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

[Raven Crowking]

The rules of the game, especially 4e, aren't about modeling reality. They are about giving each player a controlled amount of narrative license.

Thank you. AFAICT, that is the answer to the OP.


RC

 

[KarinsDad]

Is it really a binary question? I don't think it is. I think it's rooted right in people's expectations of what "simulate what occurs in the game universe" are. You can have totally reasonable and completely conflicting expectations. For instance, you can expect that when a PC tries to cut a chandelier down onto a bunch of the King's Guard, that the logical result would be that it's highly likely to work because the game rules are simulating swashbuckler-style high action media. But you can also expect that it shouldn't work because the tensile strength of the metal chain holding the chandelier in place shouldn't be easily severed by a sword blow, because the game is simulating a less fantastic sort of reality.

So if a game allows you to cut that chain easily, the question of "does the game create the appropriate result?" can be answered both yes and no. It's the nature of what you want simulated that determines the response. And I really think there is no way to get an objective result outside of that context.

Effectively, what this means is that the DM sets the DC of the action (or maybe AC in this case).

A DM who wants swashbuckler style results might give it a low AC.

A DM who wants plausible style results might give it a higher AC.

But both DMs should probably have the attempt fail if the player rolls a 1 on the D20 and succeed if the player rolls a 20 on the D20. Even though two DMs allow the attempt to be easier or harder, it should rarely be an automatic a success or an automatic failure.

I find that the concept thrown about in the 4E community of "just say Yes" via bending/breaking the rules to sometimes be inadequate to my enjoyment of the game.

There is nothing wrong with the DM allowing players to "attempt" actions, but some of those attempts should fail and some should succeed. Enjoyment is not just based on succeeding every time and having the DM say Yes every time. A lot of enjoyment is based on achieving success after multiple earlier failures. Most of the best battles are against the re-occurring villain that it takes many encounters (and possibly levels) to overcome, not the plethora of one time villains that get beat every single encounter.

Finally I simply don't see anything in the 4e rules where it says you have to adjudicate every mechanical effect without reference to the integrity of the narrative (which might involve being more realistic, though I hesitate to call that 'simulating' anything). Sure, CaGI provides the the player of the fighter with a defined narrative 'coupon' and as a general policy the DM wants to allow the players to expend that in keeping with the rules. That doesn't mean utter consistency needs to be adhered to at all times. If you feel like a use of a power etc in a certain way isn't going to convey the situation effectively then the DM has a responsibility to decide if changing it will be more fun than letting it slide. This is situational and group dependent and in many groups can be delegated to the players (my players for instance instinctively do this most of the time and I don't even have to think about it). If nobody can come up with a good explanation of WHY the super clever enemy would run up to the fighter and the player doesn't have a good explanation, then have the power do something slightly different or just have the player use a different power and give them something extra for doing that, whatever.

Responsibility?

This seems like a waste of time.

The power should work like the power is written. There is no need (or for some groups desire) to change the power for a given scenario in order to maintain the integrity of narrative license.

Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that Come and Get It would work on Orcus, but too bad. It just works that way (unless he has a resistance to a certain amount of forced movement in some DM's world). No reason to on the fly change the rules or tell the player to use a different power.

I find it more fun to have the game work per RAW/RAI than for a bunch of DM on the fly modifications to maintain narrative license (note: that does not mean that the players know everything about the scenario, things could work in an unexpected manner because the players are unaware of all of the facts). When the DM modifies the rules for narrative license reasons, he is making the assumption that he knows more about what is fun for his players than they know themselves and/or indicating that his direction for his narrative is more important than the desires of the players for the direction of the narrative.

The classic examples of this are the Deus Ex Machina to keep the PCs alive when a TPK or near-TPK is about to occur, or the Deus Ex Machina of the villain escaping when he is on the verge of losing. More minor modifications of the rules/scenario to achieve a specific narrative result are just less annoying than major ones, but they are still annoying.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Responsibility?

This seems like a waste of time.

