The Gaming Den

Because he's part of the crowd that came around with Darwinism, pretty sure.

Only the early D&D video game series - i.e. Baldur's Gate - had monsters drop their actual equipment for people to loot. Other RPGs - i.e. Final Fantasy, Diablo - gave you loot that was totally random compared to what the monster was actually using. This is how you get gil for killing wild animals with no use for currency.

To be fair, Titan Quest (an awesome Diablo clone that outdoes Diablo in many ways) monsters actually use the weapons they drop. You can actually SEE the monsters smacking you with the uber-weapon you're about to get.

One of the big problems with keeping monsters and players on separate schedules in DnD is that this is a roleplaying game. This means that a fire giant might not always just appear to die at your hands - sometimes the fire giants will want your help killing the frost giant, sometimes they might help you out. When you're using a system like 4e, how does the fire giant interact with the players in this situation? The answer is that they do it really fucking badly.

While there's no reason for players and npcs to have the same rules for character generation(really, a good system will definitely streamline this process) the end result should be entirely compatible with what the pcs get. Otherwise you end up with the utterly bizarre rules interactions that you get in 4e. This also makes things shit-tons easier for the dm - when the players come up with an alternative way to get around a monster, the dm knows how that monster should behave in the world without resorting to bullshitting. When NPCs suddenly have to turn to combat because players figured out their plans ahead of time, it is actually important to know what's going on and what happens when those rules come into play.

"The dm can just bullshit that, you don't need rules for fire giants being able to hide or throw things" is an automatic failure of an answer: for extra credit, tell me why!

Sir Neil wrote:I know why I will not play 4th. What I don't know is why Plebian is putting air quotes around "verisimilitude".

Because he`s actually a banned Darwinism with a new account posting again, and if you`ll recall, Darwinism looked up versimilitude in some online dictionary and decided that it doesn`t mean what it means because the definition in an online dictionary doesn`t match, because he`s actually 14 and so unaware of the fact that versimilitude was in fact invented for the express purpose of differentiating fantasy games like 3e from fantasy games like 4e.

Maxus wrote:Because he's part of the crowd that came around with Darwinism, pretty sure.

Funny part is, I actually registered (paying the $10) at SA just so I could see their 'amazing arguments'.

Unfortunately, I can't find them, and it's ANOTHER $10, I kid you not, just to use the search engine. I've tried PMing the SA dudes that come here asking if they can point out the darn link, but none of them are confident enough in their case to even show me the link....and I'm not pissing away another $10.

I googled Frank Trollman Something Awful, and it returned this thread. I assume that's where they talk about whatever arguments they have, but I definitely didn't want to wade through a 700-page thread which probably contains many things that are tangentially or not at all related.

Also here, several hundred pages later.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So I'm just wondering... if 4E D&D's mechanics actually worked how they wanted to but they just kept the broad style changes (universal powers, magical item showers, elimination of LW/QW, non-monster/player transparency, etc.), how much of the playerbase do you think that they would have lost anyway?

Trying to answer this from a "DM that thinks the system is meh but runs a successful group with players more positive about it" perspective:

There's a fan base out there that pretty much wants a roll-d20s-and-kill-kobolds game that has D&D on the cover, regardless of the exact form it takes. So you can experiment with new rules to a certain degree and still sell "hundreds of thousands" of books. (That legion of superfans probably doesn't map exactly to the ~40% initial acceptance rate they got; not going to guess at the exact %, but almost definitely more than enough to limp along like a lot of older MMOs do.)

Narrowing in on specific 4e changes, I think that, again, a lot of customers "don't care" and were completely willing to go along with stuff like everyone getting "spells" etc. You could always point to positives like fighters being more awesome, wizards being less ridiculous etc., and still be able to give 4e the benefit of the doubt for a while.

On the other hand, I think there were a couple of meta-issues that people ran into, above the rules-minutiae level, that led to abandonment of the game after a while:

Combat taking too long and being too fiddly (carrying over "everyone gets a turn in the spotlight" from 3e, plus "everyone has a spell list now", equals slow combat, not helped by the high hp/low damage monster model they worked out to specifically stretch out combat length); you get this weird disconnect of dramatic story events being represented by slow-poke pushing-your-minis-around punctuated by what power to use to move the target into such-and-such a space, i.e. the dreaded hour-long trash fight; you pretty much had to have been fully invested in the legacy 3e combat-grid model not to be put off by this (unless maybe you like MtG-style games and were there for the rules interactions wank)

The non-combat system not existing (my observation is that once people realize SCs are flimsy and stupid, they don't really care that they're supposed to be "roleplaying devices" or whatever; they'll BS through them, but they'll be fidgeting with their dice the whole time, and want to move on to the part of the game that actually engages them as players; countering this with "you don't need rules to roleplay" misses the point)

Because he`s actually a banned Darwinism with a new account posting again, and if you`ll recall, Darwinism looked up versimilitude in some online dictionary and decided that it doesn`t mean what it means because the definition in an online dictionary doesn`t match, because he`s actually 14 and so unaware of the fact that versimilitude was in fact invented for the express purpose of differentiating fantasy games like 3e from fantasy games like 4e.

