General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
In previous editions I've always taken something of a middle ground.
Clearly SOME of the game mechanics ARE visible to the character. A wizard knows when he acquires new spells, characters in the world realize that a gobln just can NOT hurt them when they're fresh and unwounded, everybody knows that in a fight they fight at full effect until they drop unconscious, etc. The world the characters lived in was NOT the world of reality or even of movies. If you wanted that world, pick a different set of rules. The rules were sufficiently simulationist that the gap between character and player view was reasonably small
So, for example, characters have some concept of hit points and level. Oh, not exact numbers but some reasonable impression of what they entail in world. They KNOW that, after awhile, a single goblin just isn't a threat.
One of the costs of 4th editions gamist over simulationist approach is that the gap between character and player knowledge becomes significantly larger. That gap has become sufficiently large for me that I no longer have the remotest clue what my character is experiencing in combat. Once combat starts I almost completely treat D&D as a miniatures war game and just ignore characterization except for choosing meta tactics (save the child, kill the guy I really hate, etc).
I'm afraid that I just have to dismiss all the rationalizations I've heard about "the opportunity for that particular attack comes up only once a day". In world, the characters are going to notice that this opportunity comes up at most once a day and almost always does come up exactly once a day when adventuring.
This is especially true for all the powers that just totally break normal reality. How does a rogue occassionally manage to shoot 8 crossbow bolts at once when normally he has to take time to load? Why can my wizard who is held in a web spell move when the Warlord yells at him? Etc etc etc.
The above really isn't intended to start an edition war. There are costs and benefits to 4th edition.
Mostly a rant but it speaks directly to the character knowledge question.
I absolutely loathe the 4th edition diagonal rules. Especially since the 3rd
edition ones were such an elegant solution.
If you think about the implications of the rules then its clear that the
physics of the DND world, as perceived by the characters, are RADICALLY
different than our own.
To take a couple of examples that the characters WOULD notice.
1) A wall spell cast by a wizard has different lengths and configurations depending on where it is cast. If you have two corridors coming in at a 45 degree angle, each of identical width, the wizard IS going to notice he can block one with a straight wall and not block the other with some crooked wall.
2) People ARE going to notice that distance is different than in our world. That guy over there on the diagonal IS as close as the guy over there on the straight line and not 40% further away as he is in our world. Moving in a zig/zag way is as fast and efficient as moving in a straight line. The world is some form of hyperwarped torus.
The elegance versus accuracy trade off is probably better named abstraction versus roleplay. The degree to which the characters interact with the world in the same way their players do, are acted out in that world by the players, is the same degree of roleplaying happening in the game. The more or less one must act out their role in the game, the more or less one is roleplaying in that game. The choice is: what elements do we want to roleplay, and which do we want to abstract (or must abstract as in magic). 4e, as you point out, is really more of an abstraction game than D&D was previously.
I agree that abstraction is a good term, but not on the idea that its opposite is roleplay. Abstraction is an enabler for certain kinds of roleplay, in particular the ability to roleplay characters whose skill sets include things you don't know about. For example, picking locks is almost always handled by an abstract skill check, regardless of game. I don't really agree with the idea that thieves are being "less roleplayed" than fighters because the GM and player aren't playing through an elaborate minigame that involves a description of the lock's inner workings, puzzling out how to handle which tumbler to remove, and the like. You could probably do a really good lockpicking or trap disarming minigame, come to think of it, by following Dread's lead and breaking out the Jenga, but I'm just not comfortable that saying "this is more roleplay."
You're definitely spot on about good gaming being about where you choose to use abstractions and where you choose to use more elaborate subsystems or decision-making processes. When I said "elegance," I was pretty much thinking of how 4e handles that: it uses abstractions freely in pursuit of a really strong "keep the action moving" design goal. I just don't agree that roleplay as measured by a "more or less" standpoint can be determined by anything but the group at hand. A game with a lot of abstracted systems can pack a hell of a lot of roleplaying into four hours: it's just got the equivalent of a tight editor who doesn't like overly long descriptive passages of, say, picking locks.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
Actually, given the diagonal rules for D&D, having the world be chunked up into squares has some funny effects on geometry: a circle 10 feet across has an area of 100 square feet! (In our world it is about 78 square feet). Bascially, the characters would live in a spacetime that is rather strongly curved, where we live in one that is largely flat.
This starts to get ugly when the DM normally sets his grids up along the cardinal North-South, East-West axes, and then every once in a while does not. If characters notice the change in movement along the diagonals... theological issues could erupt over such areas that are so clearly warped.
That could make for an interesting story arc in a game, much less the foundation of a campaign or setting if used right. I may be trying to use that as a less serious aside when my game starts back up after the summer ends.
I play 3.5, so I do not know about 4E movement rules. But for me, the battlemat squares are just abstractions for the player's benefit.