The power should work like the power is written. There is no need (or for some groups desire) to change the power for a given scenario in order to maintain the integrity of narrative license.

Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that Come and Get It would work on Orcus, but too bad. It just works that way (unless he has a resistance to a certain amount of forced movement in some DM's world). No reason to on the fly change the rules or tell the player to use a different power.

I find it more fun to have the game work per RAW/RAI than for a bunch of DM on the fly modifications to maintain narrative license (note: that does not mean that the players know everything about the scenario, things could work in an unexpected manner because the players are unaware of all of the facts). When the DM modifies the rules for narrative license reasons, he is making the assumption that he knows more about what is fun for his players than they know themselves and/or indicating that his direction for his narrative is more important than the desires of the players for the direction of the narrative.

The classic examples of this are the Deus Ex Machina to keep the PCs alive when a TPK or near-TPK is about to occur, or the Deus Ex Machina of the villain escaping when he is on the verge of losing. More minor modifications of the rules/scenario to achieve a specific narrative result are just less annoying than major ones, but they are still annoying.

I don't really have a problem with the unquoted part of your post, but if I understand the above correctly, I don't buy it.

It is not an all or nothing affair. There is a huge gap between exact mechanical RAW, all the time, versus shutting things down (or opening them wide open) via DM fiat.

What is wrong with this? "The group will decide what will fly in the narrative. If you use a metagaming power, someone at the table has to make it fit the narrative."

What you have said above is simply a special case of that rule, something like: "Once we have agreed that something can be tried, then we are pretty much happy with whatever that does to the narrative, no justification necessary."

That's fine for a given table. It is too restrictive as a general guideline when discussing how to play 4E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

General rule:

do as many shenigans as you see fit, but don´t let your players notice.

I once had more problems when i actually used the deathjump spider as written than when i had made up something on the fly. And just few weeks ago i was called a cheater, because i didn´t do a TPK, when the scenario was planned to be a close fight with help just on time.

There is absolutely no possibility for your players to recognize, if you made up a power in 4e or if the mnster can actually fo this... which was one major drawback of 3.5... at first i thought it was a boon, but i had players and DMs that tried to utilize their knowledge in an unfaiir way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really have a problem with the unquoted part of your post, but if I understand the above correctly, I don't buy it.

It is not an all or nothing affair. There is a huge gap between exact mechanical RAW, all the time, versus shutting things down (or opening them wide open) via DM fiat.

What is wrong with this? "The group will decide what will fly in the narrative. If you use a metagaming power, someone at the table has to make it fit the narrative."

What you have said above is simply a special case of that rule, something like: "Once we have agreed that something can be tried, then we are pretty much happy with whatever that does to the narrative, no justification necessary."

That's fine for a given table. It is too restrictive as a general guideline when discussing how to play 4E.

Right. When I talk about say making some tweak to the way CaGI works in some hypothetical situation (or we could talk about the 'pushing a swarm' case that generated such a big debate a while back) that doesn't have to indicate that there is some radical change. It doesn't have to indicate that the player was suddenly shorn of their ability to utilize one of their powers (plot coupons) either. Nor is it something that will come up very often IME.

Indeed lets imagine that the PC uses CaGI. In 95% of all cases it will simply work exactly the way the book says it does. This could be fluffed various ways, and it might now and then represent a minor retcon or some such thing, but it will work. Usually the player will just use the power, supply some narrative along the lines of "I insult the goblin's mothers." and the mechanics will be implemented. Once in a while the player will want to come up with something a bit more elaborate to make it fit the narrative, like a retcon or maybe some characters will have some unique fluff for it like the polearm master.

Once in a great while we'll all stare at each other and wonder how the heck the mechanics could create a sensible narrative. Maybe in that case the player will simply do something else. Maybe the DM will come up with some kind of alternative. It might work BETTER than normal, it might exclude an improbable target, or it might just work a bit differently. The DM would normally (at least in our games) explain the logic behind what he's doing and let the players decide if they're satisfied with that or not. Maybe in some groups that wouldn't work, and in some groups you may just say 'damn the narrative' and run it exactly by RAW.

