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

[delericho]

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...

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.

Well, I did say it was a silly example...

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Would that same DM ask the fighter how he knocked an ooze prone? Or how he forced the greatest of giants to move off a cliff into lava? Or how he convinced the genius with an entrenched position to come out and fight like a man?

The more a ruleset encourages you to not penalize players for confounding common sense in some circumstances, the more likely it is you will not confound them in others. IMHO, and IME. I mean, is that jump actually more mind-boggling than any of these other things?



RC

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes. Knocking prone an ooze is just splitting it apart. Pushing a bigger creatue into lava... did you never see the last unicorn? Or Hercules the series?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

With the Jump examples, I will agree that it does seem ridiculous at first, but as someone else pointed out, with a tailwind or other "lucky" circumstances simulated by a good roll on a d20, it's not that bad. Improbable, yes, but not out of the realm of possibility, since, after all, it is a Fantasy game.

If you think the distance is too ridiculous to be believed, as a DM, you could just rule that jump checks are that much harder, until it makes sense for you. Reduce the distance by 25%, or even by half if you want to be super-gritty about it.

As for the change of direction, that can also be explained away in a couple of ways. Perhaps the character did a triple jump (which could also help explain distance). If there was a wall nearby, maybe they did a "wall jump" to alter course. I'm sure there are things I haven't even thought of. If the character has some teleporting ability, maybe a "pivot teleport" to alter their vector part way was all that was needed (pure fluff, of course).

But yeah, a big chasm in the middle of the floor - seems unlikely that I'd allow a change of course unless you can give me a fluffy reason to allow it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The more a ruleset encourages you to not penalize players for confounding common sense in some circumstances, the more likely it is you will not confound them in others. IMHO, and IME. I mean, is that jump actually more mind-boggling than any of these other things?

The ruleset doesn't encourage you to skip penalties for confounding common sense. The ruleset encourages you to use imagination to fill in otherwise unexplainable gaps in the narrative, in ways that fit the sense (common or otherwise) of the setting at that table. How willing you are to do this in any particular instance is going to determine how mind-bogging or not it may be. And of course that will vary.

For example, in the jumping example, the fighter uses a boost from another party member to get some extra oomph at launch, does a parkour type move off the wall to manage the "turn in mid air," and then throws his body forward (prone, not even trying to land on his feet) to maximize distance.

Make that the norm, and if no such narration is forthcoming, slap on a -5 to the skill check. If it is weak narration, slap on a -2. A +2 is only awarded for the truly inspired stuff.

It is true that the 4E text could be a bit more hard-nosed about enforcing this kind of thing. But it isn't 4E lack of simulation issues causing the wimping out here, but rather the, "Say yes all the time, find a way to make the players succeed," attitude intruding into the DM advice at the expense of explaining the scale of the mechanic. At the very least, they should have half a page in the DMG telling you how to dial this up or down to fit your flavor: "We don't do this parkour stuff at this table. If you want to go get one of those metal bars from the rusted portcullis you guys busted up, and use it to pole vault, we'll talk."

Personally, I often have a lot more trouble reconciling things like the jumping example than the others, because I find it easier to fill in those narrative gaps with the other things. The more vague the gap, the easier it is to fill in. With something like the chasm, you have to accept the chasm is the length it is, and try to work around the parts you control. You could trick a giant into taking a step back. It is somewhat harder to trick a chasm into being a bit shorter.

Edit: Ninja'd by Nemesis

 

[Raven Crowking]

Would that same DM ask the fighter how he knocked an ooze prone? Or how he forced the greatest of giants to move off a cliff into lava? Or how he convinced the genius with an entrenched position to come out and fight like a man?

The more a ruleset encourages you to not penalize players for confounding common sense in some circumstances, the more likely it is you will not confound them in others. IMHO, and IME. I mean, is that jump actually more mind-boggling than any of these other things?

Yes. Knocking prone an ooze is just splitting it apart. Pushing a bigger creatue into lava... did you never see the last unicorn? Or Hercules the series?

I'm sure that there is a similar example for turning during a jump. And, as in the examples you use, I am sure some form of "magic" (like, being a unicorn or a demigod) are involved, or some special equipment or circumstances.

