludgeoning concussive force, is it some kind of corruptive energy? I really don't know. So it's hard to actually think outside the eldritch blast, because I don't truly understand it.
So why doesn't this work in every RPG ever, if you want it to? Either it's cheating because it's against the rules, or it's fun because it's creative. Somehow it's the latter with earlier editions, and the former with 4e? Why?
It does work, even in 4E, sometimes. The difficulty is often in going from the mechanical result (which was always given) and trying to find the actual truth that was behind it.
What was that warlock power I posted earlier? Spiteful something-or-other? There's nothing in the fluff for that power to even hint at the truth, and if we can't find the truth, then we don't know what else it can do. Come and Get It is slightly different, in that the fluff is inadequate to describe the power, but at least there is enough fluff that you can choose to stop it from working against mindless undead or the like; it's a situation where you just have to concede that the rules would be too complicated to try and fit all on one page, so you go with what it's supposed to do based on its truth, but that requires a strong DM to step in and say that no, you can't trick the zombie into abandoning its meal.
And then some people claim that there is no actual truth behind anything, because the truth changes to fit the situation. If that's the case, then the system isn't telling you how to convert anything from fluff into crunch, and the entire thing becomes meaningless to me.
I give up. Done with you.
So, here's a challenge to the "creativity of effects" crowd:
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Becasue the rules set an atmosphere of improvisation.
An alternative spin might be "Because the rules weren't detailed enough"
And if it's the DM who has to decide how CaGI or similar powers manifest, because he's the one who does decide how the world works, then my selection of this power is forcing the DM to come up with an ad hoc justification or requiring him to nix use of the power because he can't come up with a reaosnable justification.
How is this not the case for every single choice a player makes!? From "Can I play a Halfling" to "Can I use my Thief of Legend feature to steal his cold blue eyes?", how is this not the case always?
because 99% of the time, the power fits just fine in the world. You don't decide to play a halfling right at the table and you just happened to choose the next most abstracted mechanic in 4e (thief of legend feature) as a comparison? Spare me.
That's because the fluff is whatever you want it to be. This is not complicated.
No one said it was complicated, I'm all for re-flavouring/fluffing/skinning, but it can get absurd if taken too far (way too contrived)..
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Ability checks and a DC chart. The fact that you're tryign to warp the discussion away from the justifications required for abstracted powers, though, is duly noted.
Yeah, justifying Sand in your Eyes in a spotlessly clean, completely empty steel chamber is rough.
Moe Howard eye poke.
Slash above the eyes, getting blood in them.
Took me three seconds.
Wow, so I could re-flavour burning hands to be vomiting on people?
Why not. Hell, I could see a "food mage" who derives his magic power from arcane energy residing in what he eats. When he "prepares" burnign hands in the morning, he eats a spicy chorizo omlette instead of reading books and memorizing useless facts that he will just forget later.
This reflavoring actually makes more sense than Vancian as to why the wizard has spell slots....
Hell I don't even know what an eldritch blast actually does, or what the wound from one looks like. Is it a bludgeoning concussive force, is it some kind of corruptive energy? I really don't know. So it's hard to actually think outside the eldritch blast, because I don't truly understand it.
Hence why... these are imagination games...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I like deciding myself.
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Ability checks and a DC chart. The fact that you're tryign to warp the discussion away from the justifications required for abstracted powers, though, is duly noted.
...Warp? Really?
I have already stated quite clearly why justifications are required. I am not trying to warp or distort or dodge anything, and I find the suggestion otherwise offensive.
So really, why waste the page count when you can just write once "Use common sense as a DM, if something is stupid, don't allow it. The rules don't contorl your game, you do."
One of the things the powers system was expressly supposed to stop was DMs nixing powers for "realism" because it fell disproportionately on the martial characters. Rogues couldn't sneak attack zombies, fighters couldn't trip oozes. It created a disconnect because you'd build a character with all sorts of powers you thought were neat only to have them neutered in the name of realism.
So 4e came along and told DMs not to sweat it, just run the power as intended and the flavor was mutable. Tripping an ooze? Call it "flattened" isntead. Sneak attack a zombie? Call it kneecapping.
And that was great, but it had a flip side and that was what to do when the provided flavor didn't fit. And then the opportunity to reflavor became the obligation to reflavor, or else you were back to crappy days when martial characters were told they couldn't use their cool stuff.
Now, if the flavor associated with the cool stuff actually fit the mechanics, this would come up less often. But 4e designers used their reflavoring idea to allow them to pay little attention to the flavor, relying on the players and DMs to do it for them. It was an abdication and a constant complaint during 4e, and not merely by the h4ters.
I have already stated quite clearly why justifications are required. I am not trying to warp or distort or dodge anything.
Of course you are. Every time you try to change the discussion from where the game obligates you to reflavor to the less problematic (and actively beneficial) area of where the game offers you the opportunity to reflavor.
I have already stated quite clearly why justifications are required. I am not trying to warp or distort or dodge anything.
Of course you are. Every time you try to change the discussion from where the game obligates you to reflavor to the less problematic (and actively beneficial) area of where the game offers you the opportunity to reflavor.
You mean, except for the times when I directly challenged the assertion you just made, that the game "obligates" you to reflavor?
You have no grounds that I'm disrupting the debate. I have asked other questions, yes, but that is an entirely different thing than what you accuse me of. And I think you know enough of me to know better.
Disagreeing with you is not "warping" the discussion. I know you know better.
One of the things the powers system was expressly supposed to stop was DMs nixing powers for "realism" because it fell disproportionately on the martial characters. Rogues couldn't sneak attack zombies, fighters couldn't trip oozes. It created a disconnect because you'd build a character with all sorts of powers you thought were neat only to have them neutered in the name of realism.
Right.
I mean I understand a lot of the goals of 4E, my main issue is more in how they achieved them. It's not that I want to hose fighters, but yeah, it does bother me that rogues are sneak attacking oozes, because it's just plain stupid.
The problem with 4E was they tried to make things too equal. It's fine if rogues suck against elementals and golems in my opinion. But they should be awesome against humanoids to make up for that. Giving people the spotlight in some battles and having them be ineffective in others is fine. Let the clerics shine when they're going against wraiths and let the rogue be good against orcs. There's no need to have to try to make everyone equally effective in every single combat. Sometimes you'll be out of your element.
The main issue though is that they need to have spellcasters be out of thier element too, that's something that just doesn't happen enough.
So, here's a challenge to the "creativity of effects" crowd:
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Becasue the rules set an atmosphere of improvisation.
An alternative spin might be "Because the rules weren't detailed enough"
Sure. That's the rules-heavy way of looking at things, and I feel like that just overcomplicates things.
You have a DM there, a human being capable of using logic to adjudicate the reality of the game world. You don't have to treat it like a board game where every possible action is codified. For one, doing that drastically raises the page count and lowers the amount of content you can put in your game. Second, you're likely to forget something in your codification that produces nonsensical results. Third, the more rules you have, the less likely people will remember them.
The earlier example of Come and Get It was rather appropriate. There were calls to add in more caveats of "The target must be able to see you or hear you, you must be able to talk, Creatures without emotions aren't affected, etc." In other words piling more and more rules on there, instead of just saying default to common sense based on the flavor text. Obviously a mindless automaton can't be taunted for instance, and DM with a shred of common sense would know that.
So really, why waste the page count when you can just write once "Use common sense as a DM, if something is stupid, don't allow it. The rules don't contorl your game, you do."
Common sense isnt at all common... I use Come and Get it to describe the fencing move Invitation or the False Opening or that move the boxer used in that cool video ... it involves leaving a opening.. any enemy capable of composing an attack can be decieved ... if it cant your average 7 year old can defeat it in a fight so your fancy maneuver is a waste anyway...
You can't complain that it's obligated and simultaneously complain that it's not satisfying to not do it. If it's not satisfying to not do it, you're doing it because you want to, not because you're obligated to. There's a difference.
It's not satisfying for no explanation to exist, and since the game isn't telling us what that explanation is, we're obligated to try and make that up ourselves. We're complaining that we shouldn't need to try and invent a consistent explanation - that's something that we can reasonably expect from the game designers, based on our prior experience with role-playing games and how they're designed.
Ever since way back in the day, spells have had meaningful descriptions that explains why they have the mechanics they do. That was something which we felt was missing, or at least poorly implemented, in 4E.
So, here's a challenge to the "creativity of effects" crowd:
What did you use to justify doing things the rules didn't say in whatever edition you were playing at the time? Why could you do it?
Okay, I'll bite.
You could do something that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the rules whenever it seemed like it would follow logically from the abilities you did have. For most humanoid characters with strength and dexterity above 3, that meant any sort of physical activity that a normal person could do (possibly with a check required), because we had some pre-conceived notion about what it means to be a humanoid with those particular characteristics. For spellcasters, that involved figuring out the one truth behind how a spell actually worked and then extrapolating from there; if the gust of wind spell can mechanically push a target back or blow a projectile out of the sky, then that's because it creates a strong burst of wind, and thus it can do anything that you would expect a gust of wind to do.