None of them are badwrongfun. The game is not changed profoundly by doing this kind of stuff either. It just doesn't come up so often that it makes a huge difference. In general I would say the best policy is to make these tweaks lead to something more interesting. In the same vein you'd probably like to make failing to pull off a stunt result in something more cool, like an 'epic fail' that gives the PC a chance to turn the tables and make failure into a brilliant, if extemporaneous, success with his next action.

 

[WiredNerve]

I would recommend you look at I.C.E. systems if you really want a system to lay out "everything" you can do...

Rolemaster Classic Iron Crown Enterprises

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't really have a problem with the unquoted part of your post, but if I understand the above correctly, I don't buy it.

It is not an all or nothing affair. There is a huge gap between exact mechanical RAW, all the time, versus shutting things down (or opening them wide open) via DM fiat.

What is wrong with this? "The group will decide what will fly in the narrative. If you use a metagaming power, someone at the table has to make it fit the narrative."

First off, what is a metagaming power? The powers are what they are. Are you talking about extending the power to do something that it is not supposed to do?

If so, why would you want to open Pandora's box of possibly unbalancing the game because someone thought of a cool thing to attempt that his powers or skills do not actually allow?

Using a skill example instead of a powers one, if my PC can use Acrobatics to jump from wall to wall up an alleyway ot the rooftops easily once, then it becomes problematic when the player starts using Acrobatics to solve every Climb problem in the future. Even when a pit is supposed to be difficult to get out of, the player will expect that he can use Acrobatics to do it, just like the previous dozen times he has tried it.

There is an Athletics skill for Climbing. Acrobatics shouldn't be used for it. Nor should Acrobatics be used for Swimming.

It is unfair to the player who purchased Athletics for his PC to allow a different PC to use Acrobatics to Climb.

The same should often be done with powers. Extending the effects of powers or disallowing powers because of a narrative reason should be extremely rare and done with a bit of caution.


Also, why should this be a group activity even if it were to be allowed? Why isn't it the responsibility of the player who is attempting the metagaming activity to state what his PC is doing instead of a group mind consensus of how to entitle every player to get away with whatever hairbrained idea that pops into his head?


And there are several reasons to not require a narrative fit for any normal power or skill:

1) Consistency. With a no narrative element required clause, the rules play the same every time. Players get comfortable that their powers and skills work as advertised.

2) Ease of use. Not every player is a narrative genius. It is much easier to play the game with "I do Come and Get It" than "I jump up on the balcony pretending to lose my balance, as the enemies start to swarm me because of the weakness, I quickly recover and slice them all across the throats and drop them.". Requiring actions to have a narrative element and penalizing the player in some way if he cannot come up with a good narrative approach or does it poorly is too restrictive.

3) Balance. The designers attempt to balance the powers. When players are allowed to modify the game on the fly by merely coming up with a cool narrative, it shifts the balance of the game towards those imaginative players who are capable of taking advantage of it.


That's not to say that any given player or group of players cannot attempt whatever they want their PC wants to try using whatever narrative elements that they want, but the DM should be careful to change the rules over it. Nor should the players be required to create narrative elements when the PC is just swinging a sword. If the player wants to use Come and Get It, let him.

What you have said above is simply a special case of that rule, something like: "Once we have agreed that something can be tried, then we are pretty much happy with whatever that does to the narrative, no justification necessary."

That's fine for a given table. It is too restrictive as a general guideline when discussing how to play 4E.

If I as a DM have the BBEG protected behind a group of his allied NPCs and a player attempts to have his PC scale a wall and dive down behind those foes to get to the BBEG to attack him, there is no way that I am going to prevent him from trying that. He might succeed, he might not. But, I'm not going to say "You can't do that" because my storyline indicated that the PCs should not yet fight the BBEG.

