D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Tequila Sunrise]

And that you can move through an oppenents square if they are prone.

What, being prone somehow makes me unable to aim my sword between your legs and *ahem* as you rush recklessly above me? That doesn't make any sense. (I do let combatants move through each other, prone or not, but I give the passive party CA against the one foolish enough to provoke an OA.)

As to the on-the-fly diagonal movement rule, yeah that'd probably irritate me. But the square grid irritates me in general, which is why I use a hex grid.

 

[Ahrimon]

I didn't say anything at the game. I was trying to keep the game flowing. We're not the most time efficient group. But DnD isn't a race. I haven't said anything to the group yet either. I wanted to make sure I wasn't over reacting first.

I can see both sides. No matter which way you rule, it'll probaly break someones plausibility either way. One way you can't make a wall across a diagonal area. The other it only takes 4 people to completely box you in if your posistioned one way and you can escape if they rotate a few degrees.

I think most of my annoyance came from the on the fly (to me) ruling.

Oh, and for moving through a prone creatures space, it's considered difficult terrain and you still provoke opportunity attacks is how they're playing it.

 

[Solvarn]

You know, at first I thought it was stupid, too. But it makes sense.

If you have two enemies adjacent to each other vertically or horizontally, you cannot move between them, end of story, because there is no square to enter. Why would you suddenly be able to move between them because one of them moves to a position that is diagonal ON THE GRID? The enemies are still adjacent, so you should still not be able to go in between them.

For arguments' sake, lets say that there are 12 inches between adjacent combatants. According to 4e, whether you are diagonally related to your buddy, or horizontally/vertically related, you are adjacent. Thus, you are 12 inches apart in all positions. Why can you walk through one 12 inch gap, but not the other?

Yeah, that's a good point, I hadn't really considered it. Hexes solved this problem nicely.

I take back calling your group stupid. I am actually stupid.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Yeah, that's a good point, I hadn't really considered it. Hexes solved this problem nicely.

I take back calling your group stupid. I am actually stupid.

Wasn't my group...I was just making an observation. Hex grids are fantastic for medium and smaller things. Wouldn't they be problematic for large+ critters?

 

[pemerton]

4e, more so than any version of D&D since the original, sacrifices realism for playability.

I don't agree with this. It sacrifices simulation for playability, but realism can be preserved (for those who care) provided that players and GMs adopt a flexible approach to narrating the gameworld.

This can have other sorts of implications for play - for example, if narration and mechanics are signficantly divorced, Gygaxian-style skillful play becomes harder - but I don't see this as a realism issue.

 

[DracoSuave]

4e, more so than any version of D&D since the original, sacrifices realism for playability.

Inaccurate.

4e, more so than any version of D&D since the original, is self-aware that it is unrealistic, and instead seems far more informed by the genre it's supposed to try to emulate.

In particular ,4e sacrifices things for balance, so tweaking and adding various house rules can easily have unintended consequences where one class or race get affected more than others.

Of course, the rules occasionally get it wrong, and then should be adjusted, but only with extreme caution lest the game get out of whack with one character getting too much benefit or penalty relative to others.

And the rest are issues inherent with every roleplaying game ever.

I don't agree with this. It sacrifices simulation for playability, but realism can be preserved (for those who care) provided that players and GMs adopt a flexible approach to narrating the gameworld.

This can have other sorts of implications for play - for example, if narration and mechanics are signficantly divorced, Gygaxian-style skillful play becomes harder - but I don't see this as a realism issue.

In fact, dare I say, Gygaxian-style 'skillful' play is as divorced from attempts to facilitate realism as possible.

And as for the 'simulation' vs 'playability' let's settle this here and now.

When most people say 'simulationism' they really mean 'ability to game more elements of the world.' This is a personal pet peeve... 4th edition is not more 'gamist' because it doesn't attempt to make everything into game elements... it's the lack of game elements to describe the game world that define 4th edition in terms of narrativism.

A perfect example is how towns and the economy work.

In 3rd edition, you checked the size of the town, rolled on a couple tables to see what gp budget was available to buy/sell, checked the character classes of present townsfolk to ensure the availability of item creation feats were there.....

...in other words... the town was described and built based on its ability to interact with the game mechanics and terminology. I.E. literally gamist. Sometimes the results stretched plausibility, but you accepted it, because the game rules told you that's how it was. And players would actively say stuff like 'Look, this town has so-and-so thousand people so we MUST be able to unload a 10000gp sword on them at full price!' and then feel cheated if the plausibility of it prevents their 'rights'.

4th edition: The town is what you need it to be, for the reason you need it to be. If that town is in economic strife because the merchant routes are under siege by orc invaders, then there's no way you're offloading that sword... no one can afford it. Why? Because it makes sense, that's why. Game rules be damned!

 

[eamon]

4e sacrifices basic plausibility systematically. Fluff no longer matters; in fact, it's suggested that game effects be refluffed as appropriate. In short, the rules aren't designed to be particularly consistent with the fluff, and it's acknowledged that you'll need to rethink fluff - whether it makes sense or not - in order to maintain the rules.

The prone gelantinous cubes and grabbed swarms are perfect examples hereof. It's entirely unclear how a 5 foot cube can be prone. Certainly, if a cube were prone and unconscious, it's left to the imagination of the reader how a PC can walk through it. Or, normally, when something's grabbed, a set of strong limbs suffices - yet, based on the thread earlier, apparently it's assumed heroes have quite a collection of tools handy at all time and the insight and knowledge of a swarm to be capable to grab it just as effectively with these improvised means.