So why doesn't this work in every RPG ever, if you want it to? Either it's cheating because it's against the rules, or it's fun because it's creative. Somehow it's the latter with earlier editions, and the former with 4e? Why?
I never claimed what you said above, but it could be a function of some players in some groups putting the game rules first. I have had encounter walk in groups that would not tolerate anything outside the rules.
And that was great, but it had a flip side and that was what to do when the provided flavor didn't fit. And then the opportunity to reflavor became the obligation to reflavor, or else you were back to crappy days when martial characters were told they couldn't use their cool stuff.
Now, if the flavor associated with the cool stuff actually fit the mechanics, this would come up less often. But 4e designers used their reflavoring idea to allow them to pay little attention to the flavor, relying on the players and DMs to do it for them. It was an abdication and a constant complaint during 4e, and not merely by the h4ters.
I only see this as a problem if the DM is ALWAYS throwing oozes at the Martial Character. For an encounter with an ooze the party needs to come up with another strategy for the ooze, undead, or golem, etc.
A DM could make every encounter oozes all the time but then the DM is not accounting for what the players can handle.
One game cannot satisfy everybody as written. I want a reason why my pawn in chess can turn into a queen. Actually, I don't it's a rule and I either accept it, change it with the permission of my opponent, or play something else.
And that's fine for a board game, but not okay for an RPG where describing the action is part of the game.
Nobody really cares if you can turn a game of magic the gathering into a coherent narrative, but for a table top RPG, that is a seriously big deal. If you can't describe what's going on, then it ceases to be an RPG and it's just a miniatures game.
It's fine for an RPG.
No, it's really not. An RPG tells a shared story. And if the mechanics cause something to happen for which there is no explanation it breaks the story. These are known as "plot holes" and are derided in story telling since Aristotle started writing about stories 3,000 years ago. It is not a feature that you must choose to invent an explanation without help from the rules or live with a plot hole. That's a bug. A huge freakin' bug.
Now, for people who don't care about causality in their games and are content to run an entirely solipsistic game with a system that was supposed to be about heroic fantasy, fine. But for those of us who actually just want to sit down with friends and tell a shared fantasy story, it's an issue. And I have a feelign that the "sit down with friends and tell a shared fantasy story" is the intended market of D&D, more than the "run through mechanics without regard for whether there is an explanation for what happens in the game" crowd.
Since though a sizable group care it's probably worth it because the other side can't even recognize it. They won't know if it's being considered or not. But the group that cares will likely vote with their feet. If not consciously then unconsciously. A lot of games are rejected because they just don't have the right feel.
I admit that I'm probably one of the more than average sensitive types to this kind of stuff. I am very happy with the changes to healing because I was going to have to do that anyway. I'm not sure it was going to make the game unplayable for me as I can swap out a healing system I think but it was another black mark against.
I admit that I grew tired of the constant war over everything I care about and being told my concerns are not valid that I dropped out of the playtest. I will judge the game when it comes out. If I don't like it I'll just skip it. I figure the odds of the game being fun for me are low. I still have some hope of course. So spending a lot of time playtesting something that likely will end up being not fun is too high an opportunity cost. I am more than willing though to be proven wrong. I will give the game a fair look.
One game cannot satisfy everybody as written. I want a reason why my pawn in chess can turn into a queen. Actually, I don't it's a rule and I either accept it, change it with the permission of my opponent, or play something else.
And that's fine for a board game, but not okay for an RPG where describing the action is part of the game.
Nobody really cares if you can turn a game of magic the gathering into a coherent narrative, but for a table top RPG, that is a seriously big deal. If you can't describe what's going on, then it ceases to be an RPG and it's just a miniatures game.
It's fine for an RPG. It's been fine for many people since D&D first came to life. You don't need to detail every action you take beyond stating your character is taking the action. You have never been obligated describe in detail how you were casting a fireball or a cure light wounds spell. You sure as hell never needed to describe in detail your 3rd dart attack in a surprise round segment.
For game functionality there is no need really.
My encounter groups started with 0 players describing actions. I was filling in all of the Narrative as DM. My intention was fulfilled though because 2 of those players who came pretty consistently started narrating their characters actions. They discovered the game becomes better if its done.
One game cannot satisfy everybody as written. I want a reason why my pawn in chess can turn into a queen. Actually, I don't it's a rule and I either accept it, change it with the permission of my opponent, or play something else.
And that's fine for a board game, but not okay for an RPG where describing the action is part of the game.
Nobody really cares if you can turn a game of magic the gathering into a coherent narrative, but for a table top RPG, that is a seriously big deal. If you can't describe what's going on, then it ceases to be an RPG and it's just a miniatures game.
It's fine for an RPG.
No, it's really not. An RPG tells a shared story. And if the mechanics cause something to happen for which there is no explanation it breaks the story. These are known as "plot holes" and are derided in story telling since Aristotle started writing about stories 3,000 years ago. It is not a feature that you must choose to invent an explanation without help from the rules or live with a plot hole. That's a bug. A huge freakin' bug.
Now, for people who don't care about causality in their games and are content to run an entirely solipsistic game with a system that was supposed to be about heroic fantasy, fine. But for those of us who actually just want to sit down with friends and tell a shared fantasy story, it's an issue. And I have a feelign that the "sit down with friends and tell a shared fantasy story" is the intended market of D&D, more than the "run through mechanics without regard for whether there is an explanation for what happens in the game" crowd.
Yes, it really is. I'm sorry to break it to you but Wrecan's opinions on what D&D is suppose to be is only valid at Wrecan's table. You and anyone else on these forums have no business telling others what they can accept in the realms of believability or what they can enjoy from a game system especially if they are playing the game as written. It's an awfully arrogant position you and other like minded people take in these threads.
Secondly, the developers would have to be stupider then the oozes people keep bringing up trying to please you impossible to please people.
And of course we get the concept. It's just a silly concept to get when it's a game. It's you guys who don't get that the concept that a game is a game and not a fantasy novel simulator for the ego of a DM. I mean if you want to sit around a table and tell each other stories feel free. You don't need a rule book for that. But for those of us who want to play a game and not worry that it's not properly simulating the arc of an arrow as it flies complete with wind resistance and drift and just want to use a d20 vs AC after seeing if the target is in range abstraction works just fine.
I know you guys know better but I agree with this man on this topic:
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG
There are action movies that you watch and just seem implausible. Like a bad James Bond movie where something looks cool but you doubt very much that what just happened would work in real life. You groan and roll your eyes but it doesn't matter as the movie keeps going. In D&D that can abruptly bring the game to a stop. You can discuss and disect and laugh at the hilarity of the situation right there.
Instead, D&D should try to be a realistic action movie: a Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Bourne Identity. You watch it and it all feels real enough. And any part that doesn't quite fit is unnoticed until much later. Not quite the level of realism as a historical war action-drama (Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, Zulu, or Platoon) but unless you're running events through a MythBusters series of tests it's real enough.
I tend to advocate for Cinematic Action Reality where the game tries to be as realistic as a "realistic" action movie. The game shouldn't disrupt suspension of disbelief or break the flow of the story wherever possible but it also does not need to be a reality simulator.
There are action movies that you watch and just seem implausible. Like a bad James Bond movie where something looks cool but you doubt very much that what just happened would work in real life. You groan and roll your eyes but it doesn't matter as the movie keeps going. In D&D that can abruptly bring the game to a stop. You can discuss and disect and laugh at the hilarity of the situation right there.
Instead, D&D should try to be a realistic action movie: a Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Bourne Identity. You watch it and it all feels real enough. And any part that doesn't quite fit is unnoticed until much later. Not quite the level of realism as a historical war action-drama (Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, Zulu, or Platoon) but unless you're running events through a MythBusters series of tests it's real enough.
Personally, I prefer the combat action in Conan the Barbarian (the battle at the mounds) to any of the more modern hollywood-fu camera flicks.
I tend to advocate for Cinematic Action Reality where the game tries to be as realistic as a "realistic" action movie. The game shouldn't disrupt suspension of disbelief or break the flow of the story wherever possible but it also does not need to be a reality simulator.
There are action movies that you watch and just seem implausible. Like a bad James Bond movie where something looks cool but you doubt very much that what just happened would work in real life. You groan and roll your eyes but it doesn't matter as the movie keeps going. In D&D that can abruptly bring the game to a stop. You can discuss and disect and laugh at the hilarity of the situation right there.
Instead, D&D should try to be a realistic action movie: a Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Bourne Identity. You watch it and it all feels real enough. And any part that doesn't quite fit is unnoticed until much later. Not quite the level of realism as a historical war action-drama (Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, Zulu, or Platoon) but unless you're running events through a MythBusters series of tests it's real enough.
Personally, I prefer the combat action in Conan the Barbarian (the battle at the mounds) to any of the more modern hollywood-fu camera flicks.
The most recent movie I mentioned came out in 2002 and most of my examples came from the 80s as well...
But examples are largely personal as long as they match the intent.
