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

[Tony Vargas]

3E is not an incredibly accurate reflection of reality, but it's a fairly detailed framework for simulating what life is like in a heroic fantasy world given parameters like Vancian magic.

So, it's simulationist in the sense of being really good at simulating /itself/.

OK, or the fantasy sub-genre that D&D more or less invented for itself. I can see that, actually - and how 4e does not simulate that same sub-genre.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, it's simulationist in the sense of being really good at simulating /itself/.

OK, or the fantasy sub-genre that D&D more or less invented for itself. I can see that, actually - and how 4e does not simulate that same sub-genre.

Yep, 4E does a pretty lousy job of simulating 3E, and vice versa. But wait, there's more! Both of them do a fairly lousy job of simulating 2E, 1E, Basic, or any other variation there of you could name. I'd say that 4E does a slightly better job of simulating Basic than 3E, whereas 3E does a slightly better job of simulating 1E or 2E--but both the later ones are still lousy at simulating the earlier ones.

That with 2E you can do a fair impersonation of 1E and vice versa, may have confused expecations on this issue. And it didn't help any (as far as confusion) that there were some popular styles of playing Basic, 1E, and 2E that translated fairly well. It hid the fact that, looked at objectively, the advanced versions did not simulate basic well, across the board.

 

[KarinsDad]

Rules Compendium P126, the DCs are now 8/12/19 at level 1 to 24/32/42 at level 30. So you really do have to crank some resources into skills to be acing hard checks at high level. It is 9 above the old DC33 hard at level 30, which pretty much accounts for the much more common ED +1 boost, Skill Focus, things like bardic bonuses, PP/ED fixed bonuses, and some amount of item bonus if you really want to be stomping on the rolls needing a 5+ like at level 1.

Yes, but a typical +4 main stat +5 trained at first level Hard DC (19) check requires a 10 or 55%.

A typical +9 main stat +5 trained plus +15 half level at 30th level Hard DC (42) check requires a 13 or 40%.

There are SO many ways to get +3 more in 29 levels that it's not even funny.

I suspect that for many PCs, level 30 Hard DC checks are easier than level 1.

For two years, level 30 Hard DC was 85% chance with it being trained and the PC's main stat only. Why were people even using skill challenges???

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't recall if the categories are Easy, Medium, Hard? But, assuming that, maybe:

Hard <> hard for everyone, rather

Hard = a job for the guy with the high stat, whose trained

Medium = you need the guy with the high stat, or training.

Easy = anyone has a shot at it.


Looked at that way, there's nothing wrong with the master theif 18 DEX, trained in thievery, opening the 'hard' lock slightly better than half the time; the Warlock - trained in theivery, DEX 10 - or elf archer-Ranger - 20 DEX - opening it on a 15 (that's pretty hard); and the Cleric - DEX 10, not trained - being just as well off praying for it open on it's own. That's 'hard,' isn't it?

 

[pemerton]

Oh, you mean that giant hill of psychofantic nonsense? Lol, yeah. I think we can safely consign the Forge to the ashbin of history now. In fact I think we'd be doing the community a favor if we could go back in a time machine and erase it from the 1990's too.

Well, I guess this is something on which opinions differ.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I've tried to avoid this thread until now but heh, I can't help myself.

My tuppence on the 1-2-1-2 versus 1-1-1-1 movement thing.

It is assumed that the 1-2-1-2 movement is more simulation and 1-1-1-1 movement is board game.

1-1-1-1 's merit is that it is far easier. Simple and less fuss.

1-2-1-2 's merit is supposed to be that it is a better simulation and more accurate. I differ.

1-2-1-2 movement does not take into account things like hesitation, reflex delay (stopping distance), stumbling, miss footing, decision making ability, micro-variations in terrain quality, movement curves, changing lines of sight and lines of free passage in an ever fluid and changing battle, etc.

Without taking all these other things into account the 1-2-1-2 movement has little or no value as a simulation aid and concetrating on such an anal unimportant part of movement is less realistic and more wargame/board gamey.

I suppose most would classify me as a "simulationist"; I much prefer 1-2-1-2 and even after several years of playing 4e, 1-1-1-1 still annoys me. In regards to the hesitations, stumbles etc., these get drowned out by the feeling of moving 30 ft./6 squares as a limit of what can be traversed given a broad general set of conditions that help me represent the battlefield in my mind. Just because I enjoy a simulationist perspective doesn't mean I'm wanting to live every bump and stumble in a move action (we're not that anal and only some of us wear viking helmets when we play).

However, the fact that if my PC moves in a straight line to get to position A, or I can travel diagonally out and back in a greater distance and still get to position A just makes me feel like... I'm cheating the system or inherent physical assumptions or something. In terms of a move action, 1-2-1-2 handles this well enough by saying if you try to do the "get to point A out and in diagonally" you are going to at least tip your hat somewhat to Pythagorus as you go past.

I appreciate that some players could not care a jot about this and for some ease of play is a much greater priority and may you all enjoy how you play.

My point is this: 121, 111, movement debate is way way way down the list of why D&D movement (and any other RPG also) is unrealistic. If you can't fix the 100 or so other things higher up the list then I don't see why it is worth the bother of perfecting this.

I disagree, in terms of movement this factor is at the top of the list (even if it is down the list overall - but not that far down overall).