If there had not been a set of rules to determine whether the cube could be made prone or the swarm grabbed, any sane story-teller would have laughed at the idea. And... that's pretty much what everybody did pre-4e.

In 4e, they said, hey, you can always find some sort of explanation that works, mmmkay? The problem with that line of reasoning is that it devalues the story and fluff of the game - after all, you're habitually using flimsy explanations not because they make sense at first thought but because you're trying to bend the in-game world to reach a preordained conclusion.

Of all D&D editions I've played, 4e is clearly the most focused on making tactical combat interesting and fun, and equally clearly the least focused on being "informed by the genre it's supposed to try to emulate". Whatever the fiction, the overuse of deus ex machina that refluffing requires is not considered good form. Even if the incongruous explanations were made for further the plot, too many undermine the structure; and the arbitrary explanations we need aren't made for the plot but for the rules.

Since this kind of argument often devolves into flamewar, consider that this particular flaw of 4e does not make it's strengths less attractive, nor that the game as a whole is therefore terrible. I feel it is necessary to focus on the flaw because people all to often pretend it doesn't exist or that it is inevitable (implying that thus it's pointless to consider plausibility at all) or that non-combat rules aren't as prescriptive (which aren't the focus of the game and doesn't fix the combat rules in any way). The parallels of these arguments with 4e's approach to fluff are ironic.

In combat, 4e does not encourage consistent, plausible fluff. If you want to make the best of the situation and avoid bringing ludicrous cases to the game table, the first step is identifying and accepting that issue.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

In combat, 4e does not encourage consistent, plausible fluff. If you want to make the best of the situation and avoid bringing ludicrous cases to the game table, the first step is identifying and accepting that issue.

I'm in 100% agreement with the first sentence. I just don't believe this is a problem. Basically, you can either have real balance or consistent, plausible fluff but you only get to pick one.

Plausible fluff says that wizards destroy nearly everyone in a room with every fireball spell they cast. A big ball of fire basically kills anyone it hits. And a Fireball HITS everyone. Meanwhile, the same plausible fluff says that a guy with a sword can't actually cause damage to a 5 foot cube of jello...or a ghost.

In order to play in a game where you can play a guy with a sword and a guy who shoots fireballs in the same group and feel like you contribute the same thing to a fight, you need to do away with the idea that there needs to be consistent, plausible fluff and instead start with the balanced game effects and move backwards to semi-plausible fluff, glossing over the rough edges.

I save my completely plausible fluff for non-combat situations when game balance isn't nearly as important.

 

[lutecius]

And as for the 'simulation' vs 'playability' let's settle this here and now.

When most people say 'simulationism' they really mean 'ability to game more elements of the world.' This is a personal pet peeve... 4th edition is not more 'gamist' because it doesn't attempt to make everything into game elements... it's the lack of game elements to describe the game world that define 4th edition in terms of narrativism.

A perfect example is how towns and the economy work.

No. That's a "rules-light vs rules-heavy" or a "combat vs out-of-combat rules" example.

When most people say 'simulationism', they don't mean lots of rules, for everything. they mean rules that are intended to be consistent with the fluff.
most sim complaints involve existing mechanics, not the lack thereof.

e.g. 4e has rules for exceptionally cool martial tricks, but there is no good in-game explanation for why they can be pulled-off exactly once per day / per fight.

it has rules to grab or poison things, even things that don't look grabbable or poisonable so you have to come up with tortured explanations for how it works story-wise.

I don't see people complaining about minions because they're not fleshed-out. they just dislike the same creature having different mechanics depending on whether it's a minion, regular monster or NPC.

and, to keep this on topic, they don't complain about the lack of a battle grid, they complain about grids and movement rules they don't find believable.

same for healing surges etc…

 

[eamon]

I'm in 100% agreement with the first sentence. I just don't believe this is a problem. Basically, you can either have real balance or consistent, plausible fluff but you only get to pick one.

Plausible fluff says that wizards destroy nearly everyone in a room with every fireball spell they cast. A big ball of fire basically kills anyone it hits. And a Fireball HITS everyone. Meanwhile, the same plausible fluff says that a guy with a sword can't actually cause damage to a 5 foot cube of jello...or a ghost.

Says who? If you look at an old james bond movie, you might get the idea that a lazer is a terribly effective super-weapon. Yet, in actual fact plain projectiles are almost always much more effective.

Why would a wizard's arcane magic be of particular utility in a fast-paced combat compared to plain steel? Perhaps he has difficulty lighting more than a candle in mere 6 seconds. Perhaps that's the most heat magic can make in the first place.

That's the easy thing about fantasy - it doesn't exist and you can invent it's logic - and as long as it's consistent or even inconsistent in ways that suggest undiscovered territory rather than nonsense, it's fine.

There's nothing intrinsically more plausible about a wizard's fireball that goes off like a nuclear blast than one that goes off with just a small flame and insufficient power to set anything alight.

I think they sacrificed plausibility to gain a cleaner system, and for the idea that immunities (or other ways of shutting down player's abilities) are un-fun. And... it's not worth it. In fact, many solo's are now gaining just such protections versus stun/daze and status effects in general.

Such immunities are just fine as long as they're not overdone and as long as they fit with the fluff. The 3.5 era immunity problem stemmed from the fact that such abilities were almost required to permit a monster to be a real threat - and that meant that some immunities or gotcha abilities became almost pervasive as levels rose. And we're coming full circle; the bad sort of immunities - those that make no sense fluff-wise and exist purely for meta-game reasons to stump players are back in force. Fortunately, the nonsense is mostly in solos, which are easy to avoid.