D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[delericho]

It's been a long while, but I recall that C&T for 2e used inches and measuring for grid battles by default. Though, my memory may be faulty after 10 years.

Combat & Tactics used 2-1-2-1.

Maybe the 3e Miniatures Handbook? I don't own that one, so can't check.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Combat & Tactics used 2-1-2-1.

Maybe the 3e Miniatures Handbook? I don't own that one, so can't check.

Maybe I'm thinking of Battlesystem then. Or was it one of the "Options" to use inches like in 1e and previous?

I could dig it all out and look, but that's a lot of work, and I'm already late for my daily coffee.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ok, 2-1-2-1 then...

your jump example is one of thos things that bug me too. A simple line, that disallows changing directions mid air would have been nice. But of course, you could argue that even the most lenient DM would ask his player how he intends to change the direction mid air...

 

[theNater]

1) At 1st level, Joe can jump further than our World Record holder. At that point, at 1st level, he's already superhuman.

Joe's not superhuman, he's at maximum human capability. He is in exceptionally good shape(20 Str) and exceptionally well trained and practiced in the long jump(skill focus), just like an Olympic long-jumper.

The World Record is 29.4 feet, and wind-assisted jumps are disqualified. All Joe has to do is be lucky enough that a big gust of wind assists(die roll of 17+), and he makes the jump.

 

[Stumblewyk]

3) There's no rule that you can't change direction in the middle of a jump.

True. Except for any reasonable, rational DM who would immediately put the kybosh on Joe the Would-Be Olympian's arcing leap.

And any player who would actually try to pull off such a stunt should be summarily slapped upside the head for even suggesting it.

 

[NexH]

Except if the chasm/fire occupy a whole space you can't diagonal around them, and if it doesn't then it is the same as when I run along the street and jump a few feet (this in reality is less than the 5ft to another square) to the side to step round a big puddle while taking a 90% straight line. If the puddle is actually 5ft wide I slow up and go around just like the D&D PCs have to, or I go for a jump just like the PCs do.

With obstacles restricted to 1 square the problem may not seem so important (altough it is still notorious). But let's think of a wide chasm or other wide obstacle/hazardous terrain. Normally, when imaging the situation, one may think of two possibilities: going around the chasm (slow but safe), or jumping over it (which is risky but cinematic and faster). With the current system, in most cases the only sensible option is zig-zaging past it: jumping over it poses a risk without gain.

At 1st level, per the rules as written, Joe has a 20% chance of success (DC 30, means he needs to roll a '17' +13 or better).

Here the problem comes mostly from the enormous variance of the d20. When comparing with real world parameters, I have found more sanity-preserving to asume that "take 10" results are the only ones that count.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Over 50 posts in and the OP has not responded to any of the responses in the thread?

And to the OP.....4th didnt take simulation away from D&D and if you think it did then its really you that has taken simulation away not the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Metagame mechanics and the generally-accepted idea that the details of the fiction shouldn't have any effect on action resolution.

Mainly this. The "dropping of the pretense" that 3E and earlier simulated much via their mechanics was also big.

Prior to 4E, there was a lot of instances in D&D where you had a mechanic that produced one effect, and the fluff said another. For example, not infrequently the fighter was portrayed in fluff as more scary than he really was, strictly mechanically. I'm not as bothered by that discrepancy as some people are, as player attitude about the character matters a great deal to the experience. But it would be equally unfair to say that the discrepancy never caused problems--sim, game, and story.

Also, on action resolution, I'd qualify "effect" as "direct effect". Whatever simulation is left in 4E (or "emulation" if you prefer) is very consciously of the indirect type, frequently more macro than previously. That is, in 4E you often still get "simulation" of results that are in tune with the fluff, often more so than previously.

A party of adventurers goes into a dungeon and finds a dragon. Claw, sword, spell, and fire breathing are involved. Characters and monsters get hurt. What you frequently end up trading in the simulation department is that you drop the idea that the fighter mundanely swung his sword a bunch of times, hit the dragon, and gradually wore him down. You add that the fighter mixed in some rather exotic moves with sometimes dodgy direct cause/effect simulation explanations. OTOH, you also add that mechanically and within the fluff, the fighter got to stay in the dragons face, replacing the discrepancy where the fluff said he could, but the mechanics didn't support it.

If the discrepancy was something that gave your DM wiggle room to play around with the narrative, and he or she used it, and it didn't much bother anyone at the table--then you lost some simulation capability. If the discrepancy was something your DM didn't care to exploit this gap, and the players didn't want to deal with it, then you also lost some simulation capability--that you didn't really much value, because the discrepancy irritant was too great for what was delivered through it.

 

[LostSoul]

Perhaps something along the lines of AD&D's Secondary Skill mechanic would do the job. You choose a profession/background, like Hunter, or Aristocrat, or Blacksmith. Any time you want to do something plausibly related to that profession, if it's not covered by a standard skill, you make an appropriate ability check with a +5 bonus (where you would otherwise make a flat ability check).

In fact, that'd be a nice replacement for the existing background mechanic. Hmm... maybe I need to work that into my next campaign.

That's how I do all the skills in my game. It's been awesome. The big difference is that you need a DM to make judgement calls about when a skill applies or not; you can't look in a book to see how things work.

I also allow a single +2 "synergy" bonus if you've got another skill that would help out.

 

[delericho]

Here the problem comes mostly from the enormous variance of the d20. When comparing with real world parameters, I have found more sanity-preserving to asume that "take 10" results are the only ones that count.

Normally, I'd agree. However, since the World Record is the best that has ever been achieved in competition, it's only reasonable to posit that it is the result of a '20' on the roll.