The player doesn't have to create a major justification on how he is doing something. The more detail he gives me, the better I understand his idea and the more reasonable of a difficulty that I will assign it. But he doesn't need a major narrative justification to try something, nor will I prevent it if it impacts the storyline in a way that I did not anticipate.

But if the player does try something unusual, it will for the most part follow the rules or be pretty darn close. You want your PC to put his dagger in his teeth, jump off the balcony to the chandelier, grab it with both hands, swing across the room on it, drop down in front of the BBEG, pull out his dagger and stab him, I'm going to assign actions to these things, require dice rolls for some of these actions, and let the player know how much of it he has been able to accomplish this round. I'm not going to allow him to put 5 actions into a 3 action round, just because it is narratively cool.

 

[P1NBACK]

You want your PC to put his dagger in his teeth, jump off the balcony to the chandelier, grab it with both hands, swing across the room on it, drop down in front of the BBEG, pull out his dagger and stab him, I'm going to assign actions to these things, require dice rolls for some of these actions, and let the player know how much of it he has been able to accomplish this round. I'm not going to allow him to put 5 actions into a 3 action round, just because it is narratively cool.

Why would that be 5 actions?

I would assign an Athletics check to jump (move action): on a success, you take hold of the chandelier and swing across the room dropping down in front of the BBEG (count it as a Charge action) and attacking. Turn ends. On a failure, you fall to the floor (becoming prone, suffering damage) and your turn ends.

Putting the dagger between the teeth and taking it out are free actions.

Easy to adjudicate.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why would that be 5 actions?

I would assign an Athletics check to jump (move action): on a success, you take hold of the chandelier and swing across the room dropping down in front of the BBEG (count it as a Charge action) and attacking. Turn ends. On a failure, you fall to the floor (becoming prone, suffering damage) and your turn ends.

Putting the dagger between the teeth and taking it out are free actions.

Easy to adjudicate.

I wasn't trying to illustrate an exact count. I was trying to illustrate a point.

But in answer to your question, a DM ruled scenario of this might be:

1) Minor Action to put dagger between teeth (who says that this is a free action? A PC shouldn't get a free action to hold an extra weapon when putting it away in his belt already has a rule and is a minor action, use the closest normal rule that fits).
2) Move Action to jump to the chandelier. It's ten feet away without a running start, so that's DC 20 Athletics check and 2 squares of movement.
3) Move Action: Continue Move Action to swing on the chandelier. The DM rules a normal DC 15 Acrobatics stunt and 6 squares of movement to get to the other side of the room next to the BBEG. The PC has used a double move at this point to go 40 feet. Free Action: Drop 20 feet next to BBEG. Acrobatics check to take no damage and not be prone.
4) Minor Action to retrieve Dagger again.
5) Standard Action to attack foe.

In this adjudication, it was 2 moves, 2 minors, 1 standard, 1 free, an Athletics check, and 2 Acrobatics checks.

Or maybe the distance was 80 feet and the PC was trying to use his Acrobatics to move more than his normal move by swinging on the chandelier. Whatever. The point is not how to adjudicate this specific example, the point is to attempt to adjudicate special actions as close to the rules for normal actions as possible.

Since they are special actions that border on the edges of the normal rules, it is likely that many DMs will rule them slightly differently anyway.


As a different example. I have a player in my game who gets annoyed every time she runs a PC that has a shield and the PCs are climbing up or down (a rope or whatever) into an encounter. Equiping a shield is a standard action. She wants to be able to climb to the encounter with weapon and shield out and ready right away. As long as there is time before the encounter to do so, fine. But, I don't agree with the "just say Yes" crowd that she can climb with no penalty with a sword and shield in hand.

 

[Ryujin]

You're overly complicating a simple system, with that analysis. I largely agree with P1NBACK, with a couple of reservations; the dagger in the teeth isn't a free action, but rather heroic fluff. I would also avoid making both an athletics AND acrobatics roll, instead making it all a 'stunt' using acrobatics. Quick and simple is best.