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

[eriktheguy]

I don't see the problem with the 30 foot jump issue. I would actually consider that the jumper in the Olympic competition is under very controlled circumstances and is considered to be taking 10. So in reality they could cross a 40 ft chasm. So how does a d20 roll make up those extra feet?
- tailwinds have been brought up
- the edges that you jump between aren't straight, you could have found a spot where the distance is only about 35 ft
- the edges are not necessarily at the same height, maybe you found a spot where you are jumping towards lower ground
- adrenaline (cheap, I know)
- angle at pushoff (a foothold angled in the direction of the jump might be better than the flat foothold that a long jumper uses)
- springiness of the ground (because you never know)

With ability checks one of the big problems is the range of the die roll. In real life repeated attempts at skills like jumping often yield consistent results, while in game they vary by 20 feet. I explain this by saying "the real world results were instances of taking 10. The variation of the real world results is a fine detail that the 4e system does not capture. The variation in 4e represents variation in the situation as well as variation in the quality of your attempt".

That is a helpful technique by the way; use the die roll to describe the details of the challenge, rather than the details of the player's attempt. Failed jump? "You underestimated the width of the chasm by some feet". Picking a lock? "This is not a design you've ever seen before". Moving a rock? "It's far heavier than you expected". This is a great tool when you don't want to allow the players to make retries, or to allow consecutive players to make ability checks. It was elaborated on in a recent Dungeon article, in which the 'heavier rock' example was used to prevent the wizard from trying to move the rock after the fighter failed. Notice that the DM in this case was saying "No". Sometimes that's okay!

So you see, the fighter cannot jump 30 feet, he can only jump about 20! Now if you throw in a background bonus, a few more levels, a bonus from a class or power, and a situational modifier for having a good day, 30 feet is achievable. You can bet that the Olympic record holder had quite a few of these things!

Finally, if you want to simulate a 'controlled' skill check (like a long jump across a flat surface with strict rules) you could try a system with a little less variation: use 1d6+7 instead of 1d20.

 

[Klaus]

The D&D rules seem to emulate not reality, but "heroic reality". Like the hobbits leaping into the barge over the Brandywine, or Aragorn tossing a 200-pound dwarf wearing 60-pound armor.

 

[Noctos]

i am a huge fan of the older DnD i altered the game and shift the rules and guide line in a fashion to make my game what i wanted and your very much correct the newest system made it harder to change or go on a whim. but thats what happens to make the game play able for all people they have to make it cartered to idiots. lack of free will and imagination is all that DnD use to require and in my opinion all it should still require.

 

[Fifth Element]

The D&D rules seem to emulate not reality, but "heroic reality". Like the hobbits leaping into the barge over the Brandywine, or Aragorn tossing a 200-pound dwarf wearing 60-pound armor.

That's true, I think.

I've also lost track of whether Batman being superhuman means 4E sucks or rules.

 

[Tiitha]

Sorry for taking such a long time to reply to my own thread!

I've been trying to get some friends to try 4e so I can run an experimental game, but they seem to believe that 4e is inferior to 3.5. It's all the stuff taken out of 4e that makes it less fun to role play, like less alignments and less skills.

I realize you can make up for these things though, like Good can also be Chaotic Good for example, but they don't seem to like it because it's less structural, or "lazy" as one of my DMing friends likes to call it. I suppose that structure is what gives a lot of that simulation we role players enjoy.

4e has taken out a lot of structural rules that 3.5 had laid out for players to pick up. You CAN always make exceptions to change anything, but it would be nice if WotC could write a supplement to fill in some of stuff they took out.


As for the movement grid discussion, I understand how moving around specifically can take a lot of realism out. As a big lover of Dungeon Tiles, I can't stay away from the square grid format. Since real life is not so exact, I estimate long diagonals, unless it's around a hard corner. Depending on the terrain type or character's condition, they might slide or fall short a few feet so they land on a square.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry for taking such a long time to reply to my own thread!

I've been trying to get some friends to try 4e so I can run an experimental game, but they seem to believe that 4e is inferior to 3.5. It's all the stuff taken out of 4e that makes it less fun to role play, like less alignments and less skills.

Have you and your friends actually tried to play 4E before making this claim?

Not every game system is for every person.

Something to consider, however.

I've been playing D&D on a nearly weekly basis for over 32 years. I've delved into a few other game systems for short periods of time and even helped write a supplement book for D&D 3E.

And like your group, I was a grognard at first when it came to the 4E changes from 3.5. I liked my 3.5.

There are still some minor things about 4E that I do not like.

But.