Years later I saw that the mythbusters busted that myth.
I guess he got away with it.
Now, for people who don't care about causality in their games and are content to run an entirely solipsistic game with a system that was supposed to be about heroic fantasy, fine. But for those of us who actually just want to sit down with friends and tell a shared fantasy story, it's an issue. And I have a feelign that the "sit down with friends and tell a shared fantasy story" is the intended market of D&D, more than the "run through mechanics without regard for whether there is an explanation for what happens in the game" crowd.
Yes, it really is. I'm sorry to break it to you but Wrecan's opinions on what D&D is suppose to be is only valid at Wrecan's table.
Why do you think that's news to me. It's right there in the language you just quoted! Gah. Please, fro the love of the game, stop quoting me if you're not going to read what I write.
You and anyone else on these forums have no business telling others what they can accept in the realms of believability
I'm not. I have no idea why you think I am since I have been absolutely clear that I'm talking about my table and the tables of people like me. And I have also been absolutely clear that there are other tables -- like yours, apparently -- for whom it is not an issue.
Secondly, the developers would have to be stupider then the oozes people keep bringing up trying to please you impossible to please people.
But I'm not impossible to please. Hello, have me met? i'm wrecan. I've been writing about how much I love 4e since it began. The link in my sig will send you to all sorts of articles that will show my love of 4e. I've been called a shill for 4e by more people than I care to count.
So spare me the drama. And spare me your facile attempts to make me into something I'm not. And please, spare me any replies that don't involve actually reading what I write.
I tend to advocate for Cinematic Action Reality where the game tries to be as realistic as a "realistic" action movie. The game shouldn't disrupt suspension of disbelief or break the flow of the story wherever possible but it also does not need to be a reality simulator.
There are action movies that you watch and just seem implausible. Like a bad James Bond movie where something looks cool but you doubt very much that what just happened would work in real life. You groan and roll your eyes but it doesn't matter as the movie keeps going. In D&D that can abruptly bring the game to a stop. You can discuss and disect and laugh at the hilarity of the situation right there.
Instead, D&D should try to be a realistic action movie: a Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Bourne Identity. You watch it and it all feels real enough. And any part that doesn't quite fit is unnoticed until much later. Not quite the level of realism as a historical war action-drama (Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, Zulu, or Platoon) but unless you're running events through a MythBusters series of tests it's real enough.
It's not a a realistic action movie. It's a game set in a make believe fantasy world. With active gods. So it's more akin, cinematically, to super hero reality or sci-fi reality but even those are different art forms then a highly abstracted game.
Yes, it really is. I'm sorry to break it to you but Wrecan's opinions on what D&D is suppose to be is only valid at Wrecan's table. You and anyone else on these forums have no business telling others what they can accept in the realms of believability or what they can enjoy from a game system especially if they are playing the game as written. It's an awfully arrogant position you and other like minded people take in these threads.
When you design a game that is easily translated into a narrative, both groups can be happy. If you don't care about the story, then you don't have to translate what's going on into any kind of coherent narrative and can just play the board game style. If you do, then you have the tools necessary to tell a good story. Nobody is forcing you to tell a story though, just the option is always there.
With your system, the only side that gets what they want is your own. If you want to tell a story, you're just totally out of luck. I'd watch who you call arrogant, becasue you're the one who is proposing an entirely self-serving version of D&D that offends a great deal of the player base. Then for the people who don't like it, your advice is to simply play another game, because your word of god is the one true D&D and if they don't like it, well screw em. Remind me, who is the arrogant one again?
And of course we get the concept. It's just a silly concept to get when it's a game. It's you guys who don't get that the concept that a game is a game and not a fantasy novel simulator for the ego of a DM. I mean if you want to sit around a table and tell each other stories feel free. You don't need a rule book for that. But for those of us who want to play a game and not worry that it's not properly simulating the arc of an arrow as it flies complete with wind resistance and drift and just want to use a d20 vs AC after seeing if the target is in range abstraction works just fine.
We're not talking about perfect realism or nitpick accuracy. Abstraction is fine, we're all okay with that. The problem is when it becomes undescribeable abstraction and produces a nonsensical story. At that point it's as much of an RPG as chess is.
Since you mentioned MythBusters, I do recal one player telling the DM that he could break the water's surface tension with his warhammer and reduce his falling damage.
Years later I saw that the mythbusters busted that myth.
I guess he got away with it.
Damage from falling into water has to deal more with deceleration of your body and the inertia of the water then water tension. You can hit water from pretty damn high and be all right if you hit it feet first.
Yes, it really is. I'm sorry to break it to you but Wrecan's opinions on what D&D is suppose to be is only valid at Wrecan's table. You and anyone else on these forums have no business telling others what they can accept in the realms of believability or what they can enjoy from a game system especially if they are playing the game as written. It's an awfully arrogant position you and other like minded people take in these threads.
When you design a game that is easily translated into a narrative, both groups can be happy. If you don't care about the story, then you don't have to translate what's going on into any kind of coherent narrative and can just play the board game style. If you do, then you have the tools necessary to tell a good story. Nobody is forcing you to tell a story though, just the option is always there.
With your system, the only side that gets what they want is your own. If you want to tell a story, you're just totally out of luck. I'd watch who you call arrogant, becasue you're the one who is proposing an entirely self-serving version of D&D that offends a great deal of the player base. Then for the people who don't like it, your advice is to simply play another game, because your word of god is the one true D&D and if they don't like it, well screw em. Remind me, who is the arrogant one again?
And of course we get the concept. It's just a silly concept to get when it's a game. It's you guys who don't get that the concept that a game is a game and not a fantasy novel simulator for the ego of a DM. I mean if you want to sit around a table and tell each other stories feel free. You don't need a rule book for that. But for those of us who want to play a game and not worry that it's not properly simulating the arc of an arrow as it flies complete with wind resistance and drift and just want to use a d20 vs AC after seeing if the target is in range abstraction works just fine.
We're not talking about perfect realism or nitpick accuracy. Abstraction is fine, we're all okay with that. The problem is when it becomes undescribeable abstraction and produces a nonsensical story. At that point it's as much of an RPG as chess is.
Where that point is is different for everybody. Therefore, it's best to just accept it's a game and move on. It's like this power come and get it... Really does it matter? No.
More Gygax for you heathens! A quote shamelessly stolen from enworld.org.
"Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included — make offerings to this god too frequently.
...
When fantasy games are criticized for being “unrealistic” — and by fantasy I certainly mean both imaginary “science fiction” games and heroic fantasy — the sheer magnitude of the misconception absolutely astounds me! How can the critic presume that his or her imagined projection of a non existent world or conjectured future history is any more “real” than another’s? While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter. Therefore, the absurdity of a cry for “realism” in a pure fantasy game seems so evident that I am overwhelmed when such confronts me. Yet, there are those persistent few who keep demanding it. The “camel” of working magic, countless pantheons of gods and devils, monsters that turn people to stone or breath fire, and characters that are daily faced with Herculean challenges which they overcome by dint of swordplay and spell casting is gulped down without a qualm. It is the gnat” of "unrealistic” combat, or “unrealistic” magic systems, or the particular abilities of a class of characters in the game which makes them gag.
...
D&D is a make-believe game. It is designed, however, to facilitate close personal involvement in all aspects of play; this makes suspension of disbelief easier for those who can initially accept a game form which does not relate to any reality except a few tenuous areas... It is a game for the imaginative and fanciful, and perhaps for those who dream of adventure and derring-do in a world all too mundane. As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to “realism” to justify its existence."
Gary Gygax, pbuh
Truth be told I get what you guys are saying. It's just not worth the game developer's time to worry about because it is a nebulous, impossible and counterproductive goal.
The description for a combat round is something like : many things happens during the round, and the check only represent the success or failure of the sum of your effort during the round.
So succesful attack roll + damage means that you may have hit your foe ten times or just once during the round.
But I didn't see many players describing what they did precisely during each round of combat.
"DM : How do you justify your AC of -1 for this round ?
Player : I put myself in position for my next attack, a series of low slashes, so I use my shield to keep my defense against the second enemy and favor dodge and parry regarding my target.
DM : Ok, roll for your series of low slashes… It works.
Player : damage… 46 !
DM : Your target is still alive… This series of attack makes you realize that your opponent have very big and solid legs !
Player : But… it's a halfling !"
And it works like this since many D&D editions, now.
In D&D, a combat round for weapon users is roll against target AC and deal damage if you beat the DC of this check.
The description for a combat round is something like : many things happens during the round, and the check only represent the success or failure of the sum of your effort during the round.
So succesful attack roll + damage means that you may have hit your foe ten times or just once during the round.
But I didn't see many players describing what they did precisely during each round of combat.
"DM : How do you justify your AC of -1 for this round ?
Player : I put myself in position for my next attack, a series of low slashes, so I use my shield to keep my defense against the second enemy and favor dodge and parry regarding my target.
DM : Ok, roll for your series of low slashes… It works.
Player : damage… 46 !
DM : Your target is still alive… This series of attack makes you realize that your opponent have very big and solid legs !
