The D&D Paradox [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

newbDM

2009-03-26, 08:37 AM

I found out what was the major problem with D&D for me, the fundamental conflict within the intention and implementation of the rules - the D&D paradox.

D&D is a roleplaying game that is very strongly focused on combat, the 4th edition even more so than its progenitor. Combats and how they are managedplay a major or even the major role within the game and due to the class mechanisms, the quality of a character within the system bases only solely on how much they can contribute in a conflict -again, theis tendency increased with the 4th edition. Other elements of a roleplaying game - such as method acting, alternative ways of conflict resoltuion, moral dilemmas or character development (not to mention verisimulitude) play only a secondary role or are handwaved completely.

Now, for such a central element the rules for combats are surprisingly abstract and plainly not well made. The number of options is small and repetitive (which didn't really improve with the 4th edition, only the maneuvers which were repeated over and over changed). Tactical motives or combat strategies play only a minor role (one could argue that the logistics of the character creation/ optimisation are meant to replace this. he result is debatable). The only form of higher versatility is magic, while direct combat variability is minimal, sometimes to a very frustrating degree when compared to other games.

This is a major paradox as the rule implementation and their intention are going in completely opposite directions. While the neglection of other game elements besides combat is a problem of its own, the overtly abstract and rather limited implementation of the major element is a highly questionable idea.

http://forums.gleemax.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Bravo.

I will be bookmarking this thread for future reference and memorization.

And how do these depend on a game system, exactly?

Because if you do not have any mechanics for such things, then they become rather pointless. That is, unless a DM chooses to homebrew 100% of it himself, then try to steer the rest of his/her group towards it, rather than follow the default pure combat style.

This is one of the things which I found amazing when 4.0 came out. Do not get me wrong, the system has it's merits for the style of gamer it appeals to. However, the argument of both the owner of the largest comic/gaming store chain in the US's East Coast (according to them at least) and one of his managers was that "You do not need roleplaying mechanics in a roleplaying game". :smalleek:

My argument then was why even buy those three super expensive books? I mean, if all I am paying for within the 4.0 core books is nothing but pure combat mechanics, why would I spend so much money when I can instead just buy the D&D miniatures game. I still need to make up 100% of the roleplaying mechanics/rules anyway, so why not save some cash?

Farlion

2009-03-26, 08:56 AM

First off, I don't play 4e, so I don't own the books, nor have I read them.

If I understand this thread correctly, you are asking for rules to roleplay. Well, what kind of rules would you like? I've never come into a situation, where I would have needed rules to roleplay. The only place I need rules, are in combat.

The other thing your pointing out, not being able to solve problems other than using fists or magic, is something that is solely dependent on the DM. My way of DMing never ever leaves the PCs with the sole option of using raw force to achieve something, but I've played with DMs who will counter any try to avoid combat (i.e. using suggestion or just paying the thiefs the 50g they want).

I'd say roleplaying "mechanics" are not really needed if the DM has enough imagination and reason to let the players play the way they want.

Cheers,
Farlion

oxybe

2009-03-26, 10:07 AM

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-26, 10:18 AM

Because if you do not have any mechanics for such things, then they become rather pointless. That is, unless a DM chooses to homebrew 100% of it himself, then try to steer the rest of his/her group towards it, rather than follow the default pure combat style.

Some people do things like "method acting" because they are fun, not because they are mandated by the rules. You will not find, in any edition of D&D, "rules" for "method acting, alternative ways of conflict resoltuion, moral dilemmas or character development" - it is assumed that when people are playing roles, they are acting, not rolling dice.

I have played games where RP is essential to game play - Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage) for one. There are no rules for interacting with other players, staging scenes, or having drama; there are rules regarding the mechanical effect those have on game play. When I play one of these games, I do so because I want to play a narrative game where pure improv is more important than reality simulation. But, when I want a game with more structure, I play D&D. Different tools for different ends.

Now, as for the "central paradox"

Now, for such a central element the rules for combats are surprisingly abstract and plainly not well made. The number of options is small and repetitive (which didn't really improve with the 4th edition, only the maneuvers which were repeated over and over changed). Tactical motives or combat strategies play only a minor role (one could argue that the logistics of the character creation/ optimisation are meant to replace this. he result is debatable). The only form of higher versatility is magic, while direct combat variability is minimal, sometimes to a very frustrating degree when compared to other games.

This is wrong on many levels.

First of all, "tactical motives or combat strategies" are essential to successful combat in 4E; even if your DM does not include elements such as interactive terrain or RTS-grade battle strategies, your ability to position yourselves and manipulate your enemies is key to maximizing the effect of the powers at your disposal. Zones and burst effects obviously require this, but even elementary considerations (does the Rogue have CA? Is the Fighter making an effective choke point?) need tactical awareness.

Secondly, "small and repetitive options." Bosssmiley has already made quite a list, but I would like to note that the sheer number of effects caused by powers, and how they interact, leaves combat endlessly plastic. My Elven Cleric, for example, can blind an enemy as an encounter power; instantly depriving an enemy of sight is a fabulously useful ability and can be used to neuter an enemy spellcaster, provide a clear path for the TWF Ranger, allow quick escape from an enemy lurker, or just to provide CA for the Rogue. I suppose you can define "small and repetitive" to encompass any set of options, but in my experience, 4E is anything but.

Now, is it true that "other games" allow more "versatility" with magic? Why yes - magic is nowhere more versatile than in a game of Ars Magica or oWoD Mage. And Deadlands or Shadowrun provide grittier combat simulators. And Bliss Stage has more giant robots. Each of these games emphasize different features and de-emphasizes others - that is why there are many different RPGs out there, instead of just GURPS :smalltongue:

newbDM

2009-03-26, 10:20 AM

Except when people say they want RP rules they never really say what they want. just that it doesn't exist.

what kind of rules would you want for RP?

haggling with merchants?
talking with noblity?
eavesdropping & rumor-milling?
dancing the Grayhawk Shuffle?
fixing a wagon wheel?
selling newspapers?
creating vellum?
harvesting apples?

how can you expect people (WotC, a 3rd party or some guy on a forum) to fix a perceived problem if you don't even give an indication of what you want other then a vague "rules for RP"?

this isn't directed at anyone in particular just a general "if you don't know what you want, how do you expect them to give it to you" thing.

My bad. You have a point.

In my case at least, I want at least something which gives an indication of whether a character (or even NPC) succeeds or fails at their RP task. I dislike the idea that as the DM I simply let it happen, or don't. I like the idea of solid mechanics which make it more fair, and possibly unpredictable for both the players and myself (the DM), while not simply basing such crucial decisions and key story events on by personal bias or attitude at the moment.

Of course I want the player(s)'s roleplaying skills and creativity to play a factor, which I feel works well as negative or positive modifiers awarded by the DM as described in the D&D 3.5 system. This way the player's ideas and creativity (or lack thereof) are included in the final result, and the DM can reward them for it without simply dishing out a "You succeed"/"You fail". And again, it makes things as fun and unpredictable for the DM as the players.

shadowfox

2009-03-26, 10:27 AM

Might I add that D&D is just that: a system. Keep in mind that those who play strictly, 100% by RAW are missing out on some fun.

Look, you really can't regulate roleplaying aspects wit rules, at least if you're making the system. That, my friend, is up to the DM. Now, normally, my campaigns are combat-heavy, but I don't like 4e as a system, save for a few exception of individual mechanical aspects. I'm sticking to 3.5, not only because I have a wealth of material for it already, but I know it, and I have learned how to overcome common problems that I encounter, and I know how to shape it to what I want.

Now, are there limited options? Yes. But, then again, there are less options in 4e. To skim through my problems very briefly, there's multiclassing, limited flexibility within my chosen class, and it's even more "tell me how I kill things funny" than my earliest D&D campaigns with me and fellow D&D newbies. Oh, and skills. The new skill selection really ticks me off.

In any case, no matter what system, every DM has to realize something: the system is a foundation. It's up to the DM to tweak it to his specifications. It's one reason why I don't do RAW, and why I think less people should do so. If you follow the given rules and system, and don't make your own changes, then you're going to get angry at the system. Nothing stops you from adding other elements in. No system can be perfectly balanced, for a number of reasons. No system can cover everything, because there's too much to cover (and, let's face it, it's hard enough looking through five books to find that one special feat your BBEG needs).

Unfortunately, it's not always the system. It can easily be the DM as well.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-26, 10:31 AM

In my case at least, I want at least something which gives an indication of whether a character (or even NPC) succeeds or fails at their RP task. I dislike the idea that as the DM I simply let it happen, or don't. I like the idea of solid mechanics which make it more fair, and possibly unpredictable for both the players and myself (the DM), while not simply basing such crucial decisions and key story events on by personal bias or attitude at the moment.

Oh! Have you tried the 4E Skill Challenge system? I use it for all of my important diplomatic situations.

Basically, you think about how hard it will be for the PCs to convince/trick the NPC to do what they want - that sets the Complexity (number of Successes before 3 Failures). Then you look up the DCs appropriate to their level on DMG 42 (modified by Errata), and let the PCs start talking. After they say something, have them roll on their appropriate skill (Diplomacy generally, though Bluff and Intimidate might be useful). On a success, I reply favorably; on a failure, negatively.

Normally, I use the Moderate DC for these checks, but if the PCs say something unlikely to work then I use the Hard DC. I reserve the Easy DC for instances when the PCs successfully use another appropriate skill (Knowledge skills or Insight; again, against appropriate DCs) to get some insight or leverage on the negotiations. If the PCs get 3 failures (as a group) then the NPC breaks off negotiations and generally gives them the brush off. If they succeed, then the NPC goes along with their wishes and I award XP based off of the difficulty (=EL for Easy, and then EL+1 per tier upwards).

It's worked great so far! :smallbiggrin:

Fixer

2009-03-26, 10:33 AM

What you are asking for is the DM to run the game in such a way that you enjoy it. That has nothing to do with the game system itself.

Now, mind you, I think the system's combat parts are innately damaged. I am trying to resolve those another way but that's unrelated to your gripe.

oxybe

2009-03-26, 11:09 AM

My bad. You have a point.

In my case at least, I want at least something which gives an indication of whether a character (or even NPC) succeeds or fails at their RP task. I dislike the idea that as the DM I simply let it happen, or don't. I like the idea of solid mechanics which make it more fair, and possibly unpredictable for both the players and myself (the DM), while not simply basing such crucial decisions and key story events on by personal bias or attitude at the moment.

Of course I want the player(s)'s roleplaying skills and creativity to play a factor, which I feel works well as negative or positive modifiers awarded by the DM as described in the D&D 3.5 system. This way the player's ideas and creativity (or lack thereof) are included in the final result, and the DM can reward them for it without simply dishing out a "You succeed"/"You fail". And again, it makes things as fun and unpredictable for the DM as the players.

like i said, it wasn't pointed at anyone in particular. i've "called" people out on WotC boards on that very subject and they ignore me because they themselves don't know what they want, only that they want it.

D&D in all editions has always used a black and white pass/fail system for it's task resolution.

what you seem to want is something akin to what White Wolf uses: several degrees of success or failure. regretfully, the two mechanics are incompatible unless you want to add a subsystem to 4th specifically geared towards specific non-combat task resolution... and to be honest i disliking adding subsystems if i can help it.

4th ed still uses the same +2/-2 bonus adjudication at the DM's discretion that 3rd ed uses, but a binary resolution system doesn't seem to work best for you.

Kylarra

2009-03-26, 11:27 AM

Well there are Complex skill checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm). It's almost akin to the WW storyteller system, although it only replicates extended skill checks.

Artanis

2009-03-26, 12:07 PM

ericgrau

2009-03-26, 12:10 PM

And how do these depend on a game system, exactly?
Irrelevant. If role-playing cannot depend on the game system, that's all the more reason why the game system itself must be focused on combat

bosssmiley lists a good number of tactical options in 3.5e, while 4e practically revolves around giving obvious tactical options with limited build optimization choice. As for calling the 3.5e options "suboptimal", a better term might be "often unused" or "too confusing". A tripper build is a popular way to optimize a martial build. I've seen DM's call grappling "overpowered". But that same mechanic causes most players to shudder at the thought of using it. And there's much more you can do effectively. Bossmiley also overlooked combat modifiers from various forms of tactical advantage, though that's understandable given the multitude of items he already listed. Players likewise tend to overlook these. But in a non-cheesed out games (which must groups try to play, btw), each +1 is worth a +10% on average (~7-20%) to hit or miss. And there are stackable tactical modifiers ranging from 1 to 4, plus one that's 9 or so.

So, in short, 3.5e has a multitude of good options that often aren't used because they're too confusing for most. You really need to get familiar with the rules first if you want to enjoy them. And as for 4e, I really don't know what the OP is talking about.

Kylarra

2009-03-26, 12:16 PM

*reads*

The first five sections sound a lot like skill challenges.
I've not read the 4e books, but given that they're printed by the same company, I wouldn't be surprised. :smallwink:

Lappy9000

2009-03-26, 12:19 PM

*reads*

The first five sections sound a lot like skill challenges.Likely, since that was out before 4e's Skill Challenges, and probably what they were based on :smalltongue:

Kaiyanwang

2009-03-26, 12:22 PM

LOLWUT? :smallconfused:

("Races of War" fixes grapple bumpf, and "Tome of Battle: Book of Papercuts" gives fighter-types the option to do status effect damage)

Well, status effects for meleers came even earlier. See Staggering Strike or Three Mountains as an example.

Make me every time very, very surprised see people see that some maneuver is sub-optimal. IMHO, as a general rule, simply not every maneuver can be applied to every enemy. Is true that to find the right tool or a special item (such a bolas or garrote ring), you sometimes have to look through several manuals :smallbiggrin:

About combat ripetitivity... I think about my favourite system, 3.5. IMHO, a lot of people took things written too.. I can say.. RAW.

I remember in Wotc archives one of the designer saying that if a player have something in mind, you can let him do that thing if coherent with the character, mechanically speaking. As an example, cited Quickdraw. He said it was fine take a weapon or something usable like a weapon from a table or a wall as a free action.

I think anyone could bring examples like this. OP, maybe I don't understand your point, but it seems to me that ANY D&D system brings rules "bendable" to an interesting combat.

For my tastes, I prefer more feats and the way to handle them in a full attack (even if immediate action "riposte" rules in 4th and ToB are very nice) but does not seems D&D has boring combat.