...Yes, Kaelik, because if one guy (and in this case, eventually, one forum) on the internet decides a word should have a new and different meaning that will totally be understood by everyone else.

Protip: when trying to come up with a new word or new usage for a word, don't choose an old word that already has a specific meaning- a meaning opposed to what you are actually trying to communicate- in the exact context you intend to use it.

Leaving aside the fact that what you actually wrote as opposed to what you meant says something even stupider.

Versimilitude: The quality of realism in something.
Isn't that exactly what it means?

3E feels like a roleplaying game attempting to 'similuate a fantasy world'.
4E feels like a 'game'. It simulates a fantasy world about as well as Monopoly simulates Real Estate.

Yeah, it wasn't invented for that, but it's not an incorrect usage of the term either. Versimilitude is being used here in the literary application, in exactly the same way it has been applied to the the study of novels (their worlds, the internal consistency therein, and the way that these things cause immersion for the reader) for at least the last 50 years. It's probably older than that even, but that's as old as I felt like looking back in the citations. It's not the only way to use the word though. It is also used in the philosophy of science one (first used by Popper) and there is has a different technical definition. It has also been in use there for at least the last 50 years, and in this case is probably not much older than that since Popper started using it around then.

As one is a discussion of alternate worlds specifically invented to assist the reader with their immersion and one is a technical term used to discuss problems in the epistemology of science, I don't understand why there's any confusion about it's use here. Or why it's somehow inappropriate to use it in a discussion about fictional worlds and the structures within them that support participant immersion, exactly like is done with novels. We use it here in an accepted sense. Move on.

Ok, although Kaelik claiming that Versimilitude was invented to compare 3E to 4E just.. made me go WTF

Aharon wrote:I googled Frank Trollman Something Awful, and it returned this thread. I assume that's where they talk about whatever arguments they have, but I definitely didn't want to wade through a 700-page thread which probably contains many things that are tangentially or not at all related.

Also here, several hundred pages later.

Wow, that is pretty thin and craven. Thanks.

sabs wrote:Ok, although Kaelik claiming that Versimilitude was invented to compare 3E to 4E just.. made me go WTF

I did not claim that it was invented to compare the two, I claimed it was invented for the purpose of comparing (and here I used the word games, but that was inaccurate, as a broader word was needed) like 4e to games like 3e, the point being the word was invented explicitly to differentiate worlds that are internally consistent, and worlds that are specifically not at all consistent with themselves as a real world.

I was unaware of the Popper epistomology definition, so I fell back on my literary education for the meaning of a word used to critique fictional stories.

Okay
That makes more sense. Yes Versimilitude is /exactly/ for comparing literary worlds that are internally consistent vs those that are not. I totally agree. I'm sure you care

You just confused me for a second.

And I think that's a great issue about 4E. 4E feels like I'm playing Monopoly, or Magic th Gathering, or that I'm in a Order of the Stick comic strip.

3E felt at least like it was still trying to simulate a Fantasy World Setting.

Koumei wrote:...Baron Loam is a dick, and says "Not unless you go and kill all the goblins in Saffron-Waldon over thar." Guessing the PCs think this is a stupid thing that is beneath them, he sets guards around the library, instructed to shoot fire arrows inside and burn it down if the party try any tricks to get in.

In 3E they could:

Do the dumb slaughter
Use magic to disguise a member as him, go in and get it/tell them to stand down
Scry and Teleport inside
Use magic or a summoned succubus to convince him to let them have their way
Use magic or a summoned succubus to convince them to ignore his orders
Turn invisible
Cast spells that rapidly knock the guards out (or kill them or whatever), from the shadows, so they can wander on in
Get one character to grease up, slide their entire body inside someone else's rectum and do that as a performance that impresses the Baron so much he lets them in anyway

In 4E they could:

Not even kill the guards in a quick enough time to stop them setting the library on fire, so they have to go over Thar to kill all the goblins.

I bet someone could make a whole book full of one-page scenarios where in 3E (or previous) the party have half a dozen obvious options, and in 4E it's "they have to go and kill the things like the MC told them to. Bring me ten Dire Spider Heads."

This is a wonderful example, Koumei. Go have a cookie on me.

This is a wonderful example, Koumei.

Not really. In fact, it's pretty bad. It just highlights the power of magic users in 3e in contrast to the uselessness of non-casters. 4e would allow more mundane options, such as sneaking in or disguising oneself and entering that way.

