D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Hussar]

Although, to be fair P1NBACK, if you look at the front of the 4e PHB, one of three fundamentals is "general rules, lots of exceptions". So, the general rule is, swarms can't be pushed. But, it's up to the DM to determine if an exception should be made. I have no real problem with that.

However, I also have no problem with a DM who rules against me either. If he chooses to uphold the rules, he's not a bad DM. I might not be happy at the time, but, that doesn't make him a bad DM. You're honest enough to say that, in your opinion, some attention needs to be paid to the fiction.

But, that doesn't really follow that attention needs to be paid. If I choose to ignore the in game fiction in favour of the game rules, that's not bad play. There are trade-offs to be made in both methods. The "Attention to Fiction" model is much more susceptable to the players gaming the DM. The "Ignore the Fiction" model loses flexibility.

Both, both approaches are pretty valid and neither needs to bring in comparisons to failure to role play which is strongly implied by comparisons to board games. All that does is cloud the issue.

 

[P1NBACK]

Although, to be fair P1NBACK, if you look at the front of the 4e PHB, one of three fundamentals is "general rules, lots of exceptions". So, the general rule is, swarms can't be pushed. But, it's up to the DM to determine if an exception should be made. I have no real problem with that.

Right. I agree completely. This is my stance.

However, some people don't agree. The rules are what matter (even when you misinterpret them).

However, I also have no problem with a DM who rules against me either. If he chooses to uphold the rules, he's not a bad DM. I might not be happy at the time, but, that doesn't make him a bad DM. You're honest enough to say that, in your opinion, some attention needs to be paid to the fiction.

But, that doesn't really follow that attention needs to be paid. If I choose to ignore the in game fiction in favour of the game rules, that's not bad play. There are trade-offs to be made in both methods. The "Attention to Fiction" model is much more susceptable to the players gaming the DM. The "Ignore the Fiction" model loses flexibility.

Both, both approaches are pretty valid and neither needs to bring in comparisons to failure to role play which is strongly implied by comparisons to board games. All that does is cloud the issue.

Hussar, I see where you are coming from. The problem with this thread is "tone". Some people seem to think that if you equate D&D combat to a "tactical board game" that's a bad thing. It's not. Why? Because some people want to go into board game mode when they go into combat.

Others, however, like to stay "immersed" or whatever you want to call it. There's a serious problem if when we roll initiative all of a sudden we zoom out of the game and project ourselves onto this map with minis and the fiction ceases to exist. We're playing a tactical miniatures game, a board game, like D&D minis. It's not a bad thing. But, it's certainly not roleplaying.

I know there are some people that prefer this method of combat. They want everything to be codified, like chess. It doesn't matter if it makes sense in the fiction, so long as it follows the rigid formula set by the game parameters. That's fine. In fact, I can really understand why you would want to do that. It's a big flaw in 4E, that it's hard to associate the mechanics in combat to the fiction.

Most people don't have their DMG open to page 42 when they play. They use the powers on their sheet, and that's about it.

But, don't tell me I'm "confused" or "wrong" or a "bad DM" or using "DM fiat" or whatever because some of us prefer to use the fiction as the core of the game. Especially, and this really gets me, when it comes to using skills. I just can't fathom someone saying, "I roll diplomacy" without any fiction backing that up. Man 'o man.

Anyways, like I said upthread. To each his own. Play the game how you wish.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree that you're taking offense to something that is just simply true. 4E's combat mechanics are more like a board game and less like a roleplaying game. This is made doubly true if you completely ignore the fiction going on in the game to adhere to the strict disassociated mechanics in place at the table.

More like a board game and less like a roleplaying game than what? 4e is a roleplaying game therefore its rules are those of a roleplaying game.

And the mechanics of 4e are the least dissociated mechanics of any version of D&D I have ever played. When I play a fighter in older editions, I stand next to my target playing pattycake until one of us reaches 0 hp - we are still entirely functional up to that point. When I play a fighter in 4e, I push my opponent around with my shield and size. I see and exploit opportunities. I get so far in my opponent's face that he doesn't dare turn his back and it will take a few seconds for him to recover his cool even if he slips away. And I sometimes step back and try to recover my breath if I'm getting tired. And I do flag part way through. 4e combat is subject to the limitations of a grid - and the strengths of one (much clearer shared visualisation because you can see where everyone is).