For spells and stuff, A spellcaster knows how many times they can cast a certain spell, so in a sense they do know a bit about game mechanics, but they do not see it that way.
__________________ "From the beginning, no one has ever stood in Heaven. Not you, nor me, nor God Himself. But soon, that unbearable vacancy on the throne in the sky will be filled. From now on... I will stand in Heaven!"-Sousuke Aizen-Bleach
In my world? Well, characters know that as wizards practice their arts they gain knowledge and abilities and gain control over more powerful magic. Clerics, as they continue to further their gods aims and goals in ever increasingly challenging situations, are granted more powers. As fighters gain more combat experience (and others) they become more skilled adversaries and gain the favor of gods? so as to be harder to damage.
__________________ Being a DM does not require that you check your brain at the door. Much to the chagrin of munchkins & powergamers.
Generally, the people I play with know what is in character to say, and what isn't.
Thus, their PCs don't tend to talk about game mechanics or numeric stats.
Referring to class names is generally OK, as that's just conversational labels
Referring to AC, HP, DC, bonuses and and damage numbers is OOC.
A PC might refer to a stat or skill name, but not the bonus or number
For combat, phrases like the following would be in character:
"harder to hit" (referring to AC)
"does a lot of damage" (referring to weapon damage
"easier to hit" (referring to bonus on magical weapon)
"hurt pretty bad" (referring to how many hit points are left)
"my reflexes saved me" (referring to making a Reflex save)
"he's stronger than he is smart" (referring to Stength and Intelligence)
Since we in the real world don't move in 5' increments, we assume the PCs don't either, nor do they talk about it as if they did
Since we in the real world do refer to people by the role they play, such as nerd, programmer, jock, goth-chick, we assume the PCs mean the same when they same wizard, rogue, fighter and druid.
People (especially Americans) do tend to rank things (like karate belts and job levels) that justifying talking about spell levels may be in character. It stands to reason that since spells have varying, yet consistent power levels based on the experience of the caster, that they would be classified and assigned "levels".
Meaning, it might not be OK to talk about class levels, unless there were a Guild for a class that "identified" and promoted players (even if not enforced by rules).
But it might be OK for PCs to refer to spell levels, as organizations have studied and classified them as part of a teaching curriculum.
In one campaign, I used my martial arts background (I'm a black belt in Ishen Ryu) to create a dojo for a PC, where each level, he was invited to take a test (trial by non-lethal combat) to rank up. Each class level had a name. By the rules, he was whatever level the XP said he was. But socially, he was treated by the level he'd tested to, and wasn't allowed to wear a higher level belt. I also could have given him an XP penalty if he failed the test, but it never came up. In this case though, I was coming up with a way to refer to monk class level, through the flavor of the campaign. This was kind of like 1E Name-Levels, mixed with level training (though not stopping a PC from levelling).
I'm afraid that I just have to dismiss all the rationalizations I've heard about "the opportunity for that particular attack comes up only once a day". In world, the characters are going to notice that this opportunity comes up at most once a day and almost always does come up exactly once a day when adventuring.
This is especially true for all the powers that just totally break normal reality. How does a rogue occassionally manage to shoot 8 crossbow bolts at once when normally he has to take time to load? Why can my wizard who is held in a web spell move when the Warlord yells at him? Etc etc etc.
I love the 'opportunity' rationalisation.
And if the PCs examined it too carefully, and ran statistical trials, and kept logs of when the Rogue used Blinding Barrage, they'd notice that certain things only ever happened once per day and never more frequently.
But when there's a question that breaks the game if the PCs ask it? The PCs don't ask that question. We're in control of the PCs, and if PCs doing X makes the game crash, and PCs not-doing-X doesn't make the game crash, there's advantage to us in ensuring the PCs never do X.
So to me, every PC has some peculiar and inexplicable psychological blind spots that causes them never to ask certain questions - like "How come I can never do this more than once in a given encounter?" - and the problem goes away.
OK, that's too strong. I would probably alter my mental model based on the class & power source. A wizard or warlock may just need to rest five minutes before he can recharge her arcane batteries that power an encounter power, or six hours to recharge a daily power. But for nearly any martial power, I would definitely model it at the more abstract level.
If wizards having "arcane batteries" that have to be "recharged" makes sense, then why not martial classes having "martial batteries"?
My general point is that this is something that I see a lot - inconsistent standards. People never said that spells having per-day use limitations is "unsimulationist", but they do say that martial abilities having per-day use limitations is "unsimulationist." (Note: I know Christian did not call anything "unsimulationist", and I am not accusing him of doing so. I am simply pointing out a common trend.)
My perspective is that since we don't know how the physics of the game world works, and we know for a fact that it does not work the same way as the real world, we really have little basis for calling anything "unsimulationist" unless it is inconsistent.