I'd point that I'm perfectly fine with fighters and monks, for me evocation is a good school because even the powerful orb spell can beat only a target at time and in my games fights happen with different kind and numbers of enemies, and magic does not solve everything because I made it more rare in my campaings (both of these things are written in DMG, so these are not houserules, BTW). Magic has drawbacks, too, and all these drawbacks are RAW, too (but from splatbooks, almost all of them).

My players take one class (two now we will always play gestalt once we discovered it) and a prestige class is an accomplishment of the player career, not a dip to obtain more power. At the same moment, no barbarian dip if you did not live in the wilderness for a while, etc).

Yeah, I'm a strange person maybe so take my words with caution :smallwink:

IMHO, rules are well made (even if I sometimes disagree in the way some actions are handled, or in the fact that feats for melee should bring more) and is up to players and DM adjudicate what combinations of skills and maneuvers is likely to describe what players want to do.

IMHO, when combat seems boring it's because the Dungeon Master is not doing well his job, expecially in terrain generation, and in monster management (the way they behave, if they target always players or even other people or things player care, if they are played as a bunch of stats or like creatures of the world player are interacting with, and so on.

Well,Even if imho 4th edition is the worst D&D edition ever, I agree with 4th edition designers when they say that you don't need rules for roleplay.

IMHO, you need rule for a good immersion in the world you interact with. If you have rules well describing character interaction with the world, and monster not designed only for a 3 round encounter (I miss a lot the 3517451723645 spell like ability monsters in the early 3.0 manuals, less balanced but more "fey" or more "outsider").

In the last part of 3rd edition, and in 4th edition, IMHO, designer fail to accomplish this goal.

Note: I don't consider both my GMing style and my pereception of what are priorities of a well designed game as absolute - and I respect other people tastes and opinion - what I said counts for me.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-03-26, 12:51 PM

I found out what was the major problem with D&D for me, the fundamental conflict within the intention and implementation of the rules - the D&D paradox.
Okay, there's your claim.

D&D is a roleplaying game that is very strongly focused on combat, the 4th edition even more so than its progenitor. Combats and how they are managedplay a major or even the major role within the game and due to the class mechanisms, the quality of a character within the system bases only solely on how much they can contribute in a conflict -again, theis tendency increased with the 4th edition. Other elements of a roleplaying game - such as method acting, alternative ways of conflict resoltuion, moral dilemmas or character development (not to mention verisimulitude) play only a secondary role or are handwaved completely.
Okay, so here's my understanding of combat and D&D.

Dungeons and Dragons originated as a war-game. It was a very narrow simulation of a smaller "army" that ran into fantastic situations.

However, combat was very abstract as was virtually everything else including skills. Combat rounds were minute-long because the combat is supposed to be abstracted. The attack role is the product of many efforts to penetrate your enemy's defenses and all-the-while, the caster stands there babbling incantations. There wasn't a blow-by-blow resolution. There was the party's initiative and the initiative of your enemies. One party went, then the other party went. You didn't track the order of action of every autonomous agent in the field.

I'll detail this more as I go on, but "old-schoolers" tend to view this as a feature of the rules. They're "freeform" gamers in that sense and they achieve all those things: moral dilemmas, character development, etc. the old-fashioned way.

These things are accomplished by description, by DM refereeing and player puzzle-solving. As a rule, older rule-sets were meant to be light and abstract. Skills didn't exist because skill-usage fell under more freeform play. If you want to know whether somebody is lying to you, the player has to actually puzzle out the lie himself. Same goes for stealing or telling lies. Jumping gaps would simply be something as quick as a strength or dexterity check.

Now, for such a central element the rules for combats are surprisingly abstract and plainly not well made. The number of options is small and repetitive (which didn't really improve with the 4th edition, only the maneuvers which were repeated over and over changed). Tactical motives or combat strategies play only a minor role (one could argue that the logistics of the character creation/ optimisation are meant to replace this. he result is debatable). The only form of higher versatility is magic, while direct combat variability is minimal, sometimes to a very frustrating degree when compared to other games.
While it is true that D&D is very combat-centric, early D&D was supposed to have quick combat resolution so you could go back to a "Choose Your Own Adventure" mode of adventure play. Description, player feedback, mediation and even more description.

It might be more accurate to term D&D an adventure game with combat rules, because you needed the bare minimum of rules there, at the very least because this isn't a game about weaving baskets or living normal everyday lives. And as a wargaming simulation, it was a game of attrition. You have to worry about food and water and light sources (torches). You were awarded XP for treasure, so while conflict brought you XP, it was generally not worth the resources you spent on them, particularly since not all wandering monsters carried treasure.

It's even accurate to say combat was the focus, it did stem from wargaming and combat was *a* central element, but it wasn't the only focus. The combat "game," the rules and the simulation of the blow-by-blow violence wasn't so much the point as it was the larger consequence of the fight to the dungeon expedition. The adventuring party is a mercenary enterprise. A group of scoundrels who would rather explore dusty tombs and use violence than spend a moment behind the plow or a clerk's counter.

The fact of the matter is that the LOTR fantasy model of "heroes save the world" is actually a later evolution -- by players who wanted heroes who were more "epic." With the campaign having a preset story, rather than story being a natural consequence of the player's actions and the natural evolution of the setting.

Hem-and-haw all you want, but even modern forms of D&D make a lot more sense when you realize that the adventuring party is constructed under the assumption that they're a mercenary enterprise.

This is how you get weird little anachronisms like Final Fantasy, where highly-heroic characters walk into homes and take items out of chests that the civvies ostensibly seem to own. There's an obvious profit-motive underlining traditional level-based RPG's.

This is a major paradox as the rule implementation and their intention are going in completely opposite directions. While the neglection of other game elements besides combat is a problem of its own, the overtly abstract and rather limited implementation of the major element is a highly questionable idea.
Hence, I submit that there is only an apparent paradox. I agree that D&D is moving away from its "roots," because it retains a lot of systemic assumptions that were never quite removed but only make sense in the context of its history. The adventuring party is a party that is out to make money and grow powerful through mercenary, sometimes morally-grey activities. It's sort of a rag-to-riches story, except that maybe your the would-be hero gets killed from level-drain or dies from poison gas. Even "levels" correlate with the relative difficult of dungeon levels. If he's lucky, he'll instead become a powerful feudal lord or a wizard.

Combat was never historically the sole focus of the game. Hollywood theatrics is fun, but that's not what D&D ever originally had in mind. And it's not accurate to say that the consequences of combat were never considered. Combat burns resources, kills characters and people who are crazy enough to want to fight undead horrors and savage peoples and muck with magic for a living are considered to be a part of suspect fringe. That is the social reality that combat was originally meant to model

And I applaud that 4e is at least an intuitive combat system, if nothing else. If you work under the assumption that you're supposed to breeze through combat-resolution, then you can do it with 4e, especially if you actually make certain that enemies become demoralized after the outcome of the fight becomes clear. The real game is then in the exploration and puzzle-solving you choose to give your players outside of combat. In that respect, 4e is actually a very small nod towards the old traditions.

And there's no real reason I can see that prevents you from providing this interaction outside of combat.

"Versimilitude" is also just a chump-way of saying that you actually want more detailed combat rules, because you care about having a ridiculously high-resolution picture of lethal combat in a fantasy game. Maybe you want to set up a false conflict by suggesting that this was D&D's only real purpose, but that's really just setting up a "Straw Man" of sorts. That is the recent development, but it exists in spite of the game's original intent, not because of it.

HeavySleeper

2009-03-26, 01:28 PM

Now, is it true that "other games" allow more "versatility" with magic? Why yes - magic is nowhere more versatile than in a game of Ars Magica or oWoD Mage. And Deadlands or Shadowrun provide grittier combat simulators. And Bliss Stage has more giant robots. Each of these games emphasize different features and de-emphasizes others - that is why there are many different RPGs out there, instead of just GURPS :smalltongue:

This.

RPGs, by their nature, are designed to strike a balance between pure roleplaying and pure mechanics. Any game that consisted solely of one or the other would not be a roleplaying game. It would be one or the other; roleplaying or game. Nothing wrong with either, but they aren't what D&D is, or is meant to be.

Because everyone's preferences on the proportions of mechanics and roleplaying are different, games that deal with the distribution in different ways. Not all of these distributions appeal to all people. Player A may desire more mechanics for social interactions, while the game he is playing does not cater to his tastes. This isn't paradoxical, really. It's just a function of how RPGs are designed. They can't be exactly what every person wants.

The fact that mechanics fail to live up to people's expectations, it may be indicative of the same problem stated above: the mechanics that appeal to each person are different. No level of detail and abstraction appeal universally, so the game designers make an attempt to find some sort of balance, just like the balance between mechanics and roleplaying. It won't, and can't, be perfect. Some systems do a better job of creating these mechanics than others, as evidenced by their greater popularity. But the massive number of RPGs that exist, even with similar fluff, also speaks to the fact that there are a wide variety of mechanics people prefer.

If the mechanics for combat are disliked by a large portion of the people playing the game, despite being mechanically sound, it probably means that they are either more or less complex than most people prefer. This is the same problem as the disparity between the total amount of mechanics desired and the amount that actually exists.

If you don't like the amount of mechanics, or the way they are implemented, then it means your tastes are slightly different than the target audience of the game. Or the game might suck. I can't contribute to that discussion where 4e is concerned, because I've never played. But from what I gather, the ratio of mechanics to roleplay is different enough from 3.5 that many people who were happy with 3.5 are put off by it. That's expected. Just how things work. You just have to find a game that strikes a balance you're happy with.

Satyr

2009-03-26, 02:28 PM

And how do these depend on a game system, exactly?
Every system puts different emphases on different game elements. Partially in the rules, partly in the presentation of the rules and the game, sometimes very open in a laid-out agenda.
Sometimes these elements are included in the rules - e.g. the morals system in the different World of Darkness systems (both original and ripoff version), or the versimiltude of a system (just compare Harnmaster and D&D injuries to see a very different approach and intention), sometimes it's not a question of direct rule involvement but of presentation and intent. Nonetheless, in any case the focus of the game is always completely dependent on the system (not exclusively, obviously, but still, the idea that the style of the game does not depend on the used system is just silly). The game is more than just the rule mechanics.

The combat mechanics as written give you the ability to:

[...]

("Races of War" fixes grapple bumpf, and "Tome of Battle: Book of Papercuts" gives fighter-types the option to do status effect damage)

That aren't many options. Perhaps I am spoiled, but that just aren't many options. That half of them are terrible and rarely ever work, just makes it worse.

And house rules certainly fix many of these problems and can solve even some of the inflexibility issues. But the existance of these house rules are proof of the opposite of good rules - good rules don't need to be fixed.

If I understand this thread correctly, you are asking for rules to roleplay. Well, what kind of rules would you like? I've never come into a situation, where I would have needed rules to roleplay. The only place I need rules, are in combat.

No - I don't care much for specific rules for roleplaying, at least in D&D. There is nothing wrong with a strong emphasis on combat. But there is eveerything wrong with the combination of a strong emphasis on one elelement and substandard rules for them - the specific situation which I dubbed the D&D paradox. There are basically two solutions for this - broaden up the focus so it does not focus as solely on combat or improve the combat rules to a point where they are up to the importance they are supposed to have in the game.

First of all, "tactical motives or combat strategies" are essential to successful combat in 4E; even if your DM does not include elements such as interactive terrain or RTS-grade battle strategies, your ability to position yourselves and manipulate your enemies is key to maximizing the effect of the powers at your disposal. Zones and burst effects obviously require this, but even elementary considerations (does the Rogue have CA? Is the Fighter making an effective choke point?) need tactical awareness.

That is not what I consider tactical depth. Yes, the game works great in very small circumstances, but it rarely uses the various possibilities it could have, alone through the fantastic crreatures that oppose the characters. Yes, combat in 4th edition D&D can become a rather elaborate board game ( a side effect of the reliance of floor plans), but on the level of the individual, the choices are mostly reduced to the power you want to use and the place you want to move to. On personal level, the structure of the game actively prevents a more suspenseful and interesting combat.
Especially the great amount of abstraction is a major hindrance for the implementation of personal combat options - no target elocation, no attack against weak spot,s no active defense (that is the worst part of the rules), no significant effects of injuries, let alone the possibility to use such injuries as a tactical mean, or the adjustment of the own combat style to the enemy or situation at hand.

Secondly, "small and repetitive options." Bosssmiley has already made quite a list, but I would like to note that the sheer number of effects caused by powers, and how they interact, leaves combat endlessly plastic. My Elven Cleric, for example, can blind an enemy as an encounter power; instantly depriving an enemy of sight is a fabulously useful ability and can be used to neuter an enemy spellcaster, provide a clear path for the TWF Ranger, allow quick escape from an enemy lurker, or just to provide CA for the Rogue. I suppose you can define "small and repetitive" to encompass any set of options, but in my experience, 4E is anything but.

In the end, it's the same powers used again and again; I think the powers made the whole personal tactic complex of the game even worse because it limited the combat completely to these little prepacked and prescriptive boxes.
Yes, the number of options increase significantly when more characters work together but that is nothing but a matter of course.

Now, is it true that "other games" allow more "versatility" with magic? Why yes - magic is nowhere more versatile than in a game of Ars Magica or oWoD Mage. And Deadlands or Shadowrun provide grittier combat simulators. And Bliss Stage has more giant robots. Each of these games emphasize different features and de-emphasizes others - that is why there are many different RPGs out there, instead of just GURPS

The problem is not that other games offer more versatility- that goes without saying. D&D is a particular hidebound system, cemented through the rigid class and level mechanisms. And yes, different system focus on different aspects, just like D&D focus on combat. The problem is that the rules of the very core of the game - the combat - are just not good enough. Too few options, too much abstrtaction, too little consequence, too lttle suspense.

In any case, no matter what system, every DM has to realize something: the system is a foundation. It's up to the DM to tweak it to his specifications. It's one reason why I don't do RAW, and why I think less people should do so. If you follow the given rules and system, and don't make your own changes, then you're going to get angry at the system. Nothing stops you from adding other elements in.

Very true. Nonetheless, it is quite shortsided to think that the system does not matter for the flavor, atmosphere and style of the game. And that every group should adapt the rules to their specific ideas, wishes and preferences should be self-evident.

So, in short, 3.5e has a multitude of good options that often aren't used because they're too confusing for most. And as for 4e, I really don't know what the OP is talking about.