If "disassociated mechanics" means 'represents damn well for the level of detail what I do in real life, then turns it up at higher levels' then yes, 4e has disassociated mechanics. If it means 'makes a fun game by turning real life actions up to 11' then yes it has disassociated mechanics. If it means 'saves a hell of a lot of time and hassle by having a pretty clear set of rules for complex actions even at the expense of fine detail' then it has disassociated mechanics. If it means something else, could you please explain in detail what that is and how 4e is any worse than older editions of D&D (or even e.g. GURPS)?

The Burning Wheel is vastly different in this respect. The mechanics are jointed nicely with the fiction, so when you play the Burning Wheel strictly by the rules, it's not disassociated with the roleplaying at the table.

I've never played Burning Wheel, but from what I can tell it (like Dogs in the Vineyard) has a set of mechanics that are jointed with the fiction, but disassociated from the world. Still, it looks a nice system. Simply a largely narrativist one - and 4e has the best narrative support of any edition of mainstream D&D (ignoring e.g. fantasycraft) Does the criticism of "disassociated mechanics" really boil down to "It's D&D"?

I've said it before (in this and the swarm thread), this is a major flaw of 4E. It's mechanics (especially in combat, but also in Skill Challenges), is extremely disassociated with the fiction.

You've never played a skill challenge with me as DM. They are a brilliant DM tool that's badly explained - and I really must finish that guide. And when used as more than a dice rolling excercise are far more immersive than skill systems in previous editions because they are not either (a) pass/fail or (b) largely down to DM fiat. Unfortunately the guidance sucks - which is why I must write my own.

So, while I'd be more interested in your argument if you were saying, "Well, because 4E's mechanics have so little to do with the fiction, it's not wise to make judgments of the mechanics based on the fiction."

4e's mechanics are a better fit to the fiction than most games. And unlike most wide open games (like e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard), they bring things of their own such as combat styles. Which encourages me in riffs I'd never have thought of without the seed presented right there in the mechanics.

You saying, "you're making fun of us because you're saying it's boardgame-like to play strictly by the rules" doesn't really seem all that much of an argument. I'm not attacking anyone's play style. But, if we're going to play this game like a roleplaying game, I think some attention has to be paid to the fiction.

Some is. And a lot was paid when the game was designed.

When you say, "you can't push a swarm with a melee attack" and I say, "but he just used a board to shove the rats back into the wall!" Well, there's a fundamental difference there.

Yes. If you're using a board like that, how are you holding it? How are you getting it positioned in combat in the few seconds you have? How are you using a board not expecting the rats to go over and round it? If the rat swarm is big and feral enough to be threatening adventurers in combat and you try to bend over to use a board to push them back you're going to get rats up your legs, up your arms, and all over you unless your DM is a pushover (and, for that matter, swinging something in a wide arc is a close attack rather than melee). If someone were to try that damn fool stunt with me DMing, I'd allow them under the guidelines of page 42 of the DMG. Improvised weapon vs reflex (rats dodge), low damage expression (on a good day), close blast 1 and push 1 on a success. Rats get an attack of opportunity because it's a damn fool stunt.

But that's not an orthodox push attack. It's an improvised close area attack (close blast 1, probably). And there's plently of precident for making close bursts and blasts with melee weapons.

 

[Nichwee]

Others, however, like to stay "immersed" or whatever you want to call it. There's a serious problem if when we roll initiative all of a sudden we zoom out of the game and project ourselves onto this map with minis and the fiction ceases to exist. We're playing a tactical miniatures game, a board game, like D&D minis. It's not a bad thing. But, it's certainly not roleplaying.