Here's an example. Suppose that in the game, there was a magical item that could be used to instantaneously communicate with anyone else having a similar item. But in order to make it not too easy to use, there were some restrictions on its use - it had to be brought back to a special "place of power" for a few hours every day or it would stop working, wouldn't work in certain remote areas, wouldn't work if it didn't have a clear view of the sky, and if you used it more than a certain amount of time a month it would stop working unless you paid extra. Would you consider these restrictions "unsimulationist" as they don't have any logical basis in "reality" and are just there to balance the game?
How about if the game was set in the modern world, and that magical item was called a "cell phone"?
To take a couple of examples that the characters WOULD notice.
1) A wall spell cast by a wizard has different lengths and configurations depending on where it is cast. If you have two corridors coming in at a 45 degree angle, each of identical width, the wizard IS going to notice he can block one with a straight wall and not block the other with some crooked wall.
2) People ARE going to notice that distance is different than in our world. That guy over there on the diagonal IS as close as the guy over there on the straight line and not 40% further away as he is in our world. Moving in a zig/zag way is as fast and efficient as moving in a straight line. The world is some form of hyperwarped torus.
And yet somehow, it never comes up.
Warlord: "Wizard! Can you block that corridor with a wall?"
Wizard: "No, it's too wide."
Warlord: "But I don't understand - it's the same width as the corridor you blocked yesterday. Why does the orientation of the passage change how wide your spell becomes?"
[CRASH]
But if the Warlord's player goes with it...
Warlord: "Wizard! Can you block that corridor with a wall?"
Wizard: "No, it's too wide."
Warlord: "Okay, new plan - Fighter, you cover the entrance..."
To take a couple of examples that the characters WOULD notice.
1) A wall spell cast by a wizard has different lengths and configurations depending on where it is cast. If you have two corridors coming in at a 45 degree angle, each of identical width, the wizard IS going to notice he can block one with a straight wall and not block the other with some crooked wall.
2) People ARE going to notice that distance is different than in our world. That guy over there on the diagonal IS as close as the guy over there on the straight line and not 40% further away as he is in our world. Moving in a zig/zag way is as fast and efficient as moving in a straight line. The world is some form of hyperwarped torus.
Huh? What screwed up game system does that?
__________________ Being a DM does not require that you check your brain at the door. Much to the chagrin of munchkins & powergamers.
That could make for an interesting story arc in a game, much less the foundation of a campaign or setting if used right. I may be trying to use that as a less serious aside when my game starts back up after the summer ends.
Yeah! I'm starting up an Invoker who's collaborating with a god of knowledge, and I'm thinking that these inconsistencies will actually help develop his theories on systems and what-not.
When even the gods are beholden to the math of the world, one wonders if there is something much, much larger in play...something like that.
My general point is that this is something that I see a lot - inconsistent standards. People never said that spells having per-day use limitations is "unsimulationist", but they do say that martial abilities having per-day use limitations is "unsimulationist." (Note: I know Christian did not call anything "unsimulationist", and I am not accusing him of doing so. I am simply pointing out a common trend.)
I'm happily inconsistent when it comes to fantasy games. There may well be martial powers where it could make sense to say that the character needs to rest for five minutes or overnight before he has the physical or mental energy to pull off the move again. There could be arcane encounter powers that could really be used 'at-will', but only in certain circumstances that the player is allowed to bring about once per encounter. Whatever makes sense for the power, or even just for the situation--we can decide to rationalize it differently next time, if we want to.
And sometimes, it's pretty hard. I don't know how to rationalize Blinding Barrage either. Sometimes, you just need to modify the Mystery Science Theater 3000 mantra. "Repeat to yourself: 'it's just a game, I should really just relax.'"
__________________ -Christian The psychic warrior's player, after watching my character disarm an opponent with a whip after blinding him with glitterdust: "That ... was the coolest thing I have ever seen a bard do." Looking for a 4E game in DFW to play or DM!
Mostly a rant but it speaks directly to the character knowledge question.
I absolutely loathe the 4th edition diagonal rules. Especially since the 3rd
edition ones were such an elegant solution.
If you think about the implications of the rules then its clear that the
physics of the DND world, as perceived by the characters, are RADICALLY
different than our own.
To take a couple of examples that the characters WOULD notice.
1) A wall spell cast by a wizard has different lengths and configurations depending on where it is cast. If you have two corridors coming in at a 45 degree angle, each of identical width, the wizard IS going to notice he can block one with a straight wall and not block the other with some crooked wall.
2) People ARE going to notice that distance is different than in our world. That guy over there on the diagonal IS as close as the guy over there on the straight line and not 40% further away as he is in our world. Moving in a zig/zag way is as fast and efficient as moving in a straight line. The world is some form of hyperwarped torus.