Player : But… it's a halfling !"
And it works like this since many D&D editions, now.
It does squats and drinks its milk!
Like a bad James Bond movie where something looks cool but you doubt very much that what just happened would work in real life.
Yeah, like that one where Pierce my Brosnan big-waved surfed on the door of a helicopter...
...no wonder they rebooted the franchise, got too silly...
When will we refluff the halflings to take into account that they are small, and then subject to more predators than medium humanoids, including housecats and birds of prey ?
There's no way dogs and cats would have the same behaviors with halflings they have with humans or elves.
Halflings should be people living in elevated spots or underground with heavy protections at entrance, certainly not as peaceful peasants in lovely accessible houses. Halfling children are very vulnerable.
We should make a list of things that come far before 4th edition features format regarding unbelievable things supported by the rules.
Str caps is all it takes everything else can be handled by the DM though it would not take much for a Ghostwise to take down a bear much less a dog.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Where that point is is different for everybody. Therefore, it's best to just accept it's a game and move on. It's like this power come and get it... Really does it matter? No.
More Gygax for you heathens! A quote shamelessly stolen from enworld.org.
"Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included — make offerings to this god too frequently.
You're getting hung up on realism. Realism isn't what we want. We don't want some game that's super gritty where you get stabbed with a sword once and bleed to death. We're not looking for realism, we're looking for narrative.
When a martial artist uses a leg sweep to knock an ooze prone. It produces a nonsensical result, and there's no narrative for what happened. We don't even know how to picture a prone ooze, and can't imagine why that would work.
When you use come and get it against a creature that is immobilized, yet how can it respond to your taunt? A creature that's mortally wounded and bleeding to death suddenly stop bleeding to death, stand up and fight fine because the warlord yelled at it?
I can't describe that crap. It's not just unrealistic, it's nonsensical. It'd be the equivalent to watching an episode of Star Trek and seeing Captain Picard get his head blown off by a phaser and then his headless body proceeded to save the Enterprise anyway. And there was no explanation at all given as to why he could do that beyond "Well the script said thats what happened, so that's what happened."
Quite frankly that's just insulting to the audience. People expect some kind of explanations for stuff, and explanations that fit. They don't necessarily have to be realistic explanations. Even weak explanations like "It was magic!" works in fantasy settings. To not have one at all is pretty sad for any game that's trying to tell a story. And yes, RPGs are about telling a story. We have NPCs speak in character to PCs and we have stories that the PCs go through. It's not just a board game.
And when the story you're telling can't make sense because the rules don't make sense, then there's a problem.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Where that point is is different for everybody. Therefore, it's best to just accept it's a game and move on. It's like this power come and get it... Really does it matter? No.
More Gygax for you heathens! A quote shamelessly stolen from enworld.org.
"Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included — make offerings to this god too frequently.
You're getting hung up on realism. Realism isn't what we want. We don't want some game that's super gritty where you get stabbed with a sword once and bleed to death. We're not looking for realism, we're looking for narrative.
When a martial artist uses a leg sweep to knock an ooze prone. It produces a nonsensical result, and there's no narrative for what happened. We don't even know how to picture a prone ooze, and can't imagine why that would work.
When you use come and get it against a creature that is immobilized, yet how can it respond to your taunt? A creature that's mortally wounded and bleeding to death suddenly stop bleeding to death, stand up and fight fine because the warlord yelled at it?
I can't describe that crap. It's not just unrealistic, it's nonsensical. It'd be the equivalent to watching an episode of Star Trek and seeing Captain Picard get his head blown off by a phaser and then his headless body proceeded to save the Enterprise anyway. And there was no explanation at all given as to why he could do that beyond "Well the script said thats what happened, so that's what happened."
Quite frankly that's just insulting to the audience. People expect some kind of explanations for stuff, and explanations that fit. They don't necessarily have to be realistic explanations. Even weak explanations like "It was magic!" works in fantasy settings. To not have one at all is pretty sad for any game that's trying to tell a story. And yes, RPGs are about telling a story. We have NPCs speak in character to PCs and we have stories that the PCs go through. It's not just a board game.
And when the story you're telling can't make sense because the rules don't make sense, then there's a problem.
I thought immobilized creatures couldn't be affected by forced movement?
Either way, I wish there was more guidelines in the 4e DMGs to say that "if something doesn't make sense, it simply doesn't work". Most of peoples arguments against powers like "come and get it" are based around strange contrived corner cases that I have yet to actually see occur in game, some it mostly seems like being angry just for the sake of it.
That being said, I have a refluffed genasi battlemind who is a "fighter" who has been magically bound to a storm elemental. One of his powers pulls a creature to him then prevents that foe from moving away. Normally the power affects the targets mind to cause this effect but I refluffed it as to create a vortex of swirling wind that pulls the target to me. My DM then had the target teleport away from me and I was perfectly cool with that because it fit my fluff better.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Where that point is is different for everybody. Therefore, it's best to just accept it's a game and move on. It's like this power come and get it... Really does it matter? No.
More Gygax for you heathens! A quote shamelessly stolen from enworld.org.
"Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included — make offerings to this god too frequently.
You're getting hung up on realism. Realism isn't what we want. We don't want some game that's super gritty where you get stabbed with a sword once and bleed to death. We're not looking for realism, we're looking for narrative.
When a martial artist uses a leg sweep to knock an ooze prone.
Thats why he instead squashes them flat using a rolling stomp... (functional result the mechanic called prone).
That's not prone though, thats disrupted. Why do ranged attacks have disadvantage against that? It is disrupted not forced to the ground hence a harder to hit target. That thing should just lose all actions for the next round as it jiggles back to not being disrupted. It is stunned or dazed not prone.
Would it be out of line for me to point out that oozes were not immune to being knocked prone in any edition? Not in 3rd, not in 4th and, to the extent that prone was even a thing in AD&D and BECMI, not in those editions either.
4e, however, did have some individual oozes that were specifically immune to prone.
Someone really has to pick a better example than prone oozes.
Not really I'm just saying I can see where the people with a problem are coming from.
It's a game. It's not a story generating fantasy novel simulator. Games have rules. Tolkien, Stephen King, JK Rowling, etc don't sit around with a copy of Tunnels and Trolls rolling dice with people to tell a story..
You're kidding yourself if you're saying that D&D isn't about telling a story. Why else would games include towns and NPCs to interact with? Why do most moduels include backstory? Why are there campaign settings with all these rich details. You don't see 50 pages of history and backstory over a game of chess.
Claiming D&D isn't about stories is just silly.
Try a bit of context with what you read. Yes, there is story in D&D. However it's first and foremost a game not a story generating device. Game. The creator of the genre himself says so. I ain't gonna keep digging up those old quotes when they aren't being read.
I don't need rules to make up a story. I just need an imagination. To play a game, it helps to have rules. When a product is marketed as a game and calls itself a game I tend to believe the company that produces it and the man who wrote it that it's a game over the objections of a random person on the internet.
In English, please...?
Knocking oozes prone is just a shorthand for disrupting their oozey workings for a short time until they re-orient themselves.
In English please...?
Take some jello, shake it in your hand, and splat it on the table. When it stops wiggling, it's no longer prone.
Alternatively, stop being obstinate.
That's not prone though, thats disrupted. Why do ranged attacks have disadvantage against that? It is disrupted not forced to the ground hence a harder to hit target. That thing should just lose all actions for the next round as it jiggles back to not being disrupted. It is stunned or dazed not prone.
Your opinions are not the game rules. The game rules exist as fact. If the game rules say within the game "you move x feet in y days" then x/y feet/days is your speed in that game.
Your opinions are not the game rules. The game rules exist as fact. If the game rules say within the game "you move x feet in y days" then x/y feet/days is your speed in that game.
Of course, the game rules also state that rules are just guidelines, and the DM is free to change them whenever they don't make sense.
Of course, the game rules also state that rules are just guidelines, and the DM is free to change them whenever they don't make sense.
Which is the exact reason why it has always been impossible to trip/prone an ooze regardless of edition...in my games.
Your opinions are not the game rules. The game rules exist as fact. If the game rules say within the game "you move x feet in y days" then x/y feet/days is your speed in that game.
Of course, the game rules also state that rules are just guidelines, and the DM is free to change them whenever they don't make sense.
Just as if you cannot reach a consensus on how to play, let's say like at a tourney, then there is no game at all. So in official play there will be some default ruleset. BTW we aren't arguing about houserules now are we?
Ultimately what matters is what the the designers are going to do and I can pretty much guarantee, just like in every other edition of D&D, 5th will be awfully gamist at it's core level and most options. Now you can houserule whatever you wish, but that does answer the question, of who is responsible for believability and even if believability is important.
Ultimately what matters is what the the designers are going to do and I can pretty much guarantee, just like in every other edition of D&D, 5th will be awfully gamist at it's core level and most options. Now you can houserule whatever you wish, but that does answer the question, of who is responsible for believability and even if believability is important.
