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

[Crazy Jerome]

I also find it better for RP than 3.X because there isn't the "Get a bigger hammer" syndrome. The answer to situations is think them through and solve them in character and in the world - not track down which spell in your spellbook was designed for this circumstance.

Yep, this is also one of the reasons why people often confuse simulation mechanics with roleplaying. It isn't roleplaying to have your wizard pull out the right spell, possibly twisting it a bit, to get the result you want. It is gamist behavior in a simulation. Nothing wrong with it, and it can be great strategic fun, but it ... is ... not ... roleplaying.

It's very hard to make a case for where 4e could be improved into a system that's more fun when any criticism is turned aside and assumed to be praise for 3e (despite my explicit exhortations to the contrary).

That may be, but it is impossible to talk about improving 4E with criticims until one gets that effects-based mechanics are not the same as simulation-based mechanics. And furthermore, that the "dissociated" canard is an effort to confuse this fact with semantics (and poorly chosen ones, at that). As long as you use "dissociated" in your criticism, you discredit your own arguments.

 

[eamon]

That may be, but it is impossible to talk about improving 4E with criticims until one gets that effects-based mechanics are not the same as simulation-based mechanics. And furthermore, that the "dissociated" canard is an effort to confuse this fact with semantics (and poorly chosen ones, at that). As long as you use "dissociated" in your criticism, you discredit your own arguments.

Why is fluff being dissociated from mechanics a canard (particularly given this threads context)?

 

[Barastrondo]

There's nothing anti-anything about some reasonable amount of balance between classes.

Particularly when you're modeling a world that is an entirely fictional hodgepodge of tropes stolen from dozens of sources that are often outright contradictory. It's impossible to discern what is "proper roleplaying" without looking at what inspires any given player. Are elves inspired by Tolkien or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell? Are fighters inspired by Orlando Furioso, Conan or the bandits who die one by one in Krull? Are wizards more Merlin or more Hristomilo? If there is no one authentic imbalance that can be agreed upon, balance in itself can't undercut that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why is fluff being dissociated from mechanics a canard (particularly given this threads context)?

There is an honest and a dishonest version of criticism of effects-based mechanics. Early in the 4E cycle, some of the main pedalers of the dishonest version latched onto "dissociated" as a way of avoiding the honest discussion (and also clouding the issue while making a backhanded, nasty pyschological accusation of 4E supporters, probably as a way of avoiding personal attacks boundaries on forums).

While the term may have once had some minor value, mainly as a starting place for discussion, it has since been discredited by the behavior of said dishonest people. When you, all innocently, use the term, you thus associate yourself with a particularly annoying piece of anti-4E dogma trying pitifully to disguise itself as reason. This probably produces an effect you would gladly sacrifice.

If you wish to make the honest version of the argument, then you should attempt to explain why effects-based mechanics are flawed, not right for D&D, or whatever version of that is your goal. Not only will this be better received, it will allow you to hone this argument to separate out the legitmate conceptual pieces of it, from system-specific concerns, from personal preferences.

You could start from "dissociated" and try to redeem the term. Or you can take my suggestion with the idea that you'll redeem the term when you get to that part. I suggest the latter. You think it will work "dissociated" in eventually. I think you'll eventually discard it as unnecessary to any argument that you make. Either outcome, you'll get better feedback on the journey.

 

[enpeze66]

In practice - sure. I DM'd a long-running campaign until around level 16 in 3.5, and that included fighters+rangers alongside homebrew classes, druids, sorcerers and other casters - and that turned out surprisingly balanced. Of course, fighters had spell-like abilities too, by then, or items to compensate or whatever, and there were houserules for stuff like wildshape (we required the PHB2 variant) But that's in practice - if you just let anything go in 3.5, there were some crazy combo's, invariably with spells and spellcasting.

If you will, 3.5's mechanics needed some tender loving care to get working, and 4e mostly works out of the box.

Of course there have been combos. I bet I can do killer combos with 1E too if I am good in the rules. (which I am not, because I dont care about rules in general) But I think this is only a cosmetic issue. First and foremost roleplaying is about acting in character in a somewhat logical and consistent world with realistic relationships between the characters. Such a relationship is impossible if the 10th level heroes with AC 30 walking through a town are invincible for a whole regiment of 2nd level guards or with the concept of 1 HP minons.

What I am against is the 4e focus on such ridicolous issues like "balance" and "cool powers" instead on good roleplaying, authentic world design and tense immersive adventures like it was in pre-4e editions. I mean there is not even a good world setting for 4e.

The adventures modules are strictly formalized, railroaded and feel like an inconsistent childrens movie. Where are the days of great adventures like Isle of Dread or Castle Ravenloft?

I am not a fan of 3x because of the excessive rule complexity but at least it was a real roleplaying game. And so its no wonder that the APs of Paizo like Kingmaker AP have more roleplaying potential on 5 pages than the whole offical WotC Orcus campaign in 500 pages.

 

[LostSoul]

Let me start by saying that I agree with a lot of points made on both sides here.

If you wish to make the honest version of the argument, then you should attempt to explain why effects-based mechanics are flawed, not right for D&D, or whatever version of that is your goal. Not only will this be better received, it will allow you to hone this argument to separate out the legitmate conceptual pieces of it, from system-specific concerns, from personal preferences.