So if my Wizard who loves to show off his longsword use (Melee Training[Int], WotSpiralTower PP, Bracers Of Mighty Striking and a Ranger MC) chooses, because of the personality trait I gave him purely for RP reasons - and knowing it was suboptimal, to teleport behind a monster, declares Hunter's Quarry and smacks him with his PP Enc ability it is not roleplaying if I say
"Nivel uses Fey Step to teleport to here (indicate a square with my finger), uses his Minor to designate this monster as his Quarry and hits it with One Sword. I got a 37 vs Reflex and a 36 vs Will."
and choose to adhere to the RAW for what the outcome is?
As I see it I followed all the rules of the combat exactly and I let roleplaying guide my characters actions and choices - but I didn't try to argue any rules or make up any flashy descriptors for what amounts to "Teleport, Quarry, Swing Longsword".

So did I perform 'roleplaying' or is this set of actions too 'removed from the fiction' to count?

 

[P1NBACK]

So if my Wizard who loves to show off his longsword use (Melee Training[Int], WotSpiralTower PP, Bracers Of Mighty Striking and a Ranger MC) chooses, because of the personality trait I gave him purely for RP reasons - and knowing it was suboptimal, to teleport behind a monster, declares Hunter's Quarry and smacks him with his PP Enc ability it is not roleplaying if I say
"Nivel uses Fey Step to teleport to here (indicate a square with my finger), uses his Minor to designate this monster as his Quarry and hits it with One Sword. I got a 37 vs Reflex and a 36 vs Will."
and choose to adhere to the RAW for what the outcome is?
As I see it I followed all the rules of the combat exactly and I let roleplaying guide my characters actions and choices - but I didn't try to argue any rules or make up any flashy descriptors for what amounts to "Teleport, Quarry, Swing Longsword".

So did I perform 'roleplaying' or is this set of actions too 'removed from the fiction' to count?

Let me turn this question back on you.

If we're playing Monopoly. And, I give my Thimble piece a "personality" and decide not to build a Hotel on Boardwalk because of that personality, and I spoke to the other players in a funny voice explaining why.

Is this roleplaying?

Or, how about if we're playing Chess. And, I decide that my Queen is my character and she's more important than the King. And, I give my knights names and have them move beside her the entire time making tactical decisions based on her importance instead of the rules of the game. Am I roleplaying now?

 

[Nichwee]

Let me turn this question back on you.

If we're playing Monopoly. And, I give my Thimble piece a "personality" and decide not to build a Hotel on Boardwalk because of that personality, and I spoke to the other players in a funny voice explaining why.

Is this roleplaying?

Yes. You have invented a ROLE, and are PLAYING in accordance with that ROLE.

Last I checked that was the only prerequisite for roleplaying. Not making up longwinded explainations, not avoiding the use of a "game term", not breaking the rules because it fits your opinion of how the story should happen - simply PLAYING a ROLE.

This doesn't make Monopoly a roleplay game - as it has no concept of the game being played from the characters viewpoint, it simply uses the markers as exactly that and makes no suggestion that you invent personalities and styles to play.
D&D does suggest these things, it also tells you to invent motivations and backgrounds and to let them effect the way your character does things in the world. This doesn't mean you should go out of your way to describe every choice your character makes as viewed from the character angle - merely that the personality that goes with the role you are playing helps to make those choices.
The DMG points out a number of different types of roleplayer and the things to watch out for. An overly chatty Actor or Storyteller is no more a roleplayer than an Explorer, Investigator or Slayer just because they use narrative words rather than game ones.

I still fail to see why "I sweep my sword down at his legs and he crumbles to the floor" is more roleplaying than "I use <Insert Power Name> and it knocks him prone" - I see why it is more storytelling but not why it is more roleplaying, especially as it could be used to describe the actions of a bloodthristy fighter trying to avenge his sister's murder when the more in character choice may well seem to be to use something that actually dealt damage but the Storyteller didn't want to do that as it was tactically unsound. You may notice I implied the Storyteller may not be roleplaying very well despite describing things well - as his choices were purely "board-gaming" the battle effects, he just used more narrative language.

 

[P1NBACK]

Yes. You have invented a ROLE, and are PLAYING in accordance with that ROLE.