Well, they have stated that they want to start with the player trying to do something, and then the DM deciding what sort of check is called for. That tells me that the story is the most important thing, with the mechanics only working to help resolve that story.
The designers may fail at that goal, but they've declared their intent.
More Gygax for you heathens!
It's disingenious to take Gygax's quotes from a totally different age of RPGs and use them today.
During the time of those quotes, there was a movement to make RPGs more simulationist. There were a number of different extremes and hints of it can even be seen in early versions of D&D (take the weapon vs. armor charts). If you want to get a good feel for what he was pining about, pick up an old copy of rolemaster, it was probably the pinnacle of realism/simulationism.
What's being discussed here though is believability, in the sense that a mechanic should be narratively coherent, that more thought should go into a mechanic than only that it be mechanically clean and sound from a gamist point of view. Based upon Gygax's body of work, as well as his opinions on 3rd edition, I highly doubt he would support such a style of RPG, irregardless of what a few out of context quotes might say.
Ultimately what matters is what the the designers are going to do and I can pretty much guarantee, just like in every other edition of D&D, 5th will be awfully gamist at it's core level and most options. Now you can houserule whatever you wish, but that does answer the question, of who is responsible for believability and even if believability is important.
Well, they have stated that they want to start with the player trying to do something, and then the DM deciding what sort of check is called for. That tells me that the story is the most important thing, with the mechanics only working to help resolve that story.
The designers may fail at that goal, but they've declared their intent.
Story is more nebulous a concept the the discussion what's believable and what's not believable which is the topic of the thread. If story is used as a catch-all phrase to encompass everything that happened within the game then fine story is important. But consistent adherence to ad-hoc fantasy physics? That ain't happening. It will be arbitrary, abstract, contradictory in places etc etc.
What I need to ask is this: with over 4 editions of D&D existing, each with arbitrary, inconsistent, unversimilitudification, and "unbelievable" rules in place why do you think that the 10 or so people advocating for a strict internal consistency is going to enact large scale change to a 30 year plus tradition?
More Gygax for you heathens!
It's disingenious to take Gygax's quotes from a totally different age of RPGs and use them today.
During the time of those quotes, there was a movement to make RPGs more simulationist. There were a number of different extremes and hints of it can even be seen in early versions of D&D (take the weapon vs. armor charts). If you want to get a good feel for what he was pining about, pick up an old copy of rolemaster, it was probably the pinnacle of realism/simulationism.
What's being discussed here though is believability, in the sense that a mechanic should be narratively coherent, that more thought should go into a mechanic than only that it be mechanically clean and sound from a gamist point of view. Based upon Gygax's body of work, as well as his opinions on 3rd edition, I highly doubt he would support such a style of RPG, irregardless of what a few out of context quotes might say.
No, it's not. Those words apply to this topic today just as they did 30 years ago. Just because Gygax was not a fan of D&D past the TSR days does not mean that the concept of gameplay > fantasy novel simulator at just the right level of believability for random person x at a convention or random person y on the internet is untrue.
Finally believable is subjective. I find it funny that people can believe in a game gods can roam the world, mages can cast wish, clerics can cast resurrect but they have an aneurysm when a fighter jumps 20' in plate. Fine, change the rules at your table, the majority appear to want something more fantastical even if it strains YOUR concept of believability. Because frankly I have no problem accepting that fighters can use a power like Come and Get It or that a Warlord can heal or grant 5 extra actions. Nor do many others. Nor do the people writing these games in the past 30 years.
The biggest baddest fantasy style game World of Warcraft cares not one bit about unrealistic mechanics if it makes the game more fun. Market share hints they are correct.
Of course, the game rules also state that rules are just guidelines, and the DM is free to change them whenever they don't make sense.
Which is the exact reason why it has always been impossible to trip/prone an ooze regardless of edition...in my games.
My group seems to run under "it works as long as you can reasonably explain it." if we're going for something out-there. The only time we've actually been told "you can't knock it prone." is when we were fighting a building-sized centipede that was hal-sticking out of the ground.
What I need to ask is this: with over 4 editions of D&D existing, each with arbitrary, inconsistent, unversimilitudification, and "unbelievable" rules in place why do you think that the 10 or so people advocating for a strict internal consistency is going to enact large scale change to a 30 year plus tradition?
I've only been playing since 2E, but both 2E and 3E seemed very internally consistent. Granted, what 3E handled with scads of charts and progressions and fiddly +1 bonuses, was handled in 2E by just telling the DM to make something up as appropriate, but it all flowed naturally from cause to effect.
You start with the truth of what's happening in the game-world, and then translate that into mechanics for how to resolve it, and finally translate those mechanics back into a description of how it resolves in the game-world. You never start with the mechanics and then try to justify what caused them.
I tend to advocate for Cinematic Action Reality where the game tries to be as realistic as a "realistic" action movie. The game shouldn't disrupt suspension of disbelief or break the flow of the story wherever possible but it also does not need to be a reality simulator.
There are action movies that you watch and just seem implausible. Like a bad James Bond movie where something looks cool but you doubt very much that what just happened would work in real life. You groan and roll your eyes but it doesn't matter as the movie keeps going. In D&D that can abruptly bring the game to a stop. You can discuss and disect and laugh at the hilarity of the situation right there.
Instead, D&D should try to be a realistic action movie: a Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Bourne Identity. You watch it and it all feels real enough. And any part that doesn't quite fit is unnoticed until much later. Not quite the level of realism as a historical war action-drama (Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, Zulu, or Platoon) but unless you're running events through a MythBusters series of tests it's real enough.
It's not a a realistic action movie. It's a game set in a make believe fantasy world. With active gods. So it's more akin, cinematically, to super hero reality or sci-fi reality but even those are different art forms then a highly abstracted game.
Yes and no.
It certainly can be but the game is just a rules set. Eberron has inactive and potential fictious gods. Ravenloft is certainly not super heroic. The Forgotten Realms isn't sci-fi as guns don't work.
The game might be crazy unrealistic fantasy cinematic action. But it might not. The game system itself should be neurtral in the matter and cater to both realism and unrealism. But it's easier to ignore the nods to realism than it is to ignore unrealistic bits; one style is ignores the other with the other style is detrimental.
What I need to ask is this: with over 4 editions of D&D existing, each with arbitrary, inconsistent, unversimilitudification, and "unbelievable" rules in place why do you think that the 10 or so people advocating for a strict internal consistency is going to enact large scale change to a 30 year plus tradition?
I've only been playing since 2E, but both 2E and 3E seemed very internally consistent. Granted, what 3E handled with scads of charts and progressions and fiddly +1 bonuses, was handled in 2E by just telling the DM to make something up as appropriate, but it all flowed naturally from cause to effect.
You start with the truth of what's happening in the game-world, and then translate that into mechanics for how to resolve it, and finally translate those mechanics back into a description of how it resolves in the game-world. You never start with the mechanics and then try to justify what caused them.
We are talking about believability of a game. I don't care how you get from A-->B. I don't try to justify anything the game lets me do anyways. If the game says I can use a fireball at State A then if I want to use a fireball I do so. No explanation given.
I did care that 4th edition fireball was a cube!!!!!!!! I got over that because it's a game.
We are talking about believability of a game. I don't care how you get from A-->B. I don't try to justify anything the game lets me do anyways. If the game says I can use a fireball at State A then if I want to use a fireball I do so. No explanation given.
Ah. Well, I do care about believability of the story, so we disagree on preference; but more importantly, the designers have declared that the story is more important than the mechanics (the mechanics always flow from the story, and never the other way around), and it's their opinion that really counts.
Answer this question truthfully: would you rather game with 6 people who all had their own levels of what they considered believable and were adamant about it or with 6 people willing to play the game as written?
An interesting question. I've tried gaming with people who had various opinions on what was considered acceptable in terms of suspending disbelief, and it generally hasn't worked out well (even when we're all following the rules as written). The only times I've really enjoyed playing the game was when the DM made sure we were all on the same page as to what level of abstraction was okay and when the rules would take a back seat to the narrative (which is more common than you might expect).
We are talking about believability of a game. I don't care how you get from A-->B. I don't try to justify anything the game lets me do anyways. If the game says I can use a fireball at State A then if I want to use a fireball I do so. No explanation given.
Ah. Well, I do care about believability of the story, so we disagree on preference; but more importantly, the designers have declared that the story is more important than the mechanics (the mechanics always flow from the story, and never the other way around), and it's their opinion that really counts.
The thread topic is not about the existence of story within a game. It's about believability.......... The goalpost is over here.
You know I feel bounded accuracy is unrealistic, inconsistent and dumb. You mean to tell me that the mechanic of bounded accuracy if it doesnt fit my story is an optional module to be discarded with ease? I feel rolling a d20 is dumb. I would prefer asking the DM if I hit with no die roll. Is that an optional story driven module? No. I didn't think so. So yes mechanics matter.
We are talking about believability of a game. I don't care how you get from A-->B. I don't try to justify anything the game lets me do anyways. If the game says I can use a fireball at State A then if I want to use a fireball I do so. No explanation given.