I don't think there are too many effects that are "dissociated" from the fiction. Off the top of my head, two or more Fighter Marks on the same target is the only one that comes to mind. There's usually a way to link up the fiction to what happens with other powers and abilities.

That being said, I find that 4E doesn't work well for maintaining a sense of what's going on in the fiction. 4E does a great job of linking actions and fictional details to resolution: because it has static DCs for any conceivable action and a table for the one element that you can't figure out based on the description of the action - damage. However, you have to work in order to make it happen. There's just so much going on during a turn that doesn't require you to think about things in game-world or fictional terms that it's far too easy to let that slide.

In other words, the system allows fictional effects to have an impact on resolution, but it does not highlight this. Without highlighting this feature, it can too easily get lost amid all the other information you have to think about when it's your turn or when you are adjudicating actions (i.e. DMing).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In other words, the system allows fictional effects to have an impact on resolution, but it does not highlight this. Without highlighting this feature, it can too easily get lost amid all the other information you have to think about when it's your turn or when you are adjudicating actions (i.e. DMing).

Isn't this what several people, you included IIRC, are calling "fiction first?" I have no beef with that line of argument, either. Of course, this is a far less ambitious argument (read, "reasonable" in the context of warring gamer preferences), because it argues from the point of view of priorities.

I should have listed "fiction first" as a good option in my previous reply. I was aware of it, but it isn't something that I've thought much on lately.

 

[LostSoul]

Isn't this what several people, you included IIRC, are calling "fiction first?" I have no beef with that line of argument, either. Of course, this is a far less ambitious argument (read, "reasonable" in the context of warring gamer preferences), because it argues from the point of view of priorities.

I should have listed "fiction first" as a good option in my previous reply. I was aware of it, but it isn't something that I've thought much on lately.

Yeah. My initial goal for my "Fiction First" hack was to get the system to force the players (DM included) to pay more attention to the fictional details and what's going on in the game world. It's not as "Fiction First" as it could be because I decided to tie it to player skill: you can still say "I use Reaping Strike" but that's not as good a tactic as saying "I use Reaping Strike, chopping down at his head with my axe, the force of my blow putting him off-balance".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ironically, IMHO, the biggest critics of 4e seem to be people that from my perspective are way too caught up in the mechanics. We tell stories. We use the rules to help us tell those stories. Good solid rules that work for most situations and give all the players a reasonably even amount of plot power seem to work best for us.

Honestly, why are effects, areas of effect, ranges, etc standardized? Because these things get these details OUT OF THE WAY. Instead of play being about the game it can be much more about the story. I don't need a 'fiction first' version of the rules for instance. I just don't know what else could ever possibly be first before the story. Sure, I can imagine a group of people playing tactical skimish game, but honestly 4e isn't even close to the best set of rules for that in and of itself.

I can understand arguments from the perspective of level of abstraction, where someone might say "well, Seventh Sea works better because it makes combat abstract and moves the focus to other things." That would be an argument. The "zomg! an ooze can be made prone and there are only 10 conditions, this is gamist!" doesn't. It just doesn't reach me.

I don't want complicated powers with open-ended (and IMHO usually not well conceived) ramifications. I can handle players doing oddball stuff. As page 42 says "You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine."

I'm not really buying the whole idea that somehow 4e lobotomized all the RPers and they can't or won't describe what they do anymore. I've DMed a LOT of different groups over the years. I've seen plenty of dry-as-dust mechanics focused play in every version of the game, and conversely plenty of highly descriptive imaginative play, again in all different versions of the game. I don't think the game system is the driver for this, it is the people at the table.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can understand arguments from the perspective of level of abstraction, where someone might say "well, Seventh Sea works better because it makes combat abstract and moves the focus to other things." That would be an argument. The "zomg! an ooze can be made prone and there are only 10 conditions, this is gamist!" doesn't. It just doesn't reach me.

I'm much in the same boat, except that lately I've been gaining insight into the other persective--that is, I'm being reached. It still doesn't change my preferences or the way I think or react, but it does help me grok a bit of the disconnect.

One thing I have noticed a lot of is that some people do things by "process" in ways that I would not normally consider, and these things are often a lot more serious than any part of gaming. You may have a business process, for example, that exists because people found that if you didn't enforce it, you got all kinds of bad trouble. But in that environment, you will occasionally find someone that begins to treat the process itself as the goal rather than a means. It is as if, to use an extreme, silly version, someone focused on the bookkeeping process as a money maker, instead of a way to measure/regulate the money produced by whatever the business does.

And of course, goals are all over the place. People want different results in their roleplaying, and they may also want those results to have a different feel. Process creates a good deal of the feel. If you know what goals and feel you want, you can get a good start on which processes to use, and how much--at least for people you know or that share your goals and feel preferences.

The elevation of process to a goal in and of itself short circuits that whole thought process, AND makes it difficult to convey your goals and desires to someone else, even someone else trying to be helpful.

Some people like simulation (or particular simulation) because it is a preference. They like the feel produced, and their goals are highly congruent with processes used for simulation. Other people like simulation processes and have mistaken them for first principles.