Without magic, characters in D&D 3.5 are very likley to become one trrick ponies, because a more multi-facetted approachh leave the character often substandard. And 4th edition is the steady repetition of the same handfull of combat maneuvers, which effectively eliminates even the part of the progenitor which offered miltiple options- the magic system.
Both systems lack a broader number of personal options, but 4th edition is even more limiting.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-26, 03:06 PM

That is not what I consider tactical depth. Yes, the game works great in very small circumstances, but it rarely uses the various possibilities it could have, alone through the fantastic crreatures that oppose the characters. Yes, combat in 4th edition D&D can become a rather elaborate board game ( a side effect of the reliance of floor plans), but on the level of the individual, the choices are mostly reduced to the power you want to use and the place you want to move to. On personal level, the structure of the game actively prevents a more suspenseful and interesting combat.

What do you consider "tactical depth" then?

4E in particular has rules that take into account terrain features (difficult terrain, hazardous areas, slippery/unstable footing), visibility (cover and concealment - 2 degrees of each), position (prone and standing) and the danger of walking around in a melee (OAs).

In addition, combatants have available:
- 7 different forms of attack (Melee, Ranged, Close Burst/Blast, Ranged Burst/Blast, Aura)
- 9 types of damage and resistance (Weapon, Fire, Cold, Thunder, Lightning, Acid, Poison, Necrotic, Radiant)
- 4 different defenses to target (AC, Reflex, Fortitude, Willpower)
- 13 basic statuses (Blind, Dazed, Deafened, Dominated, Helpless, Immobilized, Marked, Petrified, Restrained, Slowed, Stunned, Unconscious, Weakened)
- 3 conditions of health (Normal, Bloodied, Dying)
- 7 ways to move (Shifting, Walking, Running, Teleportation, Climbing, Jumping, Flying)
- 6 generic attacks (Melee Basic, Ranged Basic, Bull Rush, Charge, Coup de Grace, Grab)
- 4 forms of Forced Movements (Push, Pull, Shift, Teleportation)
- 3 ways to deliver damage (Immediate HP Loss, Damage Over Time, Surge Loss)

Are these not enough variables to consider in combat? Between all of these, I've found a surprising amount of tactical depth in 4E; it is one of the most tactical RPGs I've played.

Narmoth

2009-03-26, 03:40 PM

The problem is that most people haven't noticed that the Xp is for defeating the monster or overcoming a challenge. And that's to my knowledge in every edition, except 1st ed D&D (and I don't know about how it was in 1st ed AD&D, but it was in 2nd ed AD&D)
You don't need to kill the general of the invading horde and all his minions. You can intimidate him in signing a treaty to compensate for the war damage and get the hell out of your country, and get just as much xp for it. (You'll get less minion-killing xp, but should get a xp bonus for rp-ing if the actions were appropriate for your character and played well)

The same goes for anything else you can come up with.

magellan

2009-03-28, 03:28 AM

@ Conjob: I am so glad i am not alone (Fluff, ugly word)
@ NewbDM: Look, there is another word i dont like: Homebrewed. I mean, what else is there? are things not homebrewed "officebrewed"? And if so, how does the legalese of the rent contract affect the content of quality of the brew? :smallconfused:

But seriously: what makes you think that a rule trying to generalize a lot of possibilites is better than a case by case assesment of a situation? Especially when its one of the goals to have as little repeat in the situations as possible?

Dervag

2009-03-28, 04:06 AM

This is one of the things which I found amazing when 4.0 came out. Do not get me wrong, the system has it's merits for the style of gamer it appeals to. However, the argument of both the owner of the largest comic/gaming store chain in the US's East Coast (according to them at least) and one of his managers was that "You do not need roleplaying mechanics in a roleplaying game". :smalleek:

My argument then was why even buy those three super expensive books? I mean, if all I am paying for within the 4.0 core books is nothing but pure combat mechanics, why would I spend so much money when I can instead just buy the D&D miniatures game. I still need to make up 100% of the roleplaying mechanics/rules anyway, so why not save some cash?The reason you need the expensive books full of combat mechanics is because you don't want your roleplaying session to suffer what happens to so many attempts by children to reinvent the tabletop RPG while at play:
"I hit you!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"
"Well, I dodged!"
"Well, I antidodged!"
"Well, I have a shield!"
"My hits go through a shield!"
"That's just dumb!"
[thump]
"Ow! You hit me!"
"See? Told you."
______

Of course, the same problem can crop up in other areas, but there's nothing like combat to bring out the worst of those exchanges. In combat, unlike most conversation, death is always on the line, and the action is so complicated that you can't just visualize it.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-03-28, 04:22 AM

No - I don't care much for specific rules for roleplaying, at least in D&D. There is nothing wrong with a strong emphasis on combat. But there is eveerything wrong with the combination of a strong emphasis on one elelement and substandard rules for them - the specific situation which I dubbed the D&D paradox. There are basically two solutions for this - broaden up the focus so it does not focus as solely on combat or improve the combat rules to a point where they are up to the importance they are supposed to have in the game.
Are we talking about versimilitude as the measure of good combat rules? Because that isn't really an argument so much as it is a vortex of irrational nonsense, being that D&D is a fantasy game.

As I probably have spend too many words saying, without being succinct, there really isn't a paradox. D&D is a dungeon-crawling sim with some extras. Combat was important to early D&D in the sense that it had some very meaningful consequences to the simulation of scoundrels trying to make a buck through morally grey and insanely dangerous profession. The game was really more like a "military expedition" in a fantasy setting.

It is a later evolution of the game that focused on more detailed rules for combat, with a blow-by-blow count of every action. D&D simply went from a wargame to a Hollywood action-movie. But as odd as it may seem, I don't really see this detracting from the exploration/adventure aspects of the game. The game may suggest otherwise, but older editions never really needed to explain *how* to roleplay dungeon-delving scenarios or make explicit provisions for them. Why should the new emphasis require any more provision?

4e really just strikes me as a compromise (some would say pathetic one) to the traditions of D&D. It's just that so much of the marketing is aimed at playing-up the action. However, a lot of the old assumptions are still built into the rules simply because they are tradition and considered "trademark" to the game. This means that D&D is still largely a game about exploring fantasy settings.

That is not what I consider tactical depth. Yes, the game works great in very small circumstances, but it rarely uses the various possibilities it could have, alone through the fantastic crreatures that oppose the characters. Yes, combat in 4th edition D&D can become a rather elaborate board game ( a side effect of the reliance of floor plans), but on the level of the individual, the choices are mostly reduced to the power you want to use and the place you want to move to. On personal level, the structure of the game actively prevents a more suspenseful and interesting combat.
Especially the great amount of abstraction is a major hindrance for the implementation of personal combat options - no target elocation, no attack against weak spot,s no active defense (that is the worst part of the rules), no significant effects of injuries, let alone the possibility to use such injuries as a tactical mean, or the adjustment of the own combat style to the enemy or situation at hand.
So what's wrong with suspenseful and engaging exploratory adventure game? Combat isn't the only part of the game. There's that "dungeons" part after all.

Again abstraction isn't the problem. It is a fantasy game. Don't make me beat you upside the head with the point. Older D&D had abstraction as core design element. You *need* abstraction in a game. And abstraction is not mutually exclusive to having more options. Verisimilitude is not mutually exclusive to having abstraction. Hell, even our interpretation of reality needs abstraction.

Neither are examples of true dichotomies. Do not make either claim, because it's silly and fallacious. Name one RPG that doesn't use some level of fantastic abstraction. One.

Whether you like "board game" grid based combat is a matter of taste. I'm personally very disposed to the idea, as I love turn-based tactical RPG video games and, in some ways, simply like how intuitive it is. There is plenty potential game in that abstraction. Even if it doesn't specifically allow me to sever arms and the like.

In the end, it's the same powers used again and again; I think the powers made the whole personal tactic complex of the game even worse because it limited the combat completely to these little prepacked and prescriptive boxes.
Yes, the number of options increase significantly when more characters work together but that is nothing but a matter of course.
*bzzt* Wrong. You can have emergent properties from less complex processes or functions. This is how chess and the human language can be as complex as it is.

The system is standardized, but different classes play differently if you give them different effects. Give one class all the movement effects and low damage and give another one high-damage output and they do very different things. Having fewer options is not the same thing as having standardization.

3e is a horribly unintuitive mess with a lot of explicitly-defined options whereas 4e is a much more intuitive mess with fewer options, but nonetheless has a good number of them. 0e has virtually no standardization but plenty of non-explicit player options. It isn't inconceivable to have more options and more standardization together. (Mind you, this doesn't even go into considering useful options or livable gameplay or things like balance.)

And no, it doesn't always follow that having more characters work together opens up more options. The famed Batman Wizard, for example, can do more than his fair share of hogging the endgame. You actually have to design the game with that feature in mind, otherwise you can just have players who hog the spotlight.

The problem is not that other games offer more versatility- that goes without saying. D&D is a particular hidebound system, cemented through the rigid class and level mechanisms. And yes, different system focus on different aspects, just like D&D focus on combat. The problem is that the rules of the very core of the game - the combat - are just not good enough. Too few options, too much abstrtaction, too little consequence, too lttle suspense.
Umm, I no longer agree with the idea that D&D was ever a particularly hidebound system at the outset. It was really closer to the "Storyteller" system in its early days, where the DM did most of the mediation and put more emphasis on the players solving puzzles using their ingenuity, hopefully with quick combat resolution. Levels are rough measures of power, because the game is about scoundrels trying to better their position. Also, levels literally tended to correlate with the difficulty level of a dungeon level.

It was only the recent developments in 3e and 4e that made it more "hidebound." And as you have yourself seem to agree, you really don't need to define your options within the rules since you can often be expected to play some parts of the game without rules. I suppose we could make tables to resolve everything, but that's not what happens.

Without magic, characters in D&D 3.5 are very likley to become one trrick ponies, because a more multi-facetted approachh leave the character often substandard. And 4th edition is the steady repetition of the same handfull of combat maneuvers, which effectively eliminates even the part of the progenitor which offered miltiple options- the magic system.
Both systems lack a broader number of personal options, but 4th edition is even more limiting.
Oh god. I can't jab my fingers into my eyes quickly enough.

Options are options. It doesn't matter if you call it magic, technology, martial-arts or a highly-refined skill. They're all variants on the same thing. Really, if you want to get into the semantics of it, magic is both a technology and highly-refined skill. A wand of lightning can just as easily be an lightning gun. What you call the rules that allow options is irrelevant compared to whether or not they're offered at all.

You're also blithely ignoring that the Fighter class actually now scales-up with casters and in fact, have had more options than in 3e. Because they've essentially gotten a "spell-list" of their own. One could even argue that a lot of options have been shifted to the burden of managing tactical minutiae.

Also, you're making a bald-faced and unsupported assertion that there are somehow less options in D&D than in other games and why it dips below such a level as to be undesirable. Which honestly, I'd like you to try and prove to me. I mean, seriously, a list of hundreds of spells and somehow, that's not enough.

Basically you have no standards to talk about but you'll wave it in our faces like it somehow matters.

Zen Master

2009-03-28, 05:24 AM

[img]Because if you do not have any mechanics for such things, then they become rather pointless. That is, unless a DM chooses to homebrew 100% of it himself, then try to steer the rest of his/her group towards it, rather than follow the default pure combat style.

Or you could roleplay it.

As far as I can tell, that's the strength of D&D - and let me just point out that this is the game that all others are measured by - that it has fairly easy and comprehensible rules for combat, which is what needs such rules. And a sort of soft, malleable rules for roleplaying situations from social interaction to stealth to bartering or crafting.

Saph

2009-03-28, 05:42 AM

Now, for such a central element the rules for combats are surprisingly abstract and plainly not well made. The number of options is small and repetitive (which didn't really improve with the 4th edition, only the maneuvers which were repeated over and over changed). Tactical motives or combat strategies play only a minor role.

I'm afraid this is wrong. 3.5 games typically have more options than most players are capable of using. Even learning how to play a simple class like a Fighter takes a fairly long time, and learning everything about how to play a really versatile class like a Druid or Wizard is basically impossible - they have so many options that there is just no way you can learn and remember everything that they can do. You can play one for a year and still be learning new tricks.

4e characters generally have less options, in exchange for a simpler mechanic - but you still have a reasonable amount of choice.

Both systems lack a broader number of personal options, but 4th edition is even more limiting.

D&D 3.5 is famous for options. It has so many options that one of the now-banned posters from the 3e vs. 4e edition wars used to write posts complaining about how many options 3.5 has. 3.5 has loads of options for combat and utility, and if you're seriously trying to tell me that you've thoroughly tried them and found them "weak" or "all the same" I simply don't believe you. Certainly in comparison to a game like GURPS, D&D has way, way more things you can do.

Doesn't mean that 3.5 doesn't have its problems, but lack of options is most definitely not one of them. In fact, off the top of my head, the only system I can think of that has dramatically more mechanical options than 3.5 is Mage - and that's because Mage characters with the right Spheres can do quite literally anything.

- Saph

Satyr

2009-03-28, 08:36 AM

What do you consider "tactical depth" then?

Most of the things you listed I conscider as pretty much standard, of the involvement of the environment and very basic situations. Stuff like environment and environment-specific movements should be a matter of fact.

Some of the attack modes in 4th edition are interesting, some are just as bland as it can be (melee attacks? ranged attacks? That is pretty much standard). Same is true for more than half of the damage types (while the replacement of cutting, bludgeoning and piercing damage through weapon damage is a serious step back).
The different defenses are a specific item of D&D - and I am not sure how many non-magical attacks specifically target other defenses than AC and Reflexes. Spells and magical powers that taget physical prowess or a character's resolve are pretty much standard again (in 4th edition, there is no differentiation between magical and non-magical activities. That can be seen as a step towards a more streamlined design. I find it to be a overtly simplification and leveling).
The same is also true for the overtly simplified and abstract form of damage or health statuses. Seriously, nothing requires as much suspension of disbelief as the HP system.

What is actually rare are personal combat options, the adjustment of the own combat style to different threads, the development of an individual style and different effectivity. The adjustment of offensive or defensive stances, threat evaluation, targeted attacks, feints and deceptive attacks, self-developed maneuvers and combinations... that are things I expect from a combat-centric system.

Are we talking about versimilitude as the measure of good combat rules? Because that isn't really an argument so much as it is a vortex of irrational nonsense, being that D&D is a fantasy game.