I am currently in a once per week home 4E game that my teenage daughter also plays in. She is more motivated about playing 4E than any other aspect of her life (which is actually very full of several other extremely successful and more important activities). Her face lights up and her voice actually rises to the point that I have to ask her to keep it down multiple times each gaming session (which if you knew my daughter, you would probably be surprised at that uncharacteristic behavior).

I am DMing two PBP 4E games and a player in two PBP 4E games here on ENWorld.

I went back to play PathFinder Ravenloft last summer for a few months. Although the game was fun, it wasn't any more fun than any of our 4E games. It wasn't significantly less fun either. It was fun.

I've found that people who get too wrapped around the axle when it comes to the rules of a game aren't focusing on the reason to play a game. There will always be features of rulesets that a given person likes and dislikes.

Just like there are features of cars that a given person likes and dislikes.

But, unless one drives the car for a while, sitting at the showroom and bitching about its features might be fun, but its nowhere near the fun of driving the car.

Your friends can dissect the 4E ruleset and not like many of its features. Or, they could actually sit down and drive the car. Up to them.


But there are two features of the 4E game system that are vastly superior to the 3.5 rules, regardless of which other game features that were taken out.

1) There is a limit to the number of abilities each PC possesses. The spell casters are not so complex with so many spells that nobody else at the table can play your PC if you are on vacation. The game does not come to a grinding halt as often as a player is glancing through his list of 10 or 20 or 40 spells, trying to come up with a solution to the problem of the moment.

2) The DM can prepare his game in a small fraction of the time of 3.5. The players in your game might not consider the amount of work a DM puts into his game, but they should. It's a bit self centered for players to just show up and chug down Cokes and not appreciate the work that a DM does out of game. So you should ask these friends of yours what is more important: sticking to their guns over some minor rules issues, or making life easier for everyone at the table in order to have an enjoyable game together?


If they try it and don't like it, fine. Not every game system is for every person.

But if they don't actually try it, then it's probably a waste of your time to even post here. You're not going to convince them to give it a try by talking with us. You'll only do it by talking to them.

 

[Ryujin]

Sorry for taking such a long time to reply to my own thread!

I've been trying to get some friends to try 4e so I can run an experimental game, but they seem to believe that 4e is inferior to 3.5. It's all the stuff taken out of 4e that makes it less fun to role play, like less alignments and less skills.

I realize you can make up for these things though, like Good can also be Chaotic Good for example, but they don't seem to like it because it's less structural, or "lazy" as one of my DMing friends likes to call it. I suppose that structure is what gives a lot of that simulation we role players enjoy.

4e has taken out a lot of structural rules that 3.5 had laid out for players to pick up. You CAN always make exceptions to change anything, but it would be nice if WotC could write a supplement to fill in some of stuff they took out.

As for the movement grid discussion, I understand how moving around specifically can take a lot of realism out. As a big lover of Dungeon Tiles, I can't stay away from the square grid format. Since real life is not so exact, I estimate long diagonals, unless it's around a hard corner. Depending on the terrain type or character's condition, they might slide or fall short a few feet so they land on a square.

Some would say, myself among them, that reducing rules complexity frees you to play the game, rather than the rules.

When I first looked at 4e, I thought that it would make every character an identical little box. Not even close. As with other role playing games it's the player that makes the character, not the rules. The actions aren't determined by the sidebar on page 254 of some splat-book, but by interaction between player and DM.

 

[Fifth Element]

4e has taken out a lot of structural rules that 3.5 had laid out for players to pick up. You CAN always make exceptions to change anything, but it would be nice if WotC could write a supplement to fill in some of stuff they took out.

I thought they did.

 

[Droogie128]

This reminds me of a GM who ticked me off. I had a +17 Diplomacy modifier, and I rolled a 1. The GM decided I had royally offended the person I was talking to, ruining my attempt to put some negotiation into a combat game. The rest of the party chimed in with jokes of how I'd insulted the man's wife and so on.

But c'mon, a 1 on a skill check is a failure, not doomsday. It's irksome when GMs assume failure means horrible setback rather than just, y'know, failure.

A 1 on a skill check was never an auto fail in 3e or 4e. The example given is false.

 

[theNater]

Some would say, myself among them, that reducing rules complexity frees you to play the game, rather than the rules.

I agree with this, and would like to relate it back to the issue of alignment Tiitha brought up.

Fourth edition's softer and broader alignments make it easier for players to ask "how would my character behave in this situation?" instead of "how would a character of my alignment behave in this situation?", which frees things up a lot.

It might be interesting to have a campaign where each player allocates a handful of character traits to their character at creation, and then adheres to those traits strictly. Could be a way to help players who want some more structure to the roleplay, and allows for many more character types than a list of alignments.