Author Topic: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons  (Read 12518 times)

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2012, 05:53:05 PM »
Partial tangent : a fun thing about the outsized influence of the C.O. board ...


The constant spinning of rubik's cube like combinations of too many rules,
keeps turning up all sorts of crazy.  It's that kind of crazy that rings the demi-god
level dinner bell, that made the old CO board what it was. 

People obviously love this stuff.
"Did you see what Thor did today?" 
"No. But did you see what the little level 6 Cleric did better than Thor?"
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3352
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2012, 08:30:46 PM »
Partial tangent : a fun thing about the outsized influence of the C.O. board ...


The constant spinning of rubik's cube like combinations of too many rules,
keeps turning up all sorts of crazy.  It's that kind of crazy that rings the demi-god
level dinner bell, that made the old CO board what it was. 

People obviously love this stuff.
"Did you see what Thor did today?" 
"No. But did you see what the little level 6 Cleric did better than Thor?"

This is exactly why I love D&D 3.5.  It's not balanced, but it allows you to do totally stupid stuff that quite obviously wasn't intended but works anyway.  It's about pushing the limits; testing the boundaries. 
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2012, 09:07:21 PM »

This is exactly why I love D&D 3.5.  It's not balanced, but it allows you to do totally stupid stuff that quite obviously wasn't intended but works anyway.  It's about pushing the limits; testing the boundaries.


...and it's why I like 3.5 far better as an abstract rules exercise than as an actual game I want to sit down and play.  I enjoy tinkering with 3.5, but when it comes time to sit down and play, there are a lot of other games higher on my list.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3352
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2012, 02:16:31 AM »
...and it's why I like 3.5 far better as an abstract rules exercise than as an actual game I want to sit down and play.  I enjoy tinkering with 3.5, but when it comes time to sit down and play, there are a lot of other games higher on my list.

That's the thing though, you don't actually PLAY the broken stuff in a real game.  Unless the entire group is, but even then there should be some agreed-upon limits.  My point was that 3.5 gives you the option of choosing the power level you're comfortable with.
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2012, 01:37:48 PM »

This is exactly why I love D&D 3.5.  It's not balanced, but it allows you to do totally stupid stuff that quite obviously wasn't intended but works anyway.  It's about pushing the limits; testing the boundaries.


...and it's why I like 3.5 far better as an abstract rules exercise than as an actual game I want to sit down and play.  I enjoy tinkering with 3.5, but when it comes time to sit down and play, there are a lot of other games higher on my list.
Idle curiosity:  what's on your list?

I often use one or two charopp ideas in a given character, at least sometimes.  E.g., I wanted to play a dragon character, I appreciated their psychology -- how they are different from humans in their urges and outlooks -- and they are also iconic.  And, they mesh well with D&D -- you can play a lawful good crusading dragon who still is quite acquisitive.  But, of course, the LA is balls, and you end up with that playing a dragon that is decidedly undragonlike.  Enter supermount. 

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2012, 06:19:29 PM »
No, they don't. 40K for example is massively popular, and its fans actualy gloat about how incosistent the setting is, where power-armored mutants are shot down by medieval mook arrows and there's no less than two whole factions that run on "lol magic did it".

Yea but 40k did it on purpose.  It was very tongue in cheek and never meant to be taken seriously.
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

But Matt Ward takes incosistencies to a whole new level. Straight from his latest rulebook:

"... there were many hundreds of Necrontyr dynasties. Some wielded vast political and military power while others were vestigial and broken, echoes of once great houses. Through the Wars of Secession, the rebellion against biotransference, the War in heaven the Great Sleep, many thousands of royal dynasties were destroyed. It is impossible to say how many survived, save that they number in the hundreds, or possibly thousands."


All on the very same paragraph. Somehow a whole faction suffers casualities bigger than their total population, then ends up with the same numbers they had before. And Ward got massive praises for writing this kind of stuff. We D&D players don't really have a reason to complain.


This is exactly why I love D&D 3.5.  It's not balanced, but it allows you to do totally stupid stuff that quite obviously wasn't intended but works anyway.  It's about pushing the limits; testing the boundaries.


...and it's why I like 3.5 far better as an abstract rules exercise than as an actual game I want to sit down and play.  I enjoy tinkering with 3.5, but when it comes time to sit down and play, there are a lot of other games higher on my list.
Idle curiosity:  what's on your list?