Well, isn't that my favorite fallacy. Versimilitude is everything for any form of fiction. Fantasy is no excuse to insult other people's intellligence. Remember, versimilitude is not the same as realism it is the reality within the context of the game's world. For a Wuxia campaign, enormous jumps are an essential component of the game, no matter how realistic they are from the meta-level persepctive. And in a high fantasy game, it is no problem when characters can hurl balls of fire, but laser beam weapons of Martian invadors would be a break of the game's plausibility. If you don't belief it, just try it to involve an UFO in your campaign.
On the same level, the rules of the game require to express the inner logic of the game - fora Wuxia game, characters should be able to make breathtaking jumps, and for a fantasy game, you need rules for heroic sword fights, archery and different combat styles, depending on the specific focus of the game.

So what's wrong with suspenseful and engaging exploratory adventure game?

Nothing. Sounds like a good idea. That's why Earthdawn is so much fun to play. But what has thst to do with D&D?

Again abstraction isn't the problem. It is a fantasy game. Don't make me beat you upside the head with the point.

Abstraction and fantasy are completely unrelated items; you can have both very concrete and very abstract fantasy games, or you can have very concrete or abstract games with little to no fantasy elements.

And, like almost everything, abstraction is not a question with two alternatives, but a sliding scale. The problem is not that the game is abstract. That would be a stupid assumption indeed. The problem is the amount of abstraction and the point where the game becomes so abstract that it becomes detached from the narrative it represents and, even worse, overtly abstract games sacrifice personal involvement for the characters.

3e is a horribly unintuitive mess with a lot of explicitly-defined options whereas 4e is a much more intuitive mess with fewer options, but nonetheless has a good number of them. 0e has virtually no standardization but plenty of non-explicit player options.

According to my experiences, the more abstract and less plausible a game becomes, the less intuitive it is - because the relation to the expectations and knowledge of the players. Because we all know nothing helps the dramatic of the game as players who bury their hands in their palms because the game feels ridiculously stupid or detached from reality.
Again a question of versimilitude.

Options are options. It doesn't matter if you call it magic, technology, martial-arts or a highly-refined skill. They're all variants on the same thing. Really, if you want to get into the semantics of it, magic is both a technology and highly-refined skill. A wand of lightning can just as easily be an lightning gun. What you call the rules that allow options is irrelevant compared to whether or not they're offered at all.

The important fact of options is not only the mechanical aspects but also the flavor and atmosphere of the involved elements. Making everything the same is a good way to make sure that the game becomes blander and blander.

You're also blithely ignoring that the Fighter class actually now scales-up with casters and in fact, have had more options than in 3e. Because they've essentially gotten a "spell-list" of their own. One could even argue that a lot of options have been shifted to the burden of managing tactical minutiae.

Balance is a nice idea, but versatility and atmosphere is more important. And there is not really a problem to find a compromise between the two elements. And most of the power gap between wizards and fighters in D&D 3.5 resulted from the poor combat rules - improving the combat rules and bringing them to a plausible and - more important - suspensful combat rules almost automatically increase the importance of combat-focused characters.

Also, you're making a bald-faced and unsupported assertion that there are somehow less options in D&D than in other games and why it dips below such a level as to be undesirable. Which honestly, I'd like you to try and prove to me. I mean, seriously, a list of hundreds of spells and somehow, that's not enough.

Err no. I wondered about the difference between the focus of combat rules and their implementation in D&D. And yes, the number of options in D&D combat is, compared to, let's say Gurps, quite small, despite of the comparative large focus on combat in the game.

Calinero

2009-03-28, 08:43 AM

My thoughts:

I don't know enough about the combat mechanics of D&D 4e to really judge them. There seems to be enough variety for me, but maybe I'm less picky. I do know that I've never gotten bored during a D&D 4e fight except for a time when I fought a troll. The thing wouldn't die, but couldn't hit any of us, it was just obnoxious. Then another came immediately after. It sucked.

But anyway.

It seems to me that the main problem with D&D is not that it doesn't have any mechanics for roleplaying. It's that so many things about the system are geared towards combat, that it tends to attract players who only want to focus on combat. There is nothing in D&D that should prevent good roleplaying, but everyone goes into a game with the expectation of being ridiculously stronger than the average person, able to kill things with impunity, and becomes solely focused on completing quests and killing things. This is a matter for the players to deal with, not the system.

While I can understand the desire of a GM to have some more standard rules for non-combat encounters, I just don't think it would be a good idea. When I want my PC's to haggle with a shopkeeper, I don't want to just know how well they roll. I want them to get into character and play out the experience--the roleplaying has to come from somewhere. If you want, you can let a roll influence your decision, but it shouldn't be the decision of the dice entirely. Above all, your characters must react realistically, no matter what the dice say.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-28, 08:50 AM

What is actually rare are personal combat options, the adjustment of the own combat style to different threads, the development of an individual style and different effectivity. The adjustment of offensive or defensive stances, threat evaluation, targeted attacks, feints and deceptive attacks, self-developed maneuvers and combinations... that are things I expect from a combat-centric system.

But... that's what the Powers System does.

The assortment of powers you select reflects what kind of fighting style you have; you can be high damage or give lots of statuses, focus on positioning the battlefield or moving yourself, select for power or for finesse (e.g. sacrificing damage to be able to strike against particular defenses), and more.

Heck, there is an entire class of powers called "stances" that allow you to alter your combat performance - to focus on the offense or defense, for example. The PHB II classes are full of powers that cause similar effects.

One of the big parts of 4E was that it expanded the tool set of non-magic users, pretty much in the fashion you seem to like. I wouldn't call that "tactical depth" though, as tactics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tactics) are typically "the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle," while you seem to be talking about the granularity of the melee combat system.

Roderick_BR

2009-03-28, 10:10 AM

Hmm. What the OP said could be applied to a lot of games. I've been in Vampire: The Maskerade sessions with even MORE combat and LESS roleplaying than many D&D sessions. And Vampire is usually considered one of the best games for roleplaying.
Therefore, it depends more on the players than the system, IMO.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-03-28, 12:56 PM

Well, isn't that my favorite fallacy. Versimilitude is everything for any form of fiction. Fantasy is no excuse to insult other people's intellligence. Remember, versimilitude is not the same as realism it is the reality within the context of the game's world. For a Wuxia campaign, enormous jumps are an essential component of the game, no matter how realistic they are from the meta-level persepctive. And in a high fantasy game, it is no problem when characters can hurl balls of fire, but laser beam weapons of Martian invadors would be a break of the game's plausibility. If you don't belief it, just try it to involve an UFO in your campaign.
On the same level, the rules of the game require to express the inner logic of the game - fora Wuxia game, characters should be able to make breathtaking jumps, and for a fantasy game, you need rules for heroic sword fights, archery and different combat styles, depending on the specific focus of the game.
At risk of complicating this further: You're actually claiming that D&D lacks verisimilitude and that make it bad? Or are you claiming that lacking realism is bad?

At which point:
For example, Why are 4e powers not internally consistent? If it's okay for Wuxia to endow fantastic powers, then why is an upper-limit on power usage so objectionable? Or what is so objectionable with the ideas of powers that makes it markedly different from any of your examples. I'm even picturing shounen anime where you call out your attacks and pull off your secret technique, once per fight of course.

2e, for example, had abstracted initiative, which is to say that in general terms, one side went than the other did, although you sometimes resolved simultaneous action. It also had minute-by-minute analysis rather than a blow-by-blow. A single attack roll, was in fact, the product of that round's fighting.

But as I'm getting tired of reiterating, the actual things you do in a fight was less important than its overall consequence to the expedition. OD&D awarded XP for treasure, because that was in fact, the precursor to the story objective. Wasting resources on wandering monsters didn't give you nearly as much XP and treasure. As such, D&D originally had a very specific kind of versimilitude: it is all about built-in attrition. Wargaming. The game was more lethal. I say "was" because you are correct in claiming that this assumption has generally changed.

But neither of these things can be accused of "lacking verisimilitude" under the guidelines you have set. As far as I'm concerned, my point still stands.

Nothing. Sounds like a good idea. That's why Earthdawn is so much fun to play. But what has thst to do with D&D?
See above.

Older editions of D&D had a specific kind of underlying assumptions. Levels were necessary because it was originally a dungeon-crawling sim. A lot of it was managing logistics, or solving puzzles set in your path. The simplest solution of one of these puzzles is, "I have a ten-foot pole and I poke at ground." To which, the DM would tell the player that would reasonably work on most pit traps. That's where the game lay, environment.

But even beyond that, becoming more powerful was telling a story of desperados trying to make a name for themselves. The end game might be characterized as the players finally "settling" into a broader society and set of concerns. Apprentices became feared wizards and fighters became feudal lords or constables or what-have-you.

Basically, I want to impress that D&D isn't *just* about the combat. Originally, the combat was abstracted because it was actually less important to the broader picture. And even with modern systems, a focus on detailed combat really hasn't changed the premise that you're an adventurer exploring dungeons and its related milieu of NPC's and problems. It isn't in the rules, but then again, it's not like this needed much explanation for older editions for people to play "correctly."

Abstraction and fantasy are completely unrelated items; you can have both very concrete and very abstract fantasy games, or you can have very concrete or abstract games with little to no fantasy elements.

And, like almost everything, abstraction is not a question with two alternatives, but a sliding scale. The problem is not that the game is abstract. That would be a stupid assumption indeed. The problem is the amount of abstraction and the point where the game becomes so abstract that it becomes detached from the narrative it represents and, even worse, overtly abstract games sacrifice personal involvement for the characters.
Alright, that's it's a fair point that fantasy and abstraction are unrelated. But I still challenge you to name a game that doesn't have abstraction and to quantify what abstraction means.

Again, as I've shown above, you are wrong about the game focus and player involvement. You're incorrectly assuming that combat was be-all-end-all of D&D, which is simply untrue. The level of abstraction there existed for a purpose, so that the DM could fluff over it or tweak it on the fly. This isn't problematic because the actual blow-by-blow was less important than having the resolution so you could get back to the adventure game.

Ironically, D&D combat and rules has become less abstracted, but you find enough cause in it to complain. I don't know what you're arguing for to be honest. You don't need a blisteringly high-resolution picture of everything in combat to enjoy it or anything else in the game. So as far as I'm concerned the argument is bankrupt. Chess is effectively an abstract wargame but this doesn't stop people from being absorbed in gaming the mock battle.

According to my experiences, the more abstract and less plausible a game becomes, the less intuitive it is - because the relation to the expectations and knowledge of the players. Because we all know nothing helps the dramatic of the game as players who bury their hands in their palms because the game feels ridiculously stupid or detached from reality.
Again a question of versimilitude.
The game wasn't meant to model reality. Or did you just selectively choose to forget that we were talking about verisimilitude and not "realism"? I could argue that the White Wolf rules are stupidly detached from reality. But that gets us nowhere.

Abstraction and verisimilitude are not mutually exclusive. Reality requires abstraction on your part. It's an unavoidable consequence of being sentient and you can't get away from it even if you're dreaming. One of the themes of Sandman, I believe. For example, you conceive of your social realities as a set of concepts and refer back to them when encountering experiences both old and new.

Seriously, just look at your desktop at the icons. Those icons abstractly represent programs. This is not intuitive?

4e is essentially: The combat rules run on one mechanic and the specifically annotated mathematical qualifiers and a few defined effects of varying rarity. That is intuitive.

The important fact of options is not only the mechanical aspects but also the flavor and atmosphere of the involved elements. Making everything the same is a good way to make sure that the game becomes blander and blander.
Emergent properties.

You can have standardized rules but still have a large number of options with different flavors. Yes, WOTC probably could have done more to differentiate Wizard powers under the current 4e system, and to their credit, they did try. (i.e. Rituals) But then again, they were really just trying to nerf Wizards.

Again, it's plainly banal to claim that mechanical diversity leads to diversity in play. This is a meaningful distinction. Internalize it.

One thing 4e can claim is that characters are easier to roll-up and less time is spent statting-up your characters, which really seemed to be half the game in 3e.

Balance is a nice idea, but versatility and atmosphere is more important. And there is not really a problem to find a compromise between the two elements. And most of the power gap between wizards and fighters in D&D 3.5 resulted from the poor combat rules - improving the combat rules and bringing them to a plausible and - more important - suspensful combat rules almost automatically increase the importance of combat-focused characters.
Uhh, I probably miscommunicated here. Putting it simply, I don't necessarily care much for competitive balance. You can't qualify versatility to any meaningful degree for our conversation. And atmosphere is achievable in spite of poor rules or options.

You'd also have to define "suspenseful" combat. Although I'd rather you didn't since "suspenseful" is a meaningless term here. I can pretty much stall the argument at this very specific point by saying, "4e combat has more suspenseful combat."

Err no. I wondered about the difference between the focus of combat rules and their implementation in D&D. And yes, the number of options in D&D combat is, compared to, let's say Gurps, quite small, despite of the comparative large focus on combat in the game.
Bluntly, I don't know GURPS. But you're probably referring to character options. Again diversity of mechanics is not the same as diversity of play.

Although to be fair, GURPS probably is designed to be a multi-setting platform.

However neither point really proves that D&D has the paradox that you have specifically claimed. I'd argue that D&D lost its focus to commercialism and excessive branding, not that there is any paradox in its original design or intention.

I still wouldn't claim that the rules are broken because of this. As I've established, the rules being abstract don't hurt it and claiming lack of verisimilitude is fairly assinine. You just have to realize what assumptions the original designers made and where this has carried over into modern D&D and apply them.

Yahzi

2009-03-28, 01:47 PM

You're actually claiming that D&D lacks verisimilitude and that make it bad?
Yes! Well, I am.

The problem is not that it's unrealistic; the problem is that it is internally inconsistent. Just one example: hit points. What are they? Clearly they are physical: commoners have 1d4 hit points, and when you stab a commoner for 3 pts of damage, he bleeds a lot. But equally clearly they are not physical, because when you stab a 9th level fighter for 3 pts, he doesn't even blink.

If the combat system had made a division between physical damage and combat prowess, then we wouldn't have this problem. The hero's additional hit points should be like a damage shield against a specific kind of damage, like weapon attacks, not a general conflation with his physical constitution. In D&D, there is no reason for a 9th level fighter to not stroll leisurely through a burning house (because, after all, it's only a dozen rounds of 1d4 damage).

This breaks verisimilitude. We're all OK with the fighter being slapped upside the wall by the dragon's tail and getting up again. We can even intuitively guess that he might survive the dragon's huge fiery breath attack. But walk through a burning building? What's up with that? Why would anybody think a famous knight could do that?