But couldn't non-casters sneak or disguise themselves in 3e?

Doom wrote:But couldn't non-casters sneak or disguise themselves in 3e?

They could
Hide/Move Silently and Disguise were all skills in 3E.
There was even an acting skill of some flavor.

Zinegata wrote:Fine, not the Slinger, bad example.

In practical terms though, you can't loot the Slinger's ammo because it breaks the system. You can now add an immobilization effect that only ends on a save to any ranged weapon ability using a sling. Seriously, that's why people in Enworld ask other peeps whether they even allow it to be looted:

Oh, I see. You are complaining about a houserule rather than the flaw that the houserule is supposed to fix.

In 4e, monster items are props and costumes... they're there for effect.

That's an actual design choice that made the game emulate video games far more than random loot tables ever did.

The "item" in the linked thread that led to this quote is a power that monster possessed not an actual item. This is the problem with recycled complaints, if the other person doesn't know what they where talking about then the complaint could be made of nothing.

However, if someone wants to look there might be just such an item, but no evidence is yet provided for this.

So to get special ammo like gluepots, the only way for you to get them is to find a Kobold Slinger and kill him. And that no Kobold Slinger ever wised up and decided to open a shop to sell gluepot ammo instead.

And here is the actual flaw rather than that houserule that you where complaining about.

Data Vampire wrote:

Zinegata wrote:Fine, not the Slinger, bad example.

In practical terms though, you can't loot the Slinger's ammo because it breaks the system. You can now add an immobilization effect that only ends on a save to any ranged weapon ability using a sling. Seriously, that's why people in Enworld ask other peeps whether they even allow it to be looted:

Oh, I see. You are complaining about a houserule rather than the flaw that the houserule is supposed to fix. :nonono:

Zinegata already said that. In the bit you just quoted. he went on to explain why it was still a relevent example. Why is that bad again?

And on verisimilitude:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimili ... iterature)
especially:

This classical notion of verisimilitude focused on the role of the reader in his/her engagement in the fictional work of art. The goal of the novel therefore, as it became a more popular form of Verisimilitude, was to instruct and offer a pleasurable experience to the reader. The novel had to facilitate the reader's willingness to suspend his or her disbelief, a phrase used originally by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Verisimilitude became the means to accomplish this mindset.

As more criticism on the novel surfaced, the inclusion of a preface or a scattering of some historical references was not enough to engage the reader. French theorist Pierre Nicolas Desmolets' notion that the author should obscure the fiction or art of the novel to avoid destroying illusion: the made up attributes of the text. The novel before was perceived as a work of distinct parts. Now the novel was not thought of in terms of separate parts, but rather as a work as a whole. The novel was a total illusion of life within itself. It was a closed fictional world that could establish its own rules and laws. Verisimilitude then became deeply rooted in structure. The focus of credibility did not rest solely on the external world of the reader. The novel's credibility then could be seen in terms of the novel's own internal logic.

That usage sounds pretty fuckin' similar to me.

thinking about it, picking out kobold slingers' ammo as a stumbling block is funny; did it bother you in 2E or 3E that thri-kreen didn't bottle and sell their saliva? oh man look it's a creature ability that would be very marketable in anything resembling a real economy but there are no rules for it!

the point is that every tabletop with a comprehensive list of monsters like D&D will have monster abilities that maybe should be translated to PC armaments but it would lead to horrendously bloated item lists.

also I've never had any problems with verisimilitude in 4E, no more than earlier editions, I guess probably because I don't see the OOC mechanics of the game as part of the world I'm trying to believe

You don't see the mechanics of the game world as part of the internal logic of the world?

Kobold slingers' ammo presumably isn't made from their own by-products.

Nice false dichotomy.

And both 2e and 3.x had books with rules for playing thri-kreen, so saying that their poison was an ability that no player could ever get under any circumstances is ridiculous.

nice try at an idiotic fallacy claim; if I hadn't been arguing that it didn't make economic sense for the two to not market products they had access to you might've had a point

fectin wrote:You don't see the mechanics of the game world as part of the internal logic of the world?

not at all, otherwise I would really have to work hard at imagining why a paladin could only smack an evil guy with righteous power a few times a day at high levels or any other number of examples. sir Valorous the Purest, level 20 Paladin, scion of Holygod, can still only ask his god to smite an evil-doer five times a day. why would any god interested in smiting evil place limitations on that smiting?

thinking about why the mechanics work inside the gameworld is pointless in any fantasy setting because abilities will always be arbitrarily limited, in game-world terms, because of balance reasons inside the game-world.

this doesn't mean mechanics don't influence the fluff, but if you really do try to envision the mechanics of a game in any way regarding verisimilitude you're going to break the concept for yourself

Why does that invalidate my claim?

I just pointed out that your examples were stupid.