I often use one or two charopp ideas in a given character, at least sometimes.  E.g., I wanted to play a dragon character, I appreciated their psychology -- how they are different from humans in their urges and outlooks -- and they are also iconic.  And, they mesh well with D&D -- you can play a lawful good crusading dragon who still is quite acquisitive.  But, of course, the LA is balls, and you end up with that playing a dragon that is decidedly undragonlike.  Enter supermount. 

Or enter homebrew! It's my personal theory that no group out there plays 100% raw. Everybody has diferent amounts of personal houserules fiting to their tastes.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2012, 06:26:13 PM »
I think Veekie was referring to baseball there, where pitches frequently hit the 100mph mark and need to hit the catcher's glove.  There's a sport called Jai Alai that gets even faster (204mph is the current actual game speed record) where you're required to catch the ball on the rebound.

Quote
Well, then we're in luck that D&D is an adventure game and not a basic military game right? Because yes, in most fantasy tripping and grappling are pretty common tactics.
I think you misunderstood.  Veekie was saying that those are common tactics that are commonly misrepresented as being uncommon. 
Pretty much yes. Things that are possible but uncommon tend to be treated as impossible(presumably because you don't do them yourself), things that are common fundamental tactics get treated as exotic tricks for the same reason. Meanwhile, in magic-land, because you have no basis for your expectations you have no negative expectations
Quote
On topic, I think consistency is important to any setting that is trying to be taken seriously.  I just don't think Monte Cook cares about doing anything other than justifying his opinions and making not-3.0.  I'm hoping he at least remembers that his Ivory Tower game design was a bad idea.  Not a fan of including trap choices and then claiming that it's all balanced.
Consistency is valuable, but its really difficult to enforce across product level without stifling flexibility or power. Game systems based on consistent magic rules can run against exploitations OF these consistent rules, which may have exploitable imbalances when scaled up or down.Sorta like physics really, we've been doing exactly that in technology.

So they need to strike a balance between actual gameplay actions(and balance capabilities according to those), consistency(I don't expect them to create entirely consistent products, but some degree of consistency would be nice) and flexibility/creativity(usually done by allowing high degrees of interpretation in the rules, or by exercising creativity WITHIN the rules).
Its tough enough to get two factors covered well, but all three is problematic. And those are just concerns covering ONE iteration of a game, evolving expectations over editions and the setting's history generates even more problems along all these lines.

Backwards compatibility, existing preconceptions, these can throw the above factors into chaos.

EDIT: What I'd LIKE to see, is consistency in magic through the use of Rule Magic, where magic at least has rules governing them beyond game mechanics, and establishes what they can or cannot do, as well as How they do such things.
What exactly do the spell components do to draw out the magic, where do they get it from, and what you need to shape, control and define them.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 06:30:11 PM by veekie »
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline littha

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2952
  • +1 Holy Muffin
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2012, 07:19:02 PM »
No, they don't. 40K for example is massively popular, and its fans actualy gloat about how incosistent the setting is, where power-armored mutants are shot down by medieval mook arrows and there's no less than two whole factions that run on "lol magic did it".

Yea but 40k did it on purpose.  It was very tongue in cheek and never meant to be taken seriously.
(click to show/hide)

Yea it's Orks, their technology only works because they think it does... Red ones literally go faster.

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2012, 07:34:30 PM »

Idle curiosity:  what's on your list?


Oh, all sorts of things, but a list is probably a bit too off-topic for the thread and board.  I can send you a PM, if you like?

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2012, 07:37:32 PM »
EDIT: What I'd LIKE to see, is consistency in magic through the use of Rule Magic, where magic at least has rules governing them beyond game mechanics, and establishes what they can or cannot do, as well as How they do such things.
What exactly do the spell components do to draw out the magic, where do they get it from, and what you need to shape, control and define them.

I personally find that route nonsensical, since if "magic" has perfectly stablished and logic rules that've been carefully analyzed, then it's not magic anymore, it's science. And I'll punch you if you bring that nonsensical law that "sufficiently analyzed X is...". Sufficiently analyzed real magic makes the researcher go mad and crazy stuff happen, that then cannot be replicated after the dust settles.