The combat system doesn't make that division, for two reasons: 1) it is highly abstract, and 2) it's not a very well thought out system. Hey, it was one of the first, what do you expect? Now, both of these might be livable, except that the combat system then goes ahead and tries to make that division. Coup-de-graces, Massive Damage Fort saves, the old "common sense auto-kill" of helpless foes, and my personal favorite - Harm, the 2nd ED version, a spell that removes all of your hitpoints except 1d4. Almost as if it was designed to rob you of all your supernatural ability and leave you merely mortal again...

So you wind up with a mess. On the one hand high-level fighters are indestructible; on the other hand, they're ordinary human beings who can drown almost as easily as the next guy. D&D just can't make up its mind, and that confusion breaks verisimilitude, immersion, and drama.

But there's worse to come. Satyr's paradox is really there: the problem is that D&D focused on combat so exclusively that it forgot the rest of the world. Wizards can teleport because that makes for interesting combat options; but what about the other 300 days a year when they're not fighting for their life? What does teleport do to this allegedly fuedal medieval world? Why, it wrecks it completely. The only way Charlemagne's France can exist is if there are like 3 wizards in the whole world, and they can't train anyone else. Otherwise the medieval system just collapses under the weight of the magic freely tossed to every two-bit adventurer.

Basically, in D&D, you're supposed to use your spells in combat, and not anytime else. Remove Disease only works to get rid of magical diseases, not eliminate the entire concept of death by disease. A single point of healing, easily available to anyone with a wisdom of 11 and enough education to graduate from college, is only supposed to stop bleeding from a sword wound, thus making combat slightly less fatal. It is not supposed to stop internal bleeding from a birth gone wrong, thus completely revamping the entire demographics of your society.

But the players will use it in the world, when they are role-playing instead of fighting. And either your NPCs can do the same things, in which case your world can't look like a traditional fantasy world; or your NPCs can't do those things, in which case the players' characters become unstoppable gods and the entire world is merely their plaything.

This is the paradox: that there is no spell to relieve pain. In that entire long list of spells, one of the most common, universal desires of all human beings is not even discussed. Because it doesn't have any effect on combat. Now how logical is it to assume that a wizard spent whatever time necessary to invent the "Message" spell, or for crying out loud, "Move Earth," and yet no one ever bothered to invent "Stop my baby from crying?" (You could rule that the Cure spells remove pain, but it would be a houserule: by RAW, I don't think pain is even mentioned.)

It is this focus on combat, without any regard to world-building, that creates the paradox of D&D. And arguably only because people stopped playing it as a "dungeon-crawling sim," and started playing what happened when you weren't in a dungeon.

(I also agree that D&D's combat system feels options-limited, in a way GURPS never did. I think that's just a reflection of the high level of abstraction: combat between 1st level characters is literally a random die roll.)

I have some house-rules (well, one really) that I think helps fix this, but I've yakked too long already.

Oslecamo

2009-03-28, 02:44 PM

So you wind up with a mess. On the one hand high-level fighters are indestructible; on the other hand, they're ordinary human beings who can drown almost as easily as the next guy. D&D just can't make up its mind, and that confusion breaks verisimilitude, immersion, and drama.

I can squash a rat with my hands. A cannot squash a human being with my hands. Yet they'll both drown pretty quickly if put under water.

Similarly, just because your skin and flesh have hardened trough several battles to endure fire, it doesn't mean your lungs have become water processing machines

Basically, in D&D, you're supposed to use your spells in combat, and not anytime else. Remove Disease only works to get rid of magical diseases, not eliminate the entire concept of death by disease. A single point of healing, easily available to anyone with a wisdom of 11 and enough education to graduate from college, is only supposed to stop bleeding from a sword wound, thus making combat slightly less fatal. It is not supposed to stop internal bleeding from a birth gone wrong, thus completely revamping the entire demographics of your society.

You're completely right, it doesn't stop bleeding from birth gone wrong. Since the woman is still moving and conscious to the point of death, it's diferent from the bleeding from a sword that lets you helpless in the floor, and a cure spell won't save you.

But the players will use it in the world, when they are role-playing instead of fighting. And either your NPCs can do the same things, in which case your world can't look like a traditional fantasy world; or your NPCs can't do those things, in which case the players' characters become unstoppable gods and the entire world is merely their plaything.

We can build nukes in the real world. But if you acutually try to do it, or even just dabble in nuclear energy, well, be prepared to face a lot of resistance from the rest of the world.

Also, the rich countries could freely distribute all kind of usefull knowledge and wondrous technology to the poorer countries and make the world a much better place. But they won't.

Similarly, magic is controled by a few elite, and even if in theory you can learn it, actually geting the knowledge and not geting killed by the magic elite before you learn it is a diferent talk altogheter.

Medium-high level magic users will be too busy adventuring and becoming stronger to bother to stop and help/teach the common people. And for each one good soul who actually tries to do it, there will be another wicked soul killing any potential "rivals". Simple and medieval-like.

This is the paradox: that there is no spell to relieve pain. In that entire long list of spells, one of the most common, universal desires of all human beings is not even discussed. Because it doesn't have any effect on combat. Now how logical is it to assume that a wizard spent whatever time necessary to invent the "Message" spell, or for crying out loud, "Move Earth," and yet no one ever bothered to invent "Stop my baby from crying?" (You could rule that the Cure spells remove pain, but it would be a houserule: by RAW, I don't think pain is even mentioned.)

Check out BoVD for pain rules.

Point is, everybody has a diferent standards for verisimilitude, immersion, and drama. A fighter can survive fire but drowns quickly. What's the problem with that? A fire-man anti-fire suit also wouldn't stop you from drowing to death if put under water. There's the drama reasoning, but there's lots and lots of media out there, each with their own standards of drama. And then the real world itself is very very complex and nobody understands it at 100%. If we don't include life. if we include life then it gets even more complicated.

So, asking for D&D or any other system to perfectly replicate every media and the real world at the same time is, well, impossible. That's the true paradox, how can people expect for a simple gaming system to do what the best minds of humankind couldn't do in several thousand years!

This is, I could take the best scientific theories out there and there would still be holes the size of galaxies left on how the universe works the way we observe it working!

And I could then take the best sociology/economy works out there and they still woudln't explain why the hell the world is in the mess it is nowadays. Heck the guys who were paid for that couldn't do it for what it seems.

Alleine

2009-03-28, 02:52 PM

@OP: Could you please clarify what exactly it is you have a problem with? As far as I can tell you're saying you don't like the focus on combat and only combat that D&D has. Even further than that, you're saying that there are extremely limited options in combat that can only be expanded by magic users.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now I've never experienced this in the games I've played. Granted our group tends to focus on combat, but I find that to be because of the group, not the system. As for lack of options in combat, I also haven't seen that, but I lack experience with non-casters so I won't get into that.
Could you give us examples of what systems actually do these things? Or at least give examples of what you would like D&D to do/think it should do that it isn't? As it stands I am quite simply confused by what you're trying to say.

Berserk Monk

2009-03-28, 03:02 PM

There are no paradoxes in D&D. If you think you've found one, just remember, a wizard did it.

Yahzi

2009-03-28, 03:37 PM

I can squash a rat with my hands.
Eww.... :smallbiggrin:

Similarly, just because your skin and flesh have hardened trough several battles to endure fire, it doesn't mean your lungs have become water processing machines
Why not? Fire-hardening human skin is just as ludicrous as water-processing lungs. There is no particular logical reason why fighting orcs should make you flame-retardant. So why doesn't it also make you water-resistant?

Like I said, the problem is that D&D tries to do both.

You're completely right, it doesn't stop bleeding from birth gone wrong. Since the woman is still moving and conscious to the point of death, it's diferent from the bleeding from a sword that lets you helpless in the floor, and a cure spell won't save you.
What? Never mind the bizarre notion that Cure Light Wounds doesn't cure wounds on conscious people, in the world I live in, people who bleed to death generally go unconscious some intermediate period before they actually die.

I guess to some extent verisimilitude depends on which world you're coming from...

But the only people who are capable of giving you resistance are the people who already have nukes. Which was my point. The NPCs have to have nukes too. And if the NPC king controls a nuclear arsenal he can use to keep adventurers in check, well, it just doesn't seem very medieval. Unless you think they called him the "Sun King" because he had fusion bombs... :smallbiggrin:

[quote]Also, the rich countries could freely distribute all kind of usefull knowledge and wondrous technology to the poorer countries and make the world a much better place. But they won't.
If you're talking about the real world, the fact is that rich countries give away the effect of Remove Disease spells to poor countries all the time. Even those hated institutions know as "drug companies" actually give stuff away on a regular basis.

If you're talking about a game world, well yes, your Evil rulers could be selfish. But that doesn't explain why Good rulers would behave that way.

Similarly, magic is controled by a few elite, and even if in theory you can learn it, actually geting the knowledge and not geting killed by the magic elite before you learn it is a diferent talk altogheter.
Now you're describing a particular game world, and not one that comes from the core rules. In the core rules, every bleeding town has a handful of 5th level casters.

Medium-high level magic users will be too busy adventuring and becoming stronger to bother to stop and help/teach the common people.
When Lurker was talking about the underlying assumption that the PCs are mercenaries, this is exactly what he meant. Even Paladins are typically played as being concerned with nothing more increasing their own personal power and nothing else.

And for each one good soul who actually tries to do it, there will be another wicked soul killing any potential "rivals". Simple and medieval-like.
Except it is neither simple nor medieval.

Check out BoVD for pain rules.
My point was that the core rules didn't even address the topic.

Point is, everybody has a diferent standards for verisimilitude, immersion, and drama. A fighter can survive fire but drowns quickly. What's the problem with that?
The problem with that is that it is completely unpredictable. The player has no idea what his character can do. He can't guess the effect of his choices in advance (except in very narrow situations like combat). Which means his choices become random. Which means they aren't really choices. And games are about making fun choices.

So, asking for D&D or any other system to perfectly replicate every media and the real world at the same time is, well, impossible.
Which is why no one is asking it to.

But expecting it to approximate a logical world, without exposing glaring idiotic contradictions, is not too much to ask. GURPS does it just fine, as do any number of other game systems.

I'm not saying I should be able to model an entire economic system off the core rules. But I am saying that the economic system should not disintegrate because your players stepped out of a dungeon.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-03-28, 03:44 PM

Yes! Well, I am.

The problem is not that it's unrealistic; the problem is that it is internally inconsistent. Just one example: hit points. What are they? Clearly they are physical: commoners have 1d4 hit points, and when you stab a commoner for 3 pts of damage, he bleeds a lot. But equally clearly they are not physical, because when you stab a 9th level fighter for 3 pts, he doesn't even blink.
Without going into a lengthy discussion about it: You're simply wrong and your argument is flawed. A lot of the examples you cite are realism, by the way, not how well things hold together.

Hit points are basically a "badass" meter. A commoner with 1d4 hit points will risk death from a dagger attack, a fighter of a higher level diverts the damage and it is always less damage for him. Or maybe he really is just that tough. Basically, damage in D&D is an abstraction: it factors in placement of damage as well as how much force is placed behind that damage.

But it makes a kind of internal Hollywood movie logic. Nobody questions why heroes are able to do these things because they're heroes. You could accuse this of not being realistic, but in a game with magic, realism isn't the point. This has a narrative "verisimilitude" of a sort.

As I am dog-sick of repeating: Abstraction, verisimilitude and realism are three entirely different things. Until you make a meaningful distinction between those things and why they are necessarily bad for game design, then we have nothing further to discuss. You have done none of these things and I'm getting tired of explaining why.

Your very first example commits this crime: Confusing realism and verisimilitude. You also seem to think that abstraction is directly equivalent to a lack of verisimilitude, which is patently false. Failed from the outset. If you expect me to hold high expectations for the rest of your post. Well no. It doesn't merit my attention.

Go back and read my last post or stop pretending like you have a response to give me.

Kris Strife

2009-03-28, 04:03 PM

A few points:

1. Remove disease gets rid of any disease or parasite, magical or not.

2. Any HP restoration stops blood loss, so having a divine caster or bard on hand when your SO is giving birth would be a good idea.

3. HP is how well you can turn an otherwise lethal blow to something less damaging: rolling with a fall, using your armor and sword to ground out part of an electrical attack, getting a cut instead of being disembowled by a sword strike, etc; not Black Knight shennanigans.

Arcane_Snowman

2009-03-28, 04:15 PM

not Black Knight shenanigans. Not if you want it to be realistic at least, I know plenty of people who prefer it like this, and that's the (only) beauty of that simplicity.

Yahzi

2009-03-28, 04:21 PM

Without going into a lengthy discussion about it: You're simply wrong and your argument is flawed.
How can I possibly argue in the face of such compelling logic? :smallyuk:

But I'll try.

A classic case of failure of versimilitude: In the Paizo "Burning Crusade" adventure, one of the early tasks the players face is solving a murder mystery. My player, of course, immediately asked: "What level is the town cleric? Why doesn't he just cast Zone of Truth?"

Now you can create answers for why that cleric didn't use that spell in that situation, but the point is the both the designers of the core rules and the authors of the adventure never bothered to even consider it. They build their world without taking into account what effect magic would have on it, because in their eyes, the only use of magic is combat: to defeat or be defeated by.

Basically, damage in D&D is an abstraction:
My point is that it is a bad abstraction.

But it makes a kind of internal Hollywood movie logic. Nobody questions why heroes are able to do these things because they're heroes. You could accuse this of not being realistic, but in a game with magic, realism isn't the point.
Speaking of logical flaws...

1) Hollywood movie logic is called that because people are being ironic. To say something has Hollywood movie logic is to say it does not have logic. Movies that make sense (say, X-Men or Hancock) are internally consistent and feature real people in unreal situations. Movies that don't make sense (Watchman and Sky Captain and the world of Tomorrow) don't make sense. People like senseless movies because they are pretty or amusing, not because they tell a good story.

2) Somebody does question them. Namely, me.

3) I never said anything about realistic. I said predictable and consistent. Everybody hates it when the end of the movie is a complete deus-ex-machina, where the heroes are saved by some act of fate/gods/luck that was completely unexpected and unbelievable.

4) To be fair, not everybody hates deus-ex-machina. If you're one of the people who doesn't, then my post doesn't apply to you. In fact, none of my posts do.

I didn't write it so you could spew out the same non-language that you think passes for an argument.
Easy there, fella.