Ah. Well, I do care about believability of the story, so we disagree on preference; but more importantly, the designers have declared that the story is more important than the mechanics (the mechanics always flow from the story, and never the other way around), and it's their opinion that really counts.Answer this question truthfully: would you rather game with 6 people who all had their own levels of what they considered believable and were adamant about it or with 6 people willing to play the game as written?
An interesting question. I've tried gaming with people who had various opinions on what was considered acceptable in terms of suspending disbelief, and it generally hasn't worked out well (even when we're all following the rules as written). The only times I've really enjoyed playing the game was when the DM made sure we were all on the same page as to what level of abstraction was okay and when the rules would take a back seat to the narrative (which is more common than you might expect).
Right. You had to come to a consensus. And that's perfectly fine. But on these very forums you will have people who make the Flat Earth Society look reasonable argue for weeks on the interpretation and relevance of such core mechanics as hit points, armor class, and healing. Some of them are articulate and forceful of personality. They can ruin your game as a player.
If the other players and DM can't say "dude(ette) chill it's just a game lets be entertained" without the other person waxing on endlessly about their verisimilitudes being violated the game halts. Someone is going to have to compromise or someone is going to have to go at a table like that.
In English, please...?
Knocking oozes prone is just a shorthand for disrupting their oozey workings for a short time until they re-orient themselves.
In English please...?
Take some jello, shake it in your hand, and splat it on the table. When it stops wiggling, it's no longer prone.
Alternatively, stop being obstinate.
That's not prone though, thats disrupted.
actually flattened.. that gelatinous cube isnt cubic anymore...
That's not prone though, thats disrupted. Why do ranged attacks have disadvantage against that? It is disrupted not forced to the ground hence a harder to hit target. That thing should just lose all actions for the next round as it jiggles back to not being disrupted. It is stunned or dazed not prone.
Would it be out of line for me to point out that oozes were not immune to being knocked prone in any edition? Not in 3rd, not in 4th and, to the extent that prone was even a thing in AD&D and BECMI, not in those editions either.
4e, however, did have some individual oozes that were specifically immune to prone.
Someone really has to pick a better example than prone oozes.
Using 3rd edition, could a mace cut a slack rope? By the rules I suppose it can, but my common sense as a DM would not allow it.
The same goes for the ooze. I would not allow an ooze to be knocked prone in Pathfinder. I also would not engineer encounters so that players that favored knocking their enemies prone had to fight oozes all of the time.
I don't need an immunity to be listed when a player would be hard pressed to make a case why the ooze should be knocked prone.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Try a bit of context with what you read. Yes, there is story in D&D. However it's first and foremost a game not a story generating device. Game. The creator of the genre himself says so. I ain't gonna keep digging up those old quotes when they aren't being read.
The quotes you cited don't mean what you actually think it means. Gygax was responding to simulationists, in other words, people who want to simulate real world medieval warfare using the D&D rules. He was saying the game isn't realistic, and isn't designed to be. But not realistic is different from nonsensical. Star Wars isn't particularly realistic, but I wouldn't expect Luke Skywalker to be able to function with his head cut off, because that would be nonsensical.
I don't need rules to make up a story. I just need an imagination. To play a game, it helps to have rules. When a product is marketed as a game and calls itself a game I tend to believe the company that produces it and the man who wrote it that it's a game over the objections of a random person on the internet.
Nobody is arguing it's not a game, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The question is about going beyond the rules. If you cast a ray of frost spell at a pool of water, does the water turn to ice and can people slip on it? When someone trips an ooze you can rule it works, because no rule said otherwise?
Now, you can do it your way where you tell the player nothing happens, or you flat out tell him he can't do that becuase the rules don't cover it. You can act like a brainless automaton unwilling to break or bend the rules, because you must follow the holy bible of D&D, and to challenge the gospel of the Rules Compendium is blasphemy!
Or you can actually try to consider it like a human being would.
When I game, I don't go there so that the DM can pretend to be a computer. If I want that, I'll just boot up final fantasy tactics on my PSP. I want to be able ot think outside the box, and improvising things has been a part of D&D since it was created.
And before you go into your "BUT IT'S A GAME!", keep in mind that Cops and Robbers is a game too. Not all games need to have ironclad rules that sterilize every bit of common sense, logic and fun.
In short, your beliefs about the rules being sancrosanct, trumping even common sense and consistency is everything I hate about modern D&D. That concept needs to die in a fire.
We are talking about believability of a game. I don't care how you get from A-->B. I don't try to justify anything the game lets me do anyways. If the game says I can use a fireball at State A then if I want to use a fireball I do so. No explanation given.
I did care that 4th edition fireball was a cube!!!!!!!! I got over that because it's a game.
I had a response, but dwarfslayers response above mine said everything better.
I have to agree, the Gygax comments are taken out of context. Simulationism in D&D is impossible. That does not mean that the rules should be designed with no eye to what is possible within the realms of physics.
Physics are the reference point. Yes there is a fantasy universe, and the physics might be different, but that should be the exception. The only reference point we have for suspension of disbeleif is real world physics. Action movies break physics, but they stay within a realm of acceptability or the movie would be rejected by the majority of viewers.
People would argue that you can squash it a bit, making it uncomfortable or something for 6 seconds.
That would not give the prone condition. It would give a stun condition. Is it functionally different? It is in Pathfinder, I don't know about 4e. So an action that would stun, I would allow to work on an ooze. Knocking an ooze prone, is nonsensical. You want to reflavor the power to be a stun? That's fine.
People would argue that you can squash it a bit, making it uncomfortable or something for 6 seconds.
That would not give the prone condition. It would give a stun condition. Is it functionally different? It is in Pathfinder, I don't know about 4e. So an action that would stun, I would allow to work on an ooze. Knocking an ooze prone, is nonsensical. You want to reflavor the power to be a stun? That's fine.
I could kick it/hit it with the flat of my blade to cause to jiggle uncontrollably for a few seconds until it took a second to re-adjust itself. Reflavor it however you want. I prefer calling everything prone rather than have 5 different names for the same effect just because some people have an issue with ooze=prone.
People would argue that you can squash it a bit, making it uncomfortable or something for 6 seconds.
That would not give the prone condition. It would give a stun condition. Is it functionally different? It is in Pathfinder, I don't know about 4e. So an action that would stun, I would allow to work on an ooze. Knocking an ooze prone, is nonsensical. You want to reflavor the power to be a stun? That's fine.
I could kick it/hit it with the flat of my blade to cause to jiggle uncontrollably for a few seconds until it took a second to re-adjust itself. Reflavor it however you want. I prefer calling everything prone rather than have 5 different names for the same effect just because some people have an issue with ooze=prone.
Is stun the same as prone in 4e? I can't find my PHB right now. I know they are not the same thing in Pathfinder. IF the effect of stun is different from prone that is a significant qualifier. In pathfinder, if a monk tried to trip an ooze I would rule no. If he tried to stun it with stunning fist, you can make a good case for why that would work.
People would argue that you can squash it a bit, making it uncomfortable or something for 6 seconds.
That would not give the prone condition.
I know, I'm on your side.
No worries brother!
People would argue that you can squash it a bit, making it uncomfortable or something for 6 seconds.
That would not give the prone condition. It would give a stun condition. Is it functionally different? It is in Pathfinder, I don't know about 4e. So an action that would stun, I would allow to work on an ooze. Knocking an ooze prone, is nonsensical. You want to reflavor the power to be a stun? That's fine.
I could kick it/hit it with the flat of my blade to cause to jiggle uncontrollably for a few seconds until it took a second to re-adjust itself. Reflavor it however you want. I prefer calling everything prone rather than have 5 different names for the same effect just because some people have an issue with ooze=prone.
Is stun the same as prone in 4e? I can't find my PHB right now. I know they are not the same thing in Pathfinder. IF the effect of stun is different from prone that is a significant qualifier. In pathfinder, if a monk tried to trip an ooze I would rule no. If he tried to stun it with stunning fist, you can make a good case for why that would work.
It just gets disoriented a short time. Taking a move action to restabilize itself doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
People would argue that you can squash it a bit, making it uncomfortable or something for 6 seconds.
That would not give the prone condition. It would give a stun condition. Is it functionally different? It is in Pathfinder, I don't know about 4e. So an action that would stun, I would allow to work on an ooze. Knocking an ooze prone, is nonsensical. You want to reflavor the power to be a stun? That's fine.
I could kick it/hit it with the flat of my blade to cause to jiggle uncontrollably for a few seconds until it took a second to re-adjust itself. Reflavor it however you want. I prefer calling everything prone rather than have 5 different names for the same effect just because some people have an issue with ooze=prone.
Is stun the same as prone in 4e? I can't find my PHB right now. I know they are not the same thing in Pathfinder. IF the effect of stun is different from prone that is a significant qualifier. In pathfinder, if a monk tried to trip an ooze I would rule no. If he tried to stun it with stunning fist, you can make a good case for why that would work.