Then you and I have a fundamental difference on what a "Roleplaying Game" is and how they should be designed. Obviously, we're not going to agree on anything. Good day.

 

[Hussar]

Let me turn this question back on you.

If we're playing Monopoly. And, I give my Thimble piece a "personality" and decide not to build a Hotel on Boardwalk because of that personality, and I spoke to the other players in a funny voice explaining why.

Is this roleplaying?

Or, how about if we're playing Chess. And, I decide that my Queen is my character and she's more important than the King. And, I give my knights names and have them move beside her the entire time making tactical decisions based on her importance instead of the rules of the game. Am I roleplaying now?

Yes. Yes you are roleplaying.

Now, is Chess a roleplaying game? No, it isn't. There is absolutely no presumption in the rules that you will play any sort of role at all during the game. You can turn it into an RPG, but, that doesn't mean it starts that way.

You can turn any game into an RPG. It might take some work to turn Scrabble into an RPG, but, I'm sure that someone, somewhere has done it.

 

[MrMyth]

Then you and I have a fundamental difference on what a "Roleplaying Game" is and how they should be designed. Obviously, we're not going to agree on anything. Good day.

Wait, seriously? If people playing Monopoly decide to invent full-fledged personalities for their characters, and take actions in character, and make decisions based on roleplaying reasons rather than what would be the most effective winning move of the game... you don't consider them to have added a roleplaying element to the game?

The real problem I see with these sort of complaints is that they seem to feel that certain game elements are incompatible. That adding more tactical elements to the combat portion of D&D requires removing roleplaying elements in some fashion. Which is just absurd - there isn't some zero-sum equation of what elements a game can consist of.

I don't object to you wanting to play a game that is 'fiction first'. I do object to board claims that other gamers are incapable of roleplaying when they play a D&D combat with accessories like miniatures. If you find it breaks your suspension of disbelief, fair enough, that's one thing - but you are making some sweeping statements (that tactical combat = a board game) that don't mesh at all with other people's experiences, and you need to recognize that people are going to continue to object to that.

 

[P1NBACK]

Wait, seriously? If people playing Monopoly decide to invent full-fledged personalities for their characters, and take actions in character, and make decisions based on roleplaying reasons rather than what would be the most effective winning move of the game... you don't consider them to have added a roleplaying element to the game?

Nope.

...but you are making some sweeping statements (that tactical combat = a board game) that don't mesh at all with other people's experiences, and you need to recognize that people are going to continue to object to that.

Nah. I never said that. Tactical combat has nothing to do with it. Disassociated mechanics do. When you play a game that has no bearing on the shared fiction we're creating, you are not playing a "roleplaying" game. You're playing a game, and doing some improv acting over top of it. It's completely separate.

Like I said, it's like playing chess as a roleplaying game. It doesn't work.

I'm not saying 4th Edition is completely like this, but if you ignore the fiction, you're taking it in that direction. Some people here seem to be ignoring the fiction.

Has nothing to do with "tactical combat". The same could be said of skill challenges. As someone mentioned above, they adore the idea of skill challenges, but had to completely re-write them for them to work. Why? Because they said that skill challenges "as written" were an exercise in dice-rolling. Why does it seem that way? Likely, because those dice rolls aren't being tied to fiction or fictional choices the players are making.

It's the same with Monopoly. I can decide that "fictionally" I want to go the opposite direction! Or, hey! Let's STAY on Boardwalk. "Hey, guys, I'm just gonna chill in my penthouse on boardwalk."

But it doesn't work like that. The rules dictate that you roll the dice. You take your turn. You move that many spaces in a clockwise direction. The "fiction" you're creating has NO IMPACT on the game and the rules and vice versa.

That's not my definition of a roleplaying game. It's fine if you think it is. That by tacking on some funny voices and personas we're roleplaying. Ok. Good for you. But, I disagree. Fundamentally.

No biggie. Play your Monopoly with "roles". Call it roleplaying. I don't care.

But, we're still at a fundamental disagreement.