Furthermore, D&D isn't exclusively about combat until you decide that it is.
I presented as an argument a perusal of the spell list. The spell list provided with the core rules contains spells to move earth so you can get at treasure, but do not contain spells to deal with toothaches. They contain a spell to make plants into dangerous foes/allies, and only offhandedly - without even considering what effect that has on medieval economic demographics - toss out the notion that the same spell can replace modern pesticides.

But it takes a kind of ignorance that I'm getting tired of debunking when people claim that this is original intent of the design and that this is the only precedent for the game.
As someone who played 1ED when it came out, I think I have a pretty good grasp on what the original intent of the design was. I also think it is possible to derive intent from content; that a careful study of the rules (especially when contrasted to other game rules) will necessarily shed light on the mind-set of the intent of the rules.

And the rules, particularly in the spell section, focus on combat to the exclusion of almost everything else. For crying out loud, there's an entire Rogue class dedicated to stealing stuff, when every 3rd level priest in the world can cast Zone of Truth. Yes, the spell can be resisted, but only sometimes, and he can cast it every single day. How many DC 13 checks can a 3rd level rogue make before he statistically has to fail?

The game designers expect you to use the spells in combat. They do not expect you to use them on a daily basis, in ordinary society. If you try, your world rapidly transforms into something other than the medieval society the rest of the rules describe.

Another example of failure of versimilitude: everyone complains about the PCs being so much more powerful than the local kings and barons. Why? Because the rules present the idea that the local king is a 3rd level expert, instead of the (far more logical) idea that the king is a 13th level fighter. Why on earth did the rules ever present such a ludicrous notion? Well, because your abilities in the dungeon (or the land of faerie) was not supposed to be related to your abilities in the real world. This is a classic trope, and it would be fine if D&D explicitly stated it. If your character could only cast spells while in a dungeon; if Remove Disease only countered Zombie Rot or Lycanthropy; if Teleport could only be cast once a year instead of every day like clockwork...

But the rules don't say that. Hence: paradox (or more accurately, lack of versimilitude).

Nightson

2009-03-28, 04:21 PM

In 4e fire damage scales just so heroes can't stroll around in fire.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-28, 07:57 PM

Hollywood movie logic is called that because people are being ironic. To say something has Hollywood movie logic is to say it does not have logic. Movies that make sense (say, X-Men or Hancock) are internally consistent and feature real people in unreal situations. Movies that don't make sense (Watchman and Sky Captain and the world of Tomorrow) don't make sense. People like senseless movies because they are pretty or amusing, not because they tell a good story.

That is not what internal consistency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency) means.

In statistics and research, internal consistency is a measure based on the correlations between different items on the same test (or the same subscale on a larger test). It measures whether several items that propose to measure the same general construct produce similar scores. For example, if a respondent expressed agreement with the statements "I like to ride bicycles" and "I've enjoyed riding bicycles in the past", and disagreement with the statement "I hate bicycles", this would be indicative of good internal consistency of the test.

For example, you could make a world where only people with gills can breathe the air. The world is internally consistent so long as you don't have anyone who can breath air without gills - or have people without gills who don't worry about asphyxiation in the open air. Regardless of whether it "makes sense," this is the measure.

Now, you raise very good points about previous editions of D&D regarding non-magical fire, but you are incorrect about most else. "Hit points" are an internally consistent feature of a world in which one's ability to avoid death by trauma is related to one's total number of HP. So long as you don't have people dying from trauma without HP loss, the system is internally consistent. That is all is required for internal consistency.

Likewise, low-level kings are a necessary result of the world set up in past editions of D&D. One gains levels by earning experience (XP), and XP was primarily gained by finishing quests and slaying monsters; your average king has other people to do those kinds of things. Provided your king is hereditary, there is no reason that it "makes sense" for him to be a 13th level Fighter (or anything) unless he has been overcoming challenges equivalent to slaying dragons and recovering lost relics.

Putting those points aside, I imagine you must be a big fan of 4E. For the first time (IIRC) a D&D product attempts to paint a world that does not require Fridge Logic to hold together. Most magic is costly (in both time and money) so people cannot afford to resort to it to solve every crime; nobody can detect alignments, preventing the "Paladin Genocide" problem*; and experience can now be gained by overcoming any challenge, allowing for realistic advancement of powerful people. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Dervag

2009-03-28, 11:38 PM

Likewise, low-level kings are a necessary result of the world set up in past editions of D&D. One gains levels by earning experience (XP), and XP was primarily gained by finishing quests and slaying monsters; your average king has other people to do those kinds of things. Provided your king is hereditary, there is no reason that it "makes sense" for him to be a 13th level Fighter (or anything) unless he has been overcoming challenges equivalent to slaying dragons and recovering lost relics.But if the king isn't personally powerful, trouble ensues. It's hard to keep high level enemies from just marching into his castle and kicking him out by force. His saving throws are low, which makes him easy to control or harm with magic.

Many people desire the power of a monarch, and some of them will be high level in a plausible D&D setting. There are ways past that (make the king the relative or close friend of powerful characters), but it adds an extra burden to the story.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-28, 11:54 PM

But if the king isn't personally powerful, trouble ensues. It's hard to keep high level enemies from just marching into his castle and kicking him out by force. His saving throws are low, which makes him easy to control or harm with magic.

Many people desire the power of a monarch, and some of them will be high level in a plausible D&D setting. There are ways past that (make the king the relative or close friend of powerful characters), but it adds an extra burden to the story.

Hardly - that's why you have vassals and retainers.

And, being the highest noble in the land, he can afford to have Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm) cast upon him by a loyal court wizard. It also helps if your bloodline is Annointed by the Church, or is otherwise backed up by supernatural authority.

Now, this is not to say you can't have a high-level king, but for any durable hereditary regime, the current king is unlikely to have spent his youth slaying dragons.

Saph

2009-03-29, 02:35 AM

Now, this is not to say you can't have a high-level king, but for any durable hereditary regime, the current king is unlikely to have spent his youth slaying dragons.

Oh, it's doable. You just have to make sure the previous king has a lot of kids. That way there's good odds that at least one of them will make it (particularly if they get a bodyguard for the low levels . . .)

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-29, 02:42 AM

Oh, it's doable. You just have to make sure the previous king has a lot of kids. That way there's good odds that at least one of them will make it (particularly if they get a bodyguard for the low levels . . .)

- Saph

Or, alternatively, do one of the classic "send sons out on a quest; most awesome treasure = heir" routines. That's a good way to get 'em to level up :smallbiggrin:

Satyr

2009-03-29, 07:17 AM

The assortment of powers you select reflects what kind of fighting style you have; you can be high damage or give lots of statuses, focus on positioning the battlefield or moving yourself, select for power or for finesse (e.g. sacrificing damage to be able to strike against particular defenses), and more.

If it tries to emulate complex decisions and their results in combat, it horribly fails; I had more te impression that not the tactical level plays a significant role, but a combination of "you can make some cool stunts" and "here you have your activities, use them as prescripted, you don't need to think".

At risk of complicating this further: You're actually claiming that D&D lacks verisimilitude and that make it bad? Or are you claiming that lacking realism is bad?

At which point:
For example, Why are 4e powers not internally consistent? If it's okay for Wuxia to endow fantastic powers, then why is an upper-limit on power usage so objectionable?

Verisilmilitude is certainly a partially subjective field, as it is based on expectations, among others. So, for different people, different concepts may be plausible or not (the more naive someone is, the easier it is for him to participate in the willing suspension of disbelief. The other important factors are stuff like genre conventions, creator's intentions, and yes, realism. If people know how things are supposed to work, and they work different in any piece of fiction, you better have an explanation at hand (on this side of a hyperrealism discussion at least. Including hyperrealism in this would certainly make this discussion more exclusive). Realism in a piece of fiction is neither intrinsically good or bad, but it is almost inevitably the backbone of the reader's / player's expectations.
And just don't claim the opposite; I have Umberto Eco on my side in this discussion.

Basically, I want to impress that D&D isn't *just* about the combat. Originally, the combat was abstracted because it was actually less important to the broader picture. And even with modern systems, a focus on detailed combat really hasn't changed the premise that you're an adventurer exploring dungeons and its related milieu of NPC's and problems. It isn't in the rules, but then again, it's not like this needed much explanation for older editions for people to play "correctly."

While I really do not have much experiences with older D&D editions, I never claimed that the game solely concerns with combats. I only say that it takes a relatively large part of the game, especially in comparison to other games. Where these combats take place is mostly irrelevant for this discussion. And while I appreciate your diachronic appraoch to the explanation why the D&D rules are how they are today, I must say that I think that the changes in the last 30 years or so that happened to the game are large enough to make it somewhat anachronistic to argument with 0th edition lore.

The game wasn't meant to model reality. Or did you just selectively choose to forget that we were talking about verisimilitude and not "realism"? I could argue that the White Wolf rules are stupidly detached from reality. But that gets us nowhere.

Realism is not important; internal consistence, plausiblity based on the setting's premises etc. however are the determing effects. One example: armor in D&D (3.5; I don't own the 4th edition books anymore, so I cannot look up if the same fallacy was carried on) includes incumberance and penalties to movement, etc, based on how heavy they are (not exclusively, I know). Building an armor ot of a much lighter material (mithral), reduces this penalties -even though Strength plays absolutely no role for the limitation through armor. 4th edition has its very own fallacy in this regard in the Hitpoints of minions (a discussion which was chewed trough so often that it doesn't need to be repeated, I think).

4e is essentially: The combat rules run on one mechanic and the specifically annotated mathematical qualifiers and a few defined effects of varying rarity. That is intuitive.

The detachement between what a maneuver is supposed to do and the minor status effect it effectively brings are anything but intuitive. "Look, I cut his knee sinews with a mighty strike of my sword. Now he can't make small steps for a minute or so..." Plausibility is based on the idea that caue and effect correlate to each other. Intuitively, you assume that a cause you can relate to (like a leg injury) has a certain effect. This is normally not the case with many, many maneuvers in D&D4. Intuition is based on this preexisting knowledge and experiences and the projection of this knowledge on new situations; which doesn't work at all when the combination of very concrete situational descriptors are combined with very poor representations of of the supposed effect.

You're completely right, it doesn't stop bleeding from birth gone wrong. Since the woman is still moving and conscious to the point of death, it's diferent from the bleeding from a sword that lets you helpless in the floor, and a cure spell won't save you.

Does that make sense to anyone? I mean, really? "You can heal the inner bleedings caused by a club to the guts, but you can't heal the inner bleedings caused by childbirth?" That is just complete arbitrary nonsense.

Medium-high level magic users will be too busy adventuring and becoming stronger to bother to stop and help/teach the common people. And for each one good soul who actually tries to do it, there will be another wicked soul killing any potential "rivals". Simple and medieval-like.

And this is "handwaving". It doesn't make sense at all, it will hurt your brain if you think too much about it, but if you don't use a mind set like this one, the setting is going to collapse in hillarious nonsense and internal discrepances.

So, asking for D&D or any other system to perfectly replicate every media and the real world at the same time is, well, impossible. That's the true paradox, how can people expect for a simple gaming system to do what the best minds of humankind couldn't do in several thousand years!

Your argument doesn't make any more sense through your obvious need to hyperbole; if anything this blatant exageration undermines whatever you intended to say, as you seem to not read or understand what other people wrote.

Could you please clarify what exactly it is you have a problem with? As far as I can tell you're saying you don't like the focus on combat and only combat that D&D has. Even further than that, you're saying that there are extremely limited options in combat that can only be expanded by magic users.

I am not really criticising, I only found that there is a certain gap between the intention and the implementation of the D&D combat rules. I never claimed that the strong focus on combat in D&D is a bad thing- only that such an emphasis exists. What I critizised were the form of the combat rules, which doesn't offer that many options or even suspense in the combats desite this strong focus.

Oslecamo

2009-03-29, 08:06 AM

Your argument doesn't make any more sense through your obvious need to hyperbole; if anything this blatant exageration undermines whatever you intended to say, as you seem to not read or understand what other people wrote.

Indeed I don't understand. I don't understand how can you try to apply book/real world/movie/personal logic to a gaming system wich includes reality changing effects every other corner and everybody interprets in a diferent way and call it a valid reasoning.

Just like I don't understand how you can't see that there can be diferent types of internal blood loss that demand diferent types of treatment.

Or that I can't understand how you can claim that any universe is something simple and easily understandable. Point me to ONE fictious seting whitout internal discrepancies of any kind wich I can't exploit to make it colapse in tiny pieces and I'll admit defeat. Assuming every being in the world behaves as I think it should behave of course, since you took the liberty of claiming that D&D creatures and gods would behave as you think they should behave.

Yahzi:It's the DM's duty to discuss with the players beforehand what they want to do and don't do. Indeed, I've already seen problems at the table from one player wanting to do something he claimed to be very heroic while the rest of the party called it idiotic.

Saph

2009-03-29, 08:16 AM

I am not really criticising, I only found that there is a certain gap between the intention and the implementation of the D&D combat rules. I never claimed that the strong focus on combat in D&D is a bad thing- only that such an emphasis exists. What I critizised were the form of the combat rules, which doesn't offer that many options or even suspense in the combats desite this strong focus.

Oh, rubbish, Satyr. D&D 3.5 has an almost absurb amount of options. I have old characters from now-concluded campaigns that can do so many things that trying to teach a new player all of their tricks would take longer than a cover-to-cover reading of The Lord of the Rings. It's the whole reason I like the game.

3.5 has its faults, but being unable to build a character with combat options is most definitely not one of them. Being overwhelmed with too many options is a far more common complaint.

- Saph

Artanis

2009-03-29, 08:24 AM

If it tries to emulate complex decisions and their results in combat, it horribly fails; I had more te impression that not the tactical level plays a significant role, but a combination of "you can make some cool stunts" and "here you have your activities, use them as prescripted, you don't need to think".
Wait wait wait, you "had the impression"? Does that mean you haven't actually played it? :smalleek:

Thane of Fife

2009-03-29, 08:45 AM

Likewise, low-level kings are a necessary result of the world set up in past editions of D&D. One gains levels by earning experience (XP), and XP was primarily gained by finishing quests and slaying monsters; your average king has other people to do those kinds of things. Provided your king is hereditary, there is no reason that it "makes sense" for him to be a 13th level Fighter (or anything) unless he has been overcoming challenges equivalent to slaying dragons and recovering lost relics.

This is, in fact, not true. Look at an old AD&D module - it's almost guaranteed that most leaders are quite high-level. And this isn't really insensible - realistically, kings would have been knights, and well-trained ones. It's not at all unreasonable to represent them as being high-level.