Stun and prone are different in 4e. But just because the mechanics are a little different doesn't mean the flavor can't be similar. What prone means in 4e is: grants combat advantage, moves half speed until taking a move action to stand, and has a bonus to defenses against ranged attacks. It does not have to literally mean prone, it can be described any way you like. So it basically means the ooze has to take a moment to recover before moving at normal speeds. The bit with the ranged attacks is the weirdest part, but I think that if that particular detail is hindering believability at your table, then it's easy enough to tell the player that their ranged attack is not penalized.
I follow the idea that it's almost always better to say yes to your players. If they feel like they should be able to knock an ooze prone, I am willing to roll with that. If they want to describe it in a more reasonable way and end up with a slight bonus for it, that is far better than banning them from using one of their abilities. If your players care about the realism of knocking an ooze prone, they are free to police themselves and not use that ability, or opt out of knocking it prone.
Stun and prone are different in 4e. But just because the mechanics are a little different doesn't mean the flavor can't be similar. What prone means in 4e is: grants combat advantage, moves half speed until taking a move action to stand, and has a bonus to defenses against ranged attacks. It does not have to literally mean prone, it can be described any way you like. So it basically means the ooze has to take a moment to recover before moving at normal speeds. The bit with the ranged attacks is the weirdest part, but I think that if that particular detail is hindering believability at your table, then it's easy enough to tell the player that their ranged attack is not penalized.
I follow the idea that it's almost always better to say yes to your players. If they feel like they should be able to knock an ooze prone, I am willing to roll with that. If they want to describe it in a more reasonable way and end up with a slight bonus for it, that is far better than banning them from using one of their abilities. If your players care about the realism of knocking an ooze prone, they are free to police themselves and not use that ability, or opt out of knocking it prone.
Yup thats basically my take...
Can someone explain to me when people all went insane and stopped thinking for themselves because a book told them so? In D&D I mean - people stopped thinking for themselves because a book told them to a long time before D&D.
I don't really know who's coming or going in this thread. What's the argument, again? What's this crap about oozes? I agree that we need to bury the idea that the books are somehow sacred 'cause that's dumb, but how does some example of a prone ooze prove anyone's point?
And believability... since when has the game had to make that happen totally on its own? Isn't that the job of the DM and players?
I have an example of believability being challenged. One time I was a player in a game that involved an army of demons. We had some kind of encounter and the army made their entrance; we decided to follow them and find out what was going on. My brother (the DM) says to us, "you can't tell exactly what way they went." So a friend of mine chirps in, "Hey, how can we NOT know where they went? It's a freaking army of demons! We'll just follow the large swathe of scorched earth and smoke." And my brother sorta smiled and said, "oh yeah." And so we followed the demon army and the story moved on.
So here we have a DM making a ruling that didn't make sense, the player saying so and the DM realising that actually that didn't make sense. Stuff like this happens ALL THE GODDAMNED TIME. Why would we think that now would be any different?
Personally, I would have used something like 'Afflicted' instead of breaking each individual allfiction/debuff/whatever-you-want-to-call-it into it's own set of mechanics then applying them that closely, with 'Afflicted' being a catch-all term that indicated to the DM that the fluff descriptive or reflavoring would determine what actual state was imposed (prone, stunned, tripped, blinded, etc). Then for things with only one possible outcome (like a Blindness spell), the condition could be Afflicted: Blindness, for example.
That seems over-complicated to replace something a simple as 4e's status names.
Not as much as it seems because of my often overwordy prose.
It would be something applicable to any 'power' that imposes a debuff. "Shift 3 and Afflicted", for instance. Then, depending on the fluff and/or reflavoring used situationally, the -type- of Afflicted is applied. You completely avoid nonsensical occurances, powers become more situationally useful because the manner inwhich you perform the power can change what used to always be a prone to a stun, for instance, and each sub-Affliction still exists (prone, stunned, blind, sickened, whatever).
But I've wandered off-topic. Anywho, back to the regularly scheduled thread.
The problem with monster immunities is described best by this story:
A friend of mine, relatively new to D&D, signed up to be a part of a 24-hour roleplayathon for charity. She made a rogue. It was either 3.5 of PF, I don't remember.
Anyway, the DM turned out to be running an undead themed adventure or something like that. So in the entire 24-hour session, she never got to sneak attack. The reason she played a rogue was that she wanted to sneak attack. She never got to do it.
Yes, the DM in this case made a mistake. But it's one that is a very reasonable mistake to make. Rogue is one of the basic classes of the game. An undead themed adventure is a great idea. This is a pretty basic thing to do, yet the monster immunity rules completely ruined my friend's fun, all for the sake of what some person thought made "more sense."
Well, yeah, monster immunity shouldn't be overused, but really the rogue vs. undead is more a case from flawed 3E rules. Many undead can most certainly be sneak attacked. Skeletons have vulnerable spines that can be severed. Zombies can be struck in the brain, vampires are vulnerable to stakes through the heart. ghouls and wights presumably can be given vital spots. There's no real reason to believe that ghouls wouldn't be vulnerable to a knife in the brain like a zombie.
The incorporeals however absolutely should be immune to sneak attacks, because they have no body and thus no vitals.
3E made the mistake of making every undead automatically immune to criticals, which was a mistake of the edition. But it doesn't mean that ability nullification is a bad idea, only that it shouldn't be overused.
The main problem with 3E undead though isn't the fact that the game was trying to be too realistic or something, it's the fact that it actually ignored a great deal of undead tropes and made them more indestructible than they should be. Most undead do in fact have weak spots. In fact, for most targetting those weak spots is the best way to kill them. How many times do you watch a zombie movie and people say "Aim for the head"
The problem with monster immunities is described best by this story:
A friend of mine, relatively new to D&D, signed up to be a part of a 24-hour roleplayathon for charity. She made a rogue. It was either 3.5 of PF, I don't remember.
Anyway, the DM turned out to be running an undead themed adventure or something like that. So in the entire 24-hour session, she never got to sneak attack. The reason she played a rogue was that she wanted to sneak attack. She never got to do it.
Yes, the DM in this case made a mistake. But it's one that is a very reasonable mistake to make. Rogue is one of the basic classes of the game. An undead themed adventure is a great idea. This is a pretty basic thing to do, yet the monster immunity rules completely ruined my friend's fun, all for the sake of what some person thought made "more sense."
Well, yeah, monster immunity shouldn't be overused, but really the rogue vs. undead is more a case from flawed 3E rules. Many undead can most certainly be sneak attacked. Skeletons have vulnerable spines that can be severed. Zombies can be struck in the brain, vampires are vulnerable to stakes through the heart. ghouls and wights presumably can be given vital spots. There's no real reason to believe that ghouls wouldn't be vulnerable to a knife in the brain like a zombie.
The incorporeals however absolutely should be immune to sneak attacks, because they have no body and thus no vitals.
3E made the mistake of making every undead automatically immune to criticals, which was a mistake of the edition. But it doesn't mean that ability nullification is a bad idea, only that it shouldn't be overused.
The main problem with 3E undead though isn't the fact that the game was trying to be too realistic or something, it's the fact that it actually ignored a great deal of undead tropes and made them more indestructible than they should be. Most undead do in fact have weak spots. In fact, for most targetting those weak spots is the best way to kill them. How many times do you watch a zombie movie and people say "Aim for the head"
I feel like a lot of the time, the believability of particular things varies dramatically from table to table. 3e D&D was going off of a very different undead trope than what we're used to now from zombie movies. 3e was built on the idea that zombies and other undead were animated corpses that were really just sacks of meat made to move by magic. Thus they had no weak spots, because the only way to stop them was to beat them down until there was nothing left to beat.
Now we're accustomed to headshot dead zombies, so the old way is no longer necessary. Except I'm sure someone out there was enraged when they saw you could crit zombies in 4e. So I think it's best to approach these issues in a neutral way, simply asking what leads to the most balanced and fair game. If a particular table wants to deal with it differently, they should of course feel free (maybe have sidebars saying "this creature might be made immune to crits", or something like that). There's simply no reason for the game to decide that monsters should be immune to certain effects. The default should always be what is most fair to the players, and the table can change that if it helps their game.
Now we're accustomed to headshot dead zombies, so the old way is no longer necessary. Except I'm sure someone out there was enraged when they saw you could crit zombies in 4e. So I think it's best to approach these issues in a neutral way, simply asking what leads to the most balanced and fair game. If a particular table wants to deal with it differently, they should of course feel free (maybe have sidebars saying "this creature might be made immune to crits", or something like that). There's simply no reason for the game to decide that monsters should be immune to certain effects. The default should always be what is most fair to the players, and the table can change that if it helps their game.
Well no. If there's no justifiable explanation for why a critical hit would hurt a monster, then it should be immune. Class/Game balance is certainly something to consider when deciding edge cases like zombies, where you could describe them either way, but if you're talking about a gelatinous cube, it really has to be sneak attack immune simply by virtue of the thing not having any vital organs at all.