No, they don't. 40K for example is massively popular, and its fans actualy gloat about how incosistent the setting is, where power-armored mutants are shot down by medieval mook arrows and there's no less than two whole factions that run on "lol magic did it".

Yea but 40k did it on purpose.  It was very tongue in cheek and never meant to be taken seriously.
(click to show/hide)

Yea it's Orks, their technology only works because they think it does... Red ones literally go faster.

Actually, orks may be into something about that:
-What's the space marine chapter with the faster army? Blood angels. In red armor.
-What's the space marine chapter faster at cleaning the battlefield out of stuff before anyone even notices they're there? Blood ravens. Also in red armor.
-What's the chaos faction faster in closing up in melee? Khorne followers, that also love red.
-In the Gundam universe, red ones go three times as fast.
-In the DC universe, flash is the fastest. Also red.
-Gurren Laggan, from his battle scenes where he casually crosses galaxy-size distances, he's around a zillion times faster than light. Red as well.
-Kyosuke Nanbu has a real mecha that's so heavy that's it's almost impossible to control, yet is one of the fastest in the setting(when charging in a straight line at least). It's painted red.

Are those coincidences? I think not. :p

Offline littha

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2952
  • +1 Holy Muffin
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2012, 07:42:21 PM »
I would argue Dark Angels or White Scars are faster than blood angels. At least by the fluff.

Slaanesh are definitely faster than Khorne, they have higher initiative. And Boobsnakes...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 07:44:40 PM by littha »

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2012, 09:53:38 PM »
There is a significant difference between having established rules, and having perfectly known rules. Mythological magic had rules, and nobody ever claimed that wasn't very magical. Whether you are talking about old school totem invocations and their resultant taboos and banes, or the mathematics of hermetic magic, or even priests invoking gods and saints(different archangels providing different boons, though apparently most demons provide access to the future and sex) for effect. Rules make the difference between 'its magic' and 'one guy making shit up', repeating a given ritual and its conditions gives you the same effect, or magic cannot be taught.

Magi also take various components of magic and extrapolate further effects. Say sulfur is associated with fire, and thus purification, so an elixir made with sulfur would be effective at banishing unwanted influences, cleaning, creating fire or warding off disease, but be unlikely to aid in creating water, transforming one thing into another, flying or making metal harder.

Spellcraft especially, implies magic, and especially invoked magic(i.e. spells and items) are distinct, with analyzable effects and predictable outcomes, even in setting. You can look at the spell components as a mage casts and know with reasonable certainty whats going to come out is a fireball and not a fiendish rabbit.

More importantly, it gives at least a similar degree of restriction to what can or cannot be done in the world as physical actions, if restricted along different lines. It provides a schema for such actions across the magic/mundane medium, since you can now relate magical actions to the setting and adjudicate. It does not also necessarily mean you have a Grand Unified Theory for magic, different effects might only follow a smaller number of universal rules. This is useful for consistency across the system and within magic itself.

How do you affect a target you can't see or touch. Its also useful for obtaining defenses and countermeasures against magic other than direct applications of magic. Can you confiscate only the spell components and foci needed for destructive magic without preventing a mage from plying his trade entirely? What are the mundane means of telling that someone is a transformed faerie rather than an actual prince?  If magic flows across the world, would a scholar be able to study and identify areas of particularly intense or weak magic, or where natural portals are likely to form? Can this energy be cut off or manipulated by mundane means?
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2012, 10:15:00 PM »
It's the difference between Scientific Realism and Versimilitude.

If magic is definitionally unknowable, that's not even lovecraftian magic, that's.. I don't even know.  We could have unknowable magic in this reality, for example, as we by definition /couldn't know about it/.

Magic that is internally consistent doesn't mean 'no magic ever can scry through lead sheets'.  It just means /magic can't NORMALLY scry through lead sheets/.  An archmage could totally invent magic that teleports to the astral plane, has a looksee, then comes back, completely bypassing physical obstacles.  That is allowed for under versimilitudinous magic.

EDIT:  Oh, yeah, and as for tyranids, the answer is 'suns'.  A sun provides all the energy you'd ever need.  If not a sun, then the interstellar medium is made of fissible elements, and if the tyranids don't have biofusion i'll eat my hat.