And NPC's don't gain experience points - those are solely for PC's. NPC's are simply whatever level the DM finds appropriate.

Satyr

2009-03-29, 09:08 AM

Indeed I don't understand. I don't understand how can you try to apply book/real world/movie/personal logic to a gaming system wich includes reality changing effects every other corner and everybody interprets in a diferent way and call it a valid reasoning.

I don't. Nobody does this, in fact. I have no idea where you picked up this delusional nonsense. What I claimed -and I am more or less quoting Umberto Eco here - is that every form of fiction requires a framework of internal logic it relates to. In a roleplaying game, this includes compulsorily that rules and world description, and game intention and game implementation do not contradict each other.
Where you collected the delusion that verisimilitude is anything but specifically coined to one specific tale / game / piece of fiction, is beyond me.

Just like I don't understand how you can't see that there can be diferent types of internal blood loss that demand diferent types of treatment.

Please, don't embarass yourself anymore with this brainfart of an arguement. It is completely sense-free, and you probably know it, so don't make me spell it out how stupid it really is. Just don't.

Or that I can't understand how you can claim that any universe is something simple and easily understandable.

Wait what? I have no idea were you found this one. I don't think I own enough alcohol to make your statements make sense.

Assuming every being in the world behaves as I think it should behave of course, since you took the liberty of claiming that D&D creatures and gods would behave as you think they should behave.

In roughly 80% of the games I participate in, I run the game. I would be a poor Gamemaster if I were not able to predict how the creatures in my games should behave.
But apart from this admittedly easy answer, every narrative that is worth anything follows an internal logic and works within certain boundaries. There is no creative storytelling without the obligation to set yourself limits, or yoe land in complete arbitrariness and chaos.

Oh, rubbish, Satyr. D&D 3.5 has an almost absurb amount of options. I have old characters from now-concluded campaigns that can do so many things that trying to teach a new player all of their tricks would take longer than a cover-to-cover reading of The Lord of the Rings. It's the whole reason I like the game.

I never had this impression, but I admit that this can be a question of approach - and in this abreviated presentation below, the neglection of mine to state the exclusion of magic.Yes, magic offers a lot more options to do, but with physical combat alone, many things are just not possible - which is especially blatant through the fact that many things that work through spells wouldn't work any worse with complete mundane means, especially since even the rules for these means and effects already existed, but were only available through spells.

Wait wait wait, you "had the impression"? Does that mean you haven't actually played it?

I had played 4th edition throughout the summer, to get an idea of how the system works. We played a short campaign that took characters from 1st to 13th level or so and took for around 20- 22 sessions, before we mutually decided that the game wasn't much fun; by this time, we had already developed a handful of houserules.
I don't own the books anymore, I have never read any book but the first player's guide, the DM guide and the Monsterbook and a few dragon snippets, and certainly, many people have more experience with the system than me. Nonetheless, my impression of the system is based on the practical experiences I gathered during the gaming sessions, where I both played a character and run a few pretty mediocre sessions with it.

Artanis

2009-03-29, 09:20 AM

I had played 4th edition throughout the summer, to get an idea of how the system works. We played a short campaign that took characters from 1st to 13th level or so and took for around 20- 22 sessions, before we mutually decided that the game wasn't much fun; by this time, we had already developed a handful of houserules.
I don't own the books anymore, I have never read any book but the first player's guide, the DM guide and the Monsterbook and a few dragon snippets, and certainly, many people have more experience with the system than me. Nonetheless, my impression of the system is based on the practical experiences I gathered during the gaming sessions, where I both played a character and run a few pretty mediocre sessions with it.
*phew*

That's a relief to hear. I always hate when people make judgements about the in-depth workings of things they've never experienced, so it's good to know that you have, in fact, "tried it before you knocked it", so to speak :smallsmile:

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-29, 02:17 PM

This is, in fact, not true. Look at an old AD&D module - it's almost guaranteed that most leaders are quite high-level. And this isn't really insensible - realistically, kings would have been knights, and well-trained ones. It's not at all unreasonable to represent them as being high-level.

And NPC's don't gain experience points - those are solely for PC's. NPC's are simply whatever level the DM finds appropriate.

Well... back in 2nd, pretty much all NPCs were 0th Level unless you wanted to make them have character levels. Why, back then giving NPCs character levels was the easiest way to model a town guard or the local wizard.

And yes, while I am aware that pretty much all the new Lords in 2nd Edition were 10th Level Fighters, I am specifically talking about hereditary rulers. Vassals, to be sure, would have to be knights in a hard feudal setting - and would train their sons similarly - but not all Kings (the dudes on top) rode out into battle with their vassals. Particularly in more peaceful settings (e.g. no viking raids every couple of weeks) there is plenty of room for slack vassals who have to do more managing of assets than killing of barbarians.

And even then, there is no reason to expect some Duke to be 10th level or higher - a 10th level Fighter is hugely powerful and had to devote lots of time to his training. This is why many 2nd Edition games slowed down around 10th level; once you have keeps and retainers, you have to spend more time maintaining your lands, which leaves less time for dragon-slaying.

If it tries to emulate complex decisions and their results in combat, it horribly fails; I had more te impression that not the tactical level plays a significant role, but a combination of "you can make some cool stunts" and "here you have your activities, use them as prescripted, you don't need to think".

I would respectfully disagree.
To begin with, even using those "cool stunts" correctly can take a good level of tactical awareness. At a bare minimum, you need to use resource management, and then effective target selection, and then be aware of synergies between your powers (and those of your allies) in order to use them most efficiently. I'm sure you consider all of that "too basic" to really qualify, but a trained ear listening to the PA/PvP (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20080530) Podcasts (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20090218) can see how much harder these games were because of that basic lack.

After that, you have to consider your basic options - basic melee, basic ranged, Bull Rush, Grab - which cover most of the, well, basics of combat; you can either smack your enemy, throw something at him, push him back or keep him still. Tripping, Disarming, and Sundering all all too powerful to allow anyone to use them untrained, so they are reserved for Class Powers, to reflect the extra training needed to do them. Those basic options can then allow for rather complex interactions - should you hit the enemy wizard, or try and grab him so that you can drag him away from his bodyguards and into the waiting arms of the party barbarian? Should you move over by the pit to avoid getting flanked, or is the risk of getting pushed in too great?

Next, you look at "passive" class abilities. Marking is a prime example - it allows you to pin down enemies and restrict their options. When used on you, it changes your priorities dramatically. Auras are a type of passive ability that allows you to manipulate the battlefield as well - Rain of Steel makes it very unhealthy to hang out next to the Polearm Fighter, but if you don't close, you can't hit him - and he can hit you!

Finally, you get to the actual powers. You have your At-Wills which are surprisingly flexible (Tide of Iron gives you a free push with a hit, Ray of Frost drops a target's speed to 2, etc.), Encounters that usually have secondary effects best saved for The Right Moment, and Dailies that can literally change the battlefield, not to mention the course of battle.
In short, I think you're looking at Powers as limitations when they are not. The Power system does what every combat system tries to do - simulate the actions you can take in combat. IMHO 4E does a good job balancing tactical choice with challenge; being able to disarm (with certainty) every foe you come upon makes it rather silly to bother with weapons in the first place. As for more off-the-wall suggestions, 4E provides a helpful set of guidelines for working them into your game - the famous DMG 42 tables - which is about all I can ask of a system that is at all usable.

Alleine

2009-03-29, 02:58 PM

I am not really criticising, I only found that there is a certain gap between the intention and the implementation of the D&D combat rules. I never claimed that the strong focus on combat in D&D is a bad thing- only that such an emphasis exists. What I critizised were the form of the combat rules, which doesn't offer that many options or even suspense in the combats desite this strong focus.

Ok, I see now. That makes sense. For 3.5 I'd have to disagree for the most part, simply because of the wide number of options opened up to everyone as more splat books were published. Tome of Battle, for instance, opens up far more options to melee combatants. While you could still argue that magic users have more options, the gap was lessened to a great degree. The lack of combat options is only really felt early on(imho), but gets better as you become more powerful and capable.
I also have to disagree with saying combat has no suspense, unless you mean suspense in a different way than I am thinking. IMO it is up to the DM to create suspenseful combat sequences. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it isn't.

Thane of Fife

2009-03-29, 04:46 PM

Well... back in 2nd, pretty much all NPCs were 0th Level unless you wanted to make them have character levels. Why, back then giving NPCs character levels was the easiest way to model a town guard or the local wizard.

And yes, while I am aware that pretty much all the new Lords in 2nd Edition were 10th Level Fighters, I am specifically talking about hereditary rulers. Vassals, to be sure, would have to be knights in a hard feudal setting - and would train their sons similarly - but not all Kings (the dudes on top) rode out into battle with their vassals. Particularly in more peaceful settings (e.g. no viking raids every couple of weeks) there is plenty of room for slack vassals who have to do more managing of assets than killing of barbarians.

And even then, there is no reason to expect some Duke to be 10th level or higher - a 10th level Fighter is hugely powerful and had to devote lots of time to his training. This is why many 2nd Edition games slowed down around 10th level; once you have keeps and retainers, you have to spend more time maintaining your lands, which leaves less time for dragon-slaying.

Looking through just the kings of England who fought:
Egbert of Wessex
Ethelred of Wessex
Alfred the Great
Edward the Elder
Aethelstan of England
Edmund I
Edgar the Peaceful
Edmund Ironside
Sweyn Forkbeard
Canut the Great
Harthacanute
Edward the Confessor
Harold Godwinson
Edgar the Etheling (admittedly after his reign)
William the Conquerer
William the Second
Henry I
Stephen I
Henry II
Henry the Young King
Richard I
John

And that's only going up to 1216. And only England. So yes, kings did go to war. Or wikipedia is horribly, horribly mistaken.

For more of a fantasy perspective:

Aragorn
Boromir (sort of a prince)
Faramir
Theoden
Eomer
Theodred (never actually became king, but a prince)
Isildur
All nine of the Nazgul

And that's just the Lord of the Rings.

If we further look at AD&D stuff:

Virtually every Forgotten Realms ruler is high level
All of the Savage Coast rulers who come to mind was of moderately high level
I was just reading a Ravenloft module with a lvl 15 cleric for a queen

And so on and so forth.

Artanis

2009-03-29, 04:49 PM

*stuff*
So you're saying that every single king of every single kingdom in history fought in war? Because what OH said was that there were some - not all, but some - who stayed home.

hamishspence

2009-03-29, 04:50 PM

the last king of England to actually die in battle, was Richard III. Last to actually fight in battle (was a bit of a fiasco) was George II, so its long standing.

Thane of Fife

2009-03-29, 05:05 PM

So you're saying that every single king of every single kingdom in history fought in war? Because what OH said was that there were some - not all, but some - who stayed home.

As I read the comment, it was suggesting that kings generally left the combat to their vassals. And that's not true, in real life or fantasy.

If I misread the comment, then I apologize for listing a large number of English kings, but my point remains that most of the AD&D kings whom I've seen stats for are, in fact, high level.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-29, 11:58 PM

As I read the comment, it was suggesting that kings generally left the combat to their vassals. And that's not true, in real life or fantasy.

If I misread the comment, then I apologize for listing a large number of English kings, but my point remains that most of the AD&D kings whom I've seen stats for are, in fact, high level.

Of course they are - if the King is statted out, he'd better be useful in combat!

This is, actually, an unstated assumption (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorityEqualsAsskicking) in many early editions of D&D, done in part because of the Stronghold feature in 2nd, but also to prevent PCs from just knocking over every king they come across. In real life, kings typically fought during the Dark Ages because that was the only way to hold land. If you were a bad enough dude to hold together a posse that could protect some area of land from raiders and rival warlords, you got to be called king. Such "nations" tended to be fragile and collapse as soon as there wasn't a strong enough leader to hold his coalition together.

This is certainly a fair way to run a D&D setting - lots of crusades and strong men civilizing areas. But it is not the only way to do it. One need only look to the High Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ages#High_Middle_Ages) to see enduring bloodlines of kings who do not do much frontline fighting. Look at the history of the Hundred Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War) for example and see how many of those kings died in combat. Most of the fighting was planned and carried out by vassals, who were well trained in the art of war.

My point, I suppose, is that fantasy can cut both ways - you can have Aragorn who has spent most of his life leading the Rangers of the North in constant battle, or you can have Denethor who came from a long line of Stewards and spent his life overseeing the duties of Gondor rather than harrying about killing orcs. Is one more heroic than the other? Yes. But there are some kings who don't spend all their lives on the front-line of battles; they do not gain the skills needed to slay dragons by slaying budget deficits.

Jerthanis

2009-03-30, 01:19 AM

Here's what I read into this discussion: Different RPGs have different methods of accomplishing their focuses.

Saytr seems to want to be able to poke his opponents in the eye with a sharp stick in combat. (figuratively speaking)

Oracle Hunter suggests that the powers system is the method by which D&D conveys the desire by the character to poke someone in the eye with a sharp stick.

It could be said that there will be times you want to poke someone in the eye with a sharp stick when you're playing a character who does not have the specific power required to attempt to do so... but if it's mechanically more effective to poke someone in the eye than it is to, say, poke them in the chest, or liver, or left pinky... and there's no restriction on who can effectively perform the eye-poke maneuver, and no resources are consumed in the attempt... why would anyone anywhere decide to poke anywhere else besides the eye?

The purpose of combat rules in an RPG is to define the limits and results of actions like this so that it doesn't become a race to see who blinds the other person first. Anima does this with hit-location charts and penalties to hit or defense based on the chosen location... but some systems opt to skip out on that avenue and choose other methods, and D&D's method is one of them. Whether you like how D&D does it is a personal decision, but it's hard to argue D&D simply doesn't allow for it... it just does so in a largely different way than you may be used to or prefer.

Oslecamo

2009-03-30, 04:36 AM

I don't. Nobody does this, in fact. I have no idea where you picked up this delusional nonsense. What I claimed -and I am more or less quoting Umberto Eco here - is that every form of fiction requires a framework of internal logic it relates to. In a roleplaying game, this includes compulsorily that rules and world description, and game intention and game implementation do not contradict each other.
Where you collected the delusion that verisimilitude is anything but specifically coined to one specific tale / game / piece of fiction, is beyond me.
Because I didn't. From your words, I assumed you were the one doing that.
My point is that there's no fiction work out there who can hold it's verisimilitude if it starts neing analyzed by an outsider.