This is fully explained in my .sig. (See text in yellow)
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Here's the way I see it. It's standard to make the distinction between "player knowledge" and "character knowledge." What this discussion also shows is that it's also necessary to make the distinction between "player decisions" and "character decisions."
Ideally, in order to preserve consistency and prevent accusations of "metagaming," we want to preserve the following conditions:
1. "Character decisions" are not made using "player knowledge." It's also important to note here that if a particular decision is a "player decision," then the fact that that decision is there to be made is "player knowledge." For example, if using an action point is a "player decision," then a character could not make a decision that relied on being able to spend an action point at a particular time in order to work, since he wouldn't know that he could choose when he spends action points.
2. Characters can make logical deductions. In other words if "A" is character knowledge, "B" is character knowledge, and "C" can be inferred from "A" and "B", then "C" should be character knowledge.
One way of solving this is to make all game mechanics information and decisions "character knowledge." This is the position I advocated in my original post. It is perfectly self-consistent, although some players may not like the idea of characters knowing this kind of information, and would prefer another solution.
Another solution is to make certain things "player knowledge," such as power recharge timers. The only problem is that in order to preserve the above conditions, you have a "cascade effect." If you want power recharge timers to be "player knowledge," but characters would be able to infer the existence of power recharge timers from the results of their decisions about power use, then you have to make all power use decisions "player decisions." And if power use decisions are "player decisions," then pretty much all in-combat decisions are "player decisions," because most in-combat decisions are geared toward trying to use powers more effectively. And so on.
Of course there's always the option of weakening the conditions, like just agreeing that characters won't ask too many inconvenient questions (weakening condition 2) or being okay with some "character decisions" made based on player knowlege (weakening condition 1).
-----
Also, now that I think of it, this discussion has illuminated an issue of the debate that I've always had trouble understanding: why people complain about 4e powers' recharge timers, forced movement, specific rule-based effects (like 'granting an extra save'), and effects that are not based in "reality", while they didn't complain about the same things with 3.5e magic.
Here's the deal. Suppose that we want characters to be in control of their use of powers in combat. Some powers and abilities require characters to know about game rules, while some don't. For example, a basic attack doesn't require the character to know about game rules. He just attacks, and if he hits, does damage. The character doesn't need to know about, say, attack and damage modifiers in order to effectively use a basic attack; they're just there.
However, consider a power that can give an ally something when "an ally receives a condition that a save can end." (I believe there is a power that has this trigger.) Unless this power just goes off without any conscious control by the character, to use it implies that a character must know what a "condition" is, and tell the difference between an "until end of next turn" condition and a "save ends" condition, so he knows when he's eligible to use it. Similarly, a power that allows you to "recharge an encounter power of your choice" would imply that a character knows what an encounter power is and which ones he has.
So what does this have to do with the issue mentioned above? In 3.5e, wizards did have to know about things like spell levels, prepared spells, level-dependent durations, which immunities worked against which spells, etc. in order to use their spells most effectively. But this made sense, because wizards are traditionally depicted as gaining their powers through study, so it made sense that they would study magic and know about how magic works, which would include these concepts. Thus wizards could conceivably talk about spell levels etc. in character, and it would be the D+D world's equivalent of computer jargon: understandable only to those who study it.
On the other hand, 4e gives these powers to all classes, even ones that aren't depicted as particularly intelligent or gaining powers through study. An analogy would be an athlete trying to catch a ball - he doesn't have to know about the physics behind how his joints move in order to do it. But if an engineer were to build a robot to do the same thing, he would have to understand the physics in order to program the robot. But 4e makes all classes like the engineer - they have to understand the rules in order to use their powers effectively.
Or, to sum up: In 3.5e, wizards and other magic casters are the "geeks" of the game world, and people accepted that because that's part of the idea behind a wizard. But in 4e, all classes are "geeky" in the same way the wizard was.
I think the mechanics are tools meant to simulate the rules of universe the PCs inhabit. It is the rules of the unvierse the mechanics describe that matters, not the mechanics themselves, which are often more about playability than the setting. For example, powers in 4E. The powers and how often they can be used seem to be more about establishing game balance, than the natural rythyms of the D&D-verse. If a character has a power that can only be used once per combat. Does that mean his power, which in many cases is just a special move or action, can only ever be performed ever once per combat? That just doesn't make logical sense. My understanding is the designers are saying generally its believable someone would pull of one of these special moves once per combat on average. So they applied to to the game. But it is a restriction based on the needs of game balance and playability, not the realities of your characters' world.
Because it is assumed that magic has its own rules that are different than the natural laws that govern muscle use...
These differences still end up being the same thing, though: certain characters can do a certain amount of things in a day. Wizard spell slots compared to Barbarian daily rages, for example, or Paladin smites, Cleric's turn undead...
Those're some obvious examples from 3E, though, and the examples from 4E are patently obvious as well. I don't know about prior editions, though.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