The whole 'they eat biomass and make tyranids' thing is stupid.  What they do is take all the water.  Unless you can atomically change matter, the quickest/easiest way to create a whole bunch of biological beings is with a whole bunch of water.  Tyranids roll into a system, deep mine asteroids for water/other stuff, suck up gas giant gasses, mine all the worlds and moons, and siphon off the solar wind, and have massive bionets spread in close orbit to the sun to power this whole process with heat and light generated by the sun.  They use little semi-autonomous biorobots to do all this.  And then when those biorobots go onto an inhabited planet, people go AHHHHHHHH OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMGOMGOMGGOMGOMGOGMGOMG and shoot at them and then you get the 'tyranid invasion' trope.  They don't 'just' eat up existing biomass.

As for the whole genestealer thing, that's part of the datavore tyranid philosophy.  They eat up sentient creatures to learn more about the universe, and, to get any tech that exceeds their own, and, to wipe out any civilizations that may advance to be a threat to their galactic/universal dominance.

Honestly they're probably a leftover bioweapon from some massive conflict (the old ones vs the necrons?) or whatever.  Their modus operandi fits perfectly.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 10:21:15 PM by Rejakor »

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2012, 10:25:06 PM »
I do think that there is something to this in that D&D magic often lacks what in literature I would call a "theme" or a "style" for lack of a better word b/c it's so kitbashed together.  For instance, in the Dresden Files, a pretty magic-heavy series of books, there are all sorts of things around and Butcher keeps on introducing new ones.  But, you have at least a sense of what the fundamental principles, or at least the illusion that such fundamental principles exist. 

That being said, I think all spellcasters should have a theme, and I tend to use one for all my casters as an aesthetic choice.  I also think you could get away with less of the hyperspecific rules that each spells have -- e.g., fireball exerts no pressure, for whatever reason and crap like that -- and have more general principles that people could play around with, provided you had a sense of what the underlying principles were.  A sense of, for instance, what arcane magic can and can't do.  That way, you can be suitably impressed in, to borrow Rejakor's example, someone does manage to scry through lead or whatever. 

This is heading into a more freeform magic system than D&D has, it being pretty much on the opposite spectrum from that.  It might also require a stronger implied setting than D&D usually has as well. 

Offline littha

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2952
  • +1 Holy Muffin
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2012, 10:40:25 PM »
Honestly they're probably a leftover bioweapon from some massive conflict (the old ones vs the necrons?) or whatever.  Their modus operandi fits perfectly.

They are Ex-Glactic so that is unlikley, though the necrons are one of the only races capable of travelling outside the current galaxy (Due to the warp ending at the edges of the galaxy) because of their Innertialess drives.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2012, 10:47:51 PM »
But, you have at least a sense of what the fundamental principles, or at least the illusion that such fundamental principles exist. 

That being said, I think all spellcasters should have a theme, and I tend to use one for all my casters as an aesthetic choice.  I also think you could get away with less of the hyperspecific rules that each spells have -- e.g., fireball exerts no pressure, for whatever reason and crap like that -- and have more general principles that people could play around with, provided you had a sense of what the underlying principles were.  A sense of, for instance, what arcane magic can and can't do.  That way, you can be suitably impressed in, to borrow Rejakor's example, someone does manage to scry through lead or whatever. 
Pretty much. The purpose of the idea is twofold, to apply a schema by which magical abilities must exist in, so that expectations can be placed upon magic, and to provide a framework by which the mundane can interact with the magical.

Else you're stuck with swinging a sword at a ghost, doing exactly nothing unless you can bring magic to bear, with no countermeasures to deal with such a hazard or even keep away from such a hazard.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Monte Cook talks about realism in Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2012, 11:06:43 PM »
...
Pretty much. The purpose of the idea is twofold, to apply a schema by which magical abilities must exist in, so that expectations can be placed upon magic, and to provide a framework by which the mundane can interact with the magical.

Else you're stuck with swinging a sword at a ghost, doing exactly nothing unless you can bring magic to bear, with no countermeasures to deal with such a hazard or even keep away from such a hazard.
And, just to belabor the point, this is practically the opposite of every literary source.  I'm thinking of stuff like the Witcher 2, which is a great game (though with its flaws, which are less than Skyrim's imho, though, which is telling from such a small developer) and a great fantasy world.  In that world, silver has effects against various supernatural agents, as do certain other things, and those "in the know" use it.