Please, don't embarass yourself anymore with this brainfart of an arguement. It is completely sense-free, and you probably know it, so don't make me spell it out how stupid it really is. Just don't.
I'll take this that you can't properly refute my words and you refuse to admit you're wrong. If it's so stupid, by all means, prove it.

Wait what? I have no idea were you found this one. I don't think I own enough alcohol to make your statements make sense.
Of course you don't. Drinking alchool by itself won't allow you to even begin to understand the complexity of the circulatory system of a living being and the many ways it can go wrong.

In roughly 80% of the games I participate in, I run the game. I would be a poor Gamemaster if I were not able to predict how the creatures in my games should behave.
But apart from this admittedly easy answer, every narrative that is worth anything follows an internal logic and works within certain boundaries. There is no creative storytelling without the obligation to set yourself limits, or yoe land in complete arbitrariness and chaos.

Precisely. The monsters and NPCs don't do X because the DM/GM doesn't want them to do. The wonderfull comic on wich these forums are based follow this logic, and most people like it and consider it a pretty good story, even if several the characters act stupidly/randomly/contradictorly for the sake of the rule of cool and plot.

Oslecamo

2009-03-30, 04:50 AM

I don't. Nobody does this, in fact. I have no idea where you picked up this delusional nonsense. What I claimed -and I am more or less quoting Umberto Eco here - is that every form of fiction requires a framework of internal logic it relates to. In a roleplaying game, this includes compulsorily that rules and world description, and game intention and game implementation do not contradict each other.
Where you collected the delusion that verisimilitude is anything but specifically coined to one specific tale / game / piece of fiction, is beyond me.
Because I didn't. From your words, I assumed you were calling verisimilitude to something else. People keep changing words meanings nowadays. And since you kept comparing D&D to other fictions wich also don't have "real verisimilitude" of their own, I got somewhat confused on the matter.

Please, don't embarass yourself anymore with this brainfart of an arguement. It is completely sense-free, and you probably know it, so don't make me spell it out how stupid it really is. Just don't.
I'll take this that you can't properly refute my words and you refuse to admit you're wrong on the matter. Biology is a very complex thing kids.

Wait what? I have no idea were you found this one. I don't think I own enough alcohol to make your statements make sense.
Of course you don't. Drinking alchool by itself won't make someone smarter or able to see something better, on the contrary.

In roughly 80% of the games I participate in, I run the game. I would be a poor Gamemaster if I were not able to predict how the creatures in my games should behave.
But apart from this admittedly easy answer, every narrative that is worth anything follows an internal logic and works within certain boundaries. There is no creative storytelling without the obligation to set yourself limits, or yoe land in complete arbitrariness and chaos.

Precisely. The monsters and NPCs don't do X because the DM/GM doesn't want them to do. The wonderfull comic on wich these forums are based follow this logic, and most people like it and consider it a pretty good story, even if several times the characters act stupidly/randomly/contradictorly for the sake of the rule of cool and plot.

Satyr

2009-03-30, 06:11 AM

Oracle Hunter:
It seems to me that we prefer very different styles of gaming, so that we come to very different results if each of us if we compare the diffferent approaches; while I think that we come to similar results, when looking at how the things work differently, we evaluate it very differently;
I prefer a "bottom up" approach, where players essentially get a lot of basic building blocks which makes sense in the context of the game, and can set them together in the way they like and which makes sense to them; I think that makes sense not only in the sense of options, because an approach to this will lead to a very differentiated and various number of final results but also in the sense of verisimilitude, as long as the basic modules make sense in the overall context of the game or campaign;
you however seem to be quite content with the prefabricated final modules that the different maneuvers essentiale are.

Here's what I read into this discussion: Different RPGs have different methods of accomplishing their focuses.

Saytr seems to want to be able to poke his opponents in the eye with a sharp stick in combat. (figuratively speaking)

Oracle Hunter suggests that the powers system is the method by which D&D conveys the desire by the character to poke someone in the eye with a sharp stick.

That is actually a quite good summary of most of this discussion, well apart from the comic relief moments.

Speaking about comic relief:

My point is that there's no fiction work out there who can hold it's verisimilitude if it starts neing analyzed by an outsider.

Verisimilitude is always depending on the willing suspension of disbelief. That is pretty much in the definition of the terminology. The more sceptical you are, the less plausible things seem to you; the more naive you are, the more plausible a story becomes. Like all more or less subjective elements, verisimiltude is depending on the context and the readers or players. Your point is therefore quite meaningless, as it is a complete redundant claim.

I'll take this that you can't properly refute my words and you refuse to admit you're wrong on the matter. Biology is a very complex thing kids.

I really like this quote; due to the double post you can really see that you wrote it again to be more insulting. That's so great. I'm really impressed now and will cease my case if you return to the nice shady place under the bridge...

okay, I know I shouldn't do this. But sometimes I feel this urge to even state complete obvious facts to people who live in oblivion. Sorry for that.

Cure spells in D&D heal pretty much any form of afliction that is represented in HP loss, which is normally formulated as "damage". The source of this damage is absolutely irrelevant for the cure spell, it will heal everything in complete indifference of the source. A cure spell heals injuries from burnings as well as bruised or broken bones, bleeding cuts as well as the damage from a fall, the revitalisation of somebody after swallowing lots of water, frostbite as well as nosebleeds, up to completely exotic effects of pure magic power or even divine intervention. The different forms of injuries which can be healed with a Cure spell are as big as the sources of damage a character can face - and it really doesn't matter from the spell's perspective what ever lead to the damage - but, according to Osleacamo, internal bleedings caused from childbirth are an exception, because the damage is so different from everything else. Does that make any sense to you?

Of course you don't. Drinking alchool by itself won't make someone smarter or able to see something better, on the contrary.

Priceless. I would introduce you to my friend sarcasm, but he's occupied right now with pointing and laughing, so...

Thane of Fife

2009-03-30, 07:33 AM

My point, I suppose, is that fantasy can cut both ways - you can have Aragorn who has spent most of his life leading the Rangers of the North in constant battle, or you can have Denethor who came from a long line of Stewards and spent his life overseeing the duties of Gondor rather than harrying about killing orcs. Is one more heroic than the other? Yes. But there are some kings who don't spend all their lives on the front-line of battles; they do not gain the skills needed to slay dragons by slaying budget deficits.

My point was more that, in contrast to what Yahzi said, and you seemed to agree with, D&D kings and nobles are generally fairly high in level. Further, that it's perfectly reasonable for them to be high-level.

Do they all need to be high level? No, of course not. I was merely asserting that they are generally depicted as being so.

Winterwind

2009-03-30, 11:50 AM

Satyr, would this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235) happen to be a good illustration of your point? :smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter

2009-03-30, 12:02 PM

I prefer a "bottom up" approach, where players essentially get a lot of basic building blocks which makes sense in the context of the game, and can set them together in the way they like and which makes sense to them; I think that makes sense not only in the sense of options, because an approach to this will lead to a very differentiated and various number of final results but also in the sense of verisimilitude, as long as the basic modules make sense in the overall context of the game or campaign;
you however seem to be quite content with the prefabricated final modules that the different maneuvers essentiale are.

I'm curious - what system do you think represents this the best? And how exactly does the mechanic work to satisfy you?

Kalirren

2009-03-30, 12:32 PM

Cure spells in D&D heal pretty much any form of afliction that is represented in HP loss, which is normally formulated as "damage". The source of this damage is absolutely irrelevant for the cure spell, it will heal everything in complete indifference of the source. A cure spell heals injuries from burnings as well as bruised or broken bones, bleeding cuts as well as the damage from a fall, the revitalisation of somebody after swallowing lots of water, frostbite as well as nosebleeds, up to completely exotic effects of pure magic power or even divine intervention. The different forms of injuries which can be healed with a Cure spell are as big as the sources of damage a character can face - and it really doesn't matter from the spell's perspective what ever lead to the damage - but, according to Osleacamo, internal bleedings caused from childbirth are an exception, because the damage is so different from everything else. Does that make any sense to you?

Yes, actually. In my games HP are generally looked at as an abstraction of stamina, nothing more. When we model real, chronic injury like frostbite or childbirth or a stab to the gut, we use ability damage (and drain, where appropriate).

Yes, this isn't what the rules say, but I'm given to understand that this sort of ruling was more commonly made in the old days, when the rules were understood more as precedents known to be convenient than as enumerations of powers/situations and their resolution.

This is, in general, is my anti-thesis to the OP's thesis; the OP assumes that the focus of a rules system to a certain extent forces the focus of any game played under that rules system to a related extent. I disagree. While I would agree that learning to play RPGs under a rules system with a heavy focus in one area (say combat) would engender a playing style that emphasizes that area, I do not find the opposite relationship to be true in general. The gist of LurkerinPlayground's point seems to be that in early D&D, the game was typically more broad than its combat-heavy rules (which were kludged off of wargaming because wargaming was conveniently there) would suggest.

Short version:
The rules are there to be convenient, not to govern the game. To govern the game is the Game Master's job. D&D's extensive combat rules aren't there to promote a style of play revolving around combat. The combat rules are extensive because over the course of the system's development, it was understood that combat was part of what adventurers did, and combat was not easily handled fairly in a freeform system. On the other hand, freeform is more acceptable for describing how adventurers deal with the world and the other people in it. The end result is that the system looks entirely combat-centric, even though the games that were intially played in it were not confined to the scope of combat.

Fawsto

2009-03-30, 12:54 PM

@ Satyr and Oslecamo

Guys, lets just stop right there, ok? I am telling you this before a mod has to. I don't think flaming against eachother is helping anything here. Also, I don't like to see people banned around or anything like this.

@ the Healing stuff.

I am with the idea that Cure Wounds spells can fix almost everything in DnD. But I also remember that there are several effects that deal damage to an ability score. I can totally see a HR or R. Interpretation that says that, for instance and example, the internal bleeding due to given birth is nothing short of a Con damage. A bad one, like 3d6, that can kill most of mothers if they suffer from it if not fixed. Lesser or normal Restoration, while not a Cure spell, would be the key to solve this problem.

@ at the verisimilitude thing

Guys, the name of the game is dungeons & DRAGONS. Reality is in short supply in the game. Deal with that. But while we are dealing with fantasy games, we can still can make things look possible and plausible.

Now, me and my group are discovering ourselves in apoint where we are learning to stop to make questions. Seriously. We have been playing for a while, so even D&D is starting to look shallow for us. For example: The lack of good explanation to the D&D cosmology bother us, but we are learning to stop caring about it and just enjoy playing the game.

Some things are best left unquestioned, for real. I can debate mechanics every day with everyone, but I am not discussing the ways in which D&D makes sense.

Satyr

2009-03-30, 01:11 PM

Satyr, would this happen to be a good illustration of your point?

It goes in the same direction -despite how silly the scene with the elephant trunk surfing elf looked in the movie, the idea of lopping at its legs until it collapses - or it tramples on the pesky adventurers. Not that it is a necessarily bad idea to injure the legs of a huge monster, but why stab it in the toe instead of cutting its sinews (or the achilles tendon, heh).

I'm curious - what system do you think represents this the best? And how exactly does the mechanic work to satisfy you?

There are two approaches I am quite fond of - one way would be a mostly narrative solution - the description of the action is pretty much how the action works, and the quality of the description and the estimated difficulty of the described action to evaluate the effect of the action. This is how I run most "simple" games, like Unisystem or the like. Ideally, this is a very quick and sometimes very suspenseful game, but it has the disadvantage that the system is depending on the decisions of the Gamemaster, and can be a bit arbitrary. Sadly, it is not a very recommendable system for groups were players and gamemaster do not really trust each other.

The alternative is a very detailed system, which is a double-edged sword, as a detailed system is quite likely to slow down the game flow when it is too complicated (not necessarily complex; there are systems that are very complex due to many options but use a very simple core mechanism). Gurps is a great determinator in this category, because it offers many, many options, but the gameplay is still quite fast and the number of options and details you use is very much up to you (and the focus of the campaign).

Guys, the name of the game is dungeons & DRAGONS. Reality is in short supply in the game. Deal with that. But while we are dealing with fantasy games, we can still can make things look possible and plausible.

I thaught that this is pretty much what verisimilitude describes - that a piece of fiction follows an internal logic and that the internal concept of cause and effect works - independently of how realistic cause or effect are.

Fawsto

2009-03-30, 01:53 PM

I thaught that this is pretty much what verisimilitude describes - that a piece of fiction follows an internal logic and that the internal concept of cause and effect works - independently of how realistic cause or effect are.

Ermmm... Exactly. I mean, I was not refuting anything, I was just talking about verisimilitude.

AgentPaper

2009-03-30, 02:12 PM

What Satyr seems to be getting at here, though he hasn't seemed to say it quite right, is that he thinks DnD, as a combat simulator, should try to simulate combat as realistically* as possible. To do this, it should let each player decide what their character is doing at every single moment. You swing, roll strength to see how well you swung. He tries to bring his sword up to parry, roll dex. He also swings his leg out to trip you, rolling dex, at a penalty since he's doing two things at once. He hooks his leg around yours, but doesn't manage to parry, roll to see what part of his arm you hit, and how hard. Roll con to see if you can resist his tripping you. You failed to resist his trip, and now you're falling, roll str to try and take him down with you, and dex to position your sword so that he falls on it. And so on, and so on.

You can try to make combat as hyper-realistic as you want, but in the end you will find that the game just gets bogged down in pointless details. So, you have abstraction come in, which makes the game run much smoother, and faster. This is a good thing. You say that DnD handles combat poorly, but it doesn't. It handles it quite well, I would say, to the point where minor details, like which way you swung your blade, whether you managed to parry or not, which way the wind is blowing, what side of your belt you have your gold purse hanging from, et cetera, are all bundled up in a d20 roll. 3.5 and 4E are mostly similar in this respect, with different ways of representing things like personal style and stances and attack types and such.

Basically, you're looking at the DnD rulebooks as if those were the physics of the world. They are not. The physics of the world are their own, and likely as complex as ours. (and very similar, except for the magic and all) The rules are there so that you can adventure in this world, not to define how it works. If you want the game to be so detailed that you can figure out the social dynamics of a cure spell from it, then you're asking it to do something it isn't supposed to do.

*Using realistically in the sense of what is realistic in the setting. Magic is realistic if that's how it really works.

(Apologies in advance if this post is indecipherable and incoherent. I've been dead tired writing it, and going to bed now, but it seems okay enough to post. Then again I'm dead tired and going to bed, so maybe I shouldn't be making that judgment)