Ability nullification can actually make the game a lot more interesting. One of the most boring things about 4E is simply that your abilities almost never get nullified. Energy resistances are very rare, nothing is immune to sneak attack, nothing stops healing, nothing is immune to marking. This led to a feeling of sameness to the game. Very rarely did you ever have to adapt. While it shouldn't be the case that one class gets hosed over and over again, the game can't be afraid to occasionally nullify some abilities to keep things interesting. Now that goes hand in hand with having character classes that are dynamic enough to survive some nullification.
Rogues shouldn't be entirely reliant on sneak attack for instance. Yeah they're better with it than without it, but they shouldn't be total crap if they can't use it. They should have other options, even if those other options are simply granting bonuses to party members who can damage the creature better, or using thier dodging abilities to try to delay the monster. To me, that makes for a much more interesting game, because it forces people to think outside the box.
Sometimes you're going to be in a position where the age old tactic of flank + sneak attack does not work. Sometimes you will encounter monsters that can't be charmed or put to sleep. Sometimes the dragon won't be kind enough to let you melee it to death and you'll have to use a bow. Those things are good for the game because they create variety. We *want* that stuff in the game.
Of course naturally, everything in moderation. There shouldn't be an adventure where a single character's main ability never works. Nullification needs to be the exception not the norm.
Now we're accustomed to headshot dead zombies, so the old way is no longer necessary. Except I'm sure someone out there was enraged when they saw you could crit zombies in 4e. So I think it's best to approach these issues in a neutral way, simply asking what leads to the most balanced and fair game. If a particular table wants to deal with it differently, they should of course feel free (maybe have sidebars saying "this creature might be made immune to crits", or something like that). There's simply no reason for the game to decide that monsters should be immune to certain effects. The default should always be what is most fair to the players, and the table can change that if it helps their game.
Well no. If there's no justifiable explanation for why a critical hit would hurt a monster, then it should be immune.
Given the abstract nature of HPs, there really isn't much justification for critical hits anyway. Any hit against a vital area (if we were really trying to model such a thing) should really have its damage multiplied by the level of the thing being critted (i.e. a crit against a 5th level character would do 5x normal damage).
Now we're accustomed to headshot dead zombies, so the old way is no longer necessary. Except I'm sure someone out there was enraged when they saw you could crit zombies in 4e. So I think it's best to approach these issues in a neutral way, simply asking what leads to the most balanced and fair game. If a particular table wants to deal with it differently, they should of course feel free (maybe have sidebars saying "this creature might be made immune to crits", or something like that). There's simply no reason for the game to decide that monsters should be immune to certain effects. The default should always be what is most fair to the players, and the table can change that if it helps their game.
Well no. If there's no justifiable explanation for why a critical hit would hurt a monster, then it should be immune. Class/Game balance is certainly something to consider when deciding edge cases like zombies, where you could describe them either way, but if you're talking about a gelatinous cube, it really has to be sneak attack immune simply by virtue of the thing not having any vital organs at all.
Ability nullification can actually make the game a lot more interesting. One of the most boring things about 4E is simply that your abilities almost never get nullified. Energy resistances are very rare, nothing is immune to sneak attack, nothing stops healing, nothing is immune to marking. This led to a feeling of sameness to the game. Very rarely did you ever have to adapt. While it shouldn't be the case that one class gets hosed over and over again, the game can't be afraid to occasionally nullify some abilities to keep things interesting. Now that goes hand in hand with having character classes that are dynamic enough to survive some nullification.
Rogues shouldn't be entirely reliant on sneak attack for instance. Yeah they're better with it than without it, but they shouldn't be total crap if they can't use it. They should have other options, even if those other options are simply granting bonuses to party members who can damage the creature better, or using thier dodging abilities to try to delay the monster. To me, that makes for a much more interesting game, because it forces people to think outside the box.
Sometimes you're going to be in a position where the age old tactic of flank + sneak attack does not work. Sometimes you will encounter monsters that can't be charmed or put to sleep. Sometimes the dragon won't be kind enough to let you melee it to death and you'll have to use a bow. Those things are good for the game because they create variety. We *want* that stuff in the game.
Of course naturally, everything in moderation. There shouldn't be an adventure where a single character's main ability never works. Nullification needs to be the exception not the norm.
Variety is good, but I feel that fairness is an area in which to tread very, very carefully. Especially in something like combat, where it might drag on a long time. I think an experienced DM should introduce immunities etc into the game as it is played at the table, but I'm not sure if I like putting the immunities into the rulebooks. Once again, sidebars and optional rules are your friend here.
I'm mainly afraid for the sake of new DMs and by-the-book DMs. Rules that arbitrarily penalize people for playing certain characters have created some of the worst D&D sessions I've ever heard people complain about. There are better ways to add variety, in my opinion, than simply telling players their abilities no longer work. Make them work differently, or introduce new things the enemy can do to them, or even hand them cool new abilities for a particular scenario, but I am not comfortable taking away their abilities, unless I am absolutely certain the affected players are supportive.
Variety is good, but I feel that fairness is an area in which to tread very, very carefully. Especially in something like combat, where it might drag on a long time. I think an experienced DM should introduce immunities etc into the game as it is played at the table, but I'm not sure if I like putting the immunities into the rulebooks. Once again, sidebars and optional rules are your friend here.
Well I don't want combats to drag on for as long as 4E did.
And yeah, it requires some caution.
As far as putting them in rulebooks I feel like you have to do that. It's way too much work to retcon a golem's magic immunity, a black puddings immuity to weapons and so forth. Simply because the page space required would be so massive as to be unfeasable to put them back in. The easiest way is to include the immunities then offer an optional module that gives PCs the means to bypass them. So the rogue might get a sneak attack that's weaker but works on everything in a given module. The wizard's spells may not have damage types altogether, because resistances and such are removed.
I personally feel like that's a boring way to play, because it just involves spamming the same unfailing combo over and over again every combat, but if people enjoy that style they can make it a module easy enough.
I'm mainly afraid for the sake of new DMs and by-the-book DMs. Rules that arbitrarily penalize people for playing certain characters have created some of the worst D&D sessions I've ever heard people complain about. There are better ways to add variety, in my opinion, than simply telling players their abilities no longer work. Make them work differently, or introduce new things the enemy can do to them, or even hand them cool new abilities for a particular scenario, but I am not comfortable taking away their abilities, unless I am absolutely certain the affected players are supportive.
Mainly it has to do with creating some depth of action. The main problem with 4E in that regard was that characters had very little depth. Take away a cleric's healing and he takes a huge power hit. Remove a rogue's sneak attack and he becomes more or less garbage.
For instance, even something as simple as letting a fighter use a bow effectively is a seriously big deal, so that the fighter isn't immediately nullified by everything flying. Yeah he may do less damage than with his greatsword, but at least he's not standing around helplessly. I liked the idea that rogues could use wands and scrolls, since that gave them some support roles.
You generally don't want to nullify everything a character can possibly do, but it's good to take away options sometimes. Let a fighter use flasks of alchemist fire on oozes, or rogues use wands of support spells against stuff that can't be sneak attacked. It rewards people for being prepared with side stuff and makes people think outside the box. Have a golem that's immune to direct attacks from spells, forcing spellcasters to resort to summoning or buffing. Make some creatures deal wounds that can't be magically healed, forcing the cleric to take a more aggressive stance. Things like that add some diversity and create memorable combats and monsters.
Now that being said, ability nullification shouldn't really be much of a low level thing. There should only be a few rare creatures at lower levels that nullify your schtick. For the most part it's rank and file orcs, skeletons and so on that are more or less vulnerable to everything. Wizards may have to deal with basic immunities where mindless stuff is immune to mind-affecting spells, but that's probably it. When you get mid-level and start hitting elementals, golems and incorporeals, the immunities start kicking in a lot and people have to generally worry about finding ways around them.
The main problem with 3E undead though isn't the fact that the game was trying to be too realistic or something, it's the fact that it actually ignored a great deal of undead tropes and made them more indestructible than they should be. Most undead do in fact have weak spots. In fact, for most targetting those weak spots is the best way to kill them. How many times do you watch a zombie movie and people say "Aim for the head"
This is why I don't understand why people bring up 3e sneak attack immunity in defense of hard and fast mechanics and rules that trump common sense and table judgement. It's actually a good example of why it's a bad thing.
I can't quite follow how you logically get from:
"Strict mechanic and rule that defies good table judgement, neuters class X against multiple classes of monster."
TO
"We need more strict mechanics and rules that defy good table judgement."
And since everyone is so fond of pulling up Gygax quotes, here's another, on his thoughts of the role of the DM and rules:
"I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. "
I can't quite follow how you logically get from:
"Strict mechanic and rule that defies good table judgement, neuters class X against multiple classes of monster."
TO
"We need more strict mechanics and rules that defy good table judgement."
No its much more simple... its we go from assumption that powers often dont work .. to assumptions usually do work with rare exceptions.
It went form assuming "screw you player" is a good thing to NOT.
Now if characters are allowed to be tactically flexible by default ... having a subset not work situationally.... or a subset work better situationally is quite cool.