Either way, I very much doubt that knocking an ooze prone is simply splitting it, because (1) knocked prone =/= split, and (2) the ooze suddenly doesn't become two oozes, both with their own attacks.

The point remains: There are a lot of just-as-strange things that can occur as that jump (and very likely do occur more often!). If negating CaGI is a bad idea because, although the entrenched character is an evil genius ranged specialist, it would damage the character's build choices and nerf his abilities gained thereby, why would that be less true for the example of Batrok the Leaper, who leaps farther than the current record, and twists in mid-leap while so doing?

I don't see one as substantially different compared to the other.

If you are cool with a game in which I can yell at a guy and make him get up ready to go, CaGI a mindless automaton to change its pre-programmed behaviour, or push a several-ton dragon, what's a little turn in mid-air among friends? Why would a rational DM deny that, when so many more-fantastic things are occurring?

(And, mind you, if you enjoy those fantastic things, more power to you. I'm just wondering why the mid-air flip & direction change is suddenly a deal-breaker that no rational DM would allow.)


RC

 

[theNater]

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.

Sure, but it's not reasonable to posit that the guy with the highest bonuses got the 20 on competition day. If the guy with the highest bonuses rolls a 16 that day, the record goes to somebody else.

Also, examining competition results means restricting yourselves to the rules of the competition. There are at least three rules that Joe can disregard, to his advantage:

1)Placing any part of the foot past the foul line disqualifies the jump. Joe can certainly have part of his foot over the chasm when he makes his jump.

2)Jump distance is measured to the body part landing closest to the starting line. Joe doesn't need to land both his feet on the opposite side, just his front one, which he can then use to pull his other foot up.

3)Jumps are disqualified if supported by a tailwind of more than 2 m/s. Joe has no such limit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The ruleset doesn't encourage you to skip penalties for confounding common sense. The ruleset encourages you to use imagination to fill in otherwise unexplainable gaps in the narrative, in ways that fit the sense (common or otherwise) of the setting at that table. How willing you are to do this in any particular instance is going to determine how mind-bogging or not it may be. And of course that will vary.

Yeah, that's fine.

What I am trying to wrap my head around is the chimes of, effectively, "Of course a good GM will not let someone move like that!" (despite the rules allowing it), when said movement is hardly the most difficult narrative gap to fill (or fantastic "mundane" occurance happening).

If I was running 4e, it would be because I didn't care if the rules simulated the fictional reality (i.e., substituting narrative to fill the gaps as you suggest), or because the fictional reality was of the type that the rules simulated (like Mallus' extremely clever concept for a 4e campaign milieu).

The point is, I don't imagine that I'd even raise an eyebrow at the jump. Certainly not in comparison to everything else.

So, what am I missing?



RC

 

[Mallus]

I put the Jump example in the same category as a 3e knight on horseback coming to a complete stop after a charge (without the benefit of an inertial-damping device scavenged from a crashed spaceship in his saddle). An unrealistic but ultimately unimportant consequence of the kind of abstraction that makes D&D (relatively) easy to play.

Then again, I'm a big proponent of the idea simulation --well, the kind *I* like, at any rate-- doesn't stem from the rules. It's created and maintained by the informal agreements and assumptions between the DM and players. Meaningful simulation in the game world comes from the "fluff", not the "crunch".

Crunch is descriptors and algorithms for resolving actions/tasks. It does not provide a set of global-level modeling tools.

 

[delericho]

For example, in the jumping example, the fighter uses a boost from another party member to get some extra oomph at launch, does a parkour type move off the wall to manage the "turn in mid air," and then throws his body forward (prone, not even trying to land on his feet) to maximize distance.

Make that the norm, and if no such narration is forthcoming, slap on a -5 to the skill check. If it is weak narration, slap on a -2. A +2 is only awarded for the truly inspired stuff.

That would make a fine House Rule, but it is not RAW. Per RAW, the character can jump the chasm, change direction in mid-air, and land on his feet.

It's not reasonable to argue that "the rules are fine, since I can ignore/expand/alter the rules."