It would be more realistic and simulational to ask the DM if you can move to a particular place and for him to adjudicate on the fly using intuition and guestimations if it can be done. This would, ironicly, be considered more storytelling than simulation, even though it would probably be better for both.

I agree because your brain won't let you cheat physics like the 1-1-1 rule will - your brain kicks in and says "no. that's moving too far, back it up a little".

I think the one thing that most will agree on is that in the grand scheme of 4e combat, 1-1-1 does not have much impact on the overall outcome - even if for some of us it feels like cheating when we do it.

As a simulationist, I have far bigger fish to fry in relation to 4e (and for some of these previous editions of D&D):
* Hit points (you are either relatively uninjured or dead - your character can never be in between.)
* Saves (everyone gets rid of a condition on 10+ on a d20; regardless of whether they have a good or poor natural ability to get over it - for me this is my biggest "simulationist gripe")
* Why can I only do this mundane (if highly skilled) move once an encounter or once a day - it makes no sense. If it is situational, tell me the situation even if it is really situational (target granting combat advantage, is immobilized and I get a critical) rather than giving me a bland once an encounter/day. For magical instances, encounters and dailies can be a little more suitable but other times are just as bad.
* The game mathematics is on a relative playing field rather than an absolute one.
* Half-level increase to everything is suitable in some situations but definitely not in others. I would much prefer a system that can take these factors into account with a more refined granularity.
* Healing surges are a good mechanic but they really should be renamed, just surges would have been fine without the distorting adjective.
* Skill Challenges. I love the idea of skill challenges, but I would prefer a more rigourous system to be generally applied to "exploration" or "social" mode. By the time our group bent skill challenges to our style, it seemed like we were halfway back to where we were in 3e.
* Some mundane powers that feel too "magical" and over the top. I'm not a wuxia fan, or more to the point I don't like finding rice inside my haggis.
* The mathematics behind magic item pricing. I like exponentials as much as the next mathematician but that doesn't mean I'm going to get my old high school textbook and try and smoke it like the designers seemed to do. D&D has never done economics well - but this really was a few steps too far into whacky land.

And as for the streamlining of the skill system as the OP presents, I completely disagree - 4e handles this aspect of character background OK. Simulationism is a very different kettle of fish in my opinion.

And having said all of this, I still enjoy 4e even though I would love the simulationist pendulum to swing back a little on the next edition iteration.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Balesir]

Oh, you mean that giant hill of psychofantic nonsense? Lol, yeah. I think we can safely consign the Forge to the ashbin of history now. In fact I think we'd be doing the community a favor if we could go back in a time machine and erase it from the 1990's too.

Well, I guess this is something on which opinions differ.

Yeah, but why take the trouble to actually understand something, when you can justify dismissing it to yourself on pop-political grounds? Dismissing ideas is so much easier than having an open mind - witness book burning...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, but a typical +4 main stat +5 trained at first level Hard DC (19) check requires a 10 or 55%.

A typical +9 main stat +5 trained plus +15 half level at 30th level Hard DC (42) check requires a 13 or 40%.

There are SO many ways to get +3 more in 29 levels that it's not even funny.

I suspect that for many PCs, level 30 Hard DC checks are easier than level 1.

For two years, level 30 Hard DC was 85% chance with it being trained and the PC's main stat only. Why were people even using skill challenges???

Well, obviously there were more of us than just you asking that question when it came to anything at higher levels. The RC DC chart is a vast improvement, and honestly I don't really know what the devs were smoking when they put out either of the earlier ones.

Yeah, but why take the trouble to actually understand something, when you can justify dismissing it to yourself on pop-political grounds? Dismissing ideas is so much easier than having an open mind - witness book burning...

hehe, some of the discussion that happened back in the NNTP news group days was interesting. The Forge itself was an echo chamber.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, obviously there were more of us than just you asking that question when it came to anything at higher levels. The RC DC chart is a vast improvement, and honestly I don't really know what the devs were smoking when they put out either of the earlier ones.

Agreed.

I'm still disappointed with the most recent Medium DC chart. Someone is still smoking something.

At level one (it's often even easier for many PCs at higher levels):

best: +4 or +5 stat, +2 background or +2 racial, +5 trained = 100%
great: +4 or +5 stat, +5 trained = 90% or 95%
good: +4 stat or +5 trained, +2 background or +2 racial = 75% or 80%
decent: +4 stat or +5 trained = 65% or 70%
ok: +2 stat = 55%
bad: -1 stat = 40%
terrible: -1 stat, -4 armor/shield penalty = 20%

Although this seems like a reasonable range, it really isn't.

Virtually nobody with an ok or lower chance would typically even try it (unless they are the best in the party). They would typically attempt Aid Another if they were limited to using this skill.

So, I don't consider a range of 65% (75% with a single Aid Another) to 100% chance of success per check to be Medium difficulty tasks. Especially since many groups will have someone in the great category for many skills.

Smart DMs will rarely use Medium. It's STILL too easy.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think using hard(er) checks makes sense when it's just a check, but in the context of a skill challenge, not so much.

It's trivially easy to accrue 3 failures if the numbers are too hard. I don't think it is the intent to make every skill challenge result in failure. Much the same as they are not all supposed to be "won".

I'm not sure what you expect from the skill challenge DCs. If, as a DM, you feel they are trivially easy at-level, you can always go higher up the chart.

How often do you feel PCs should be passing checks? Keep in mind that players who focus for a skill should be good at that skill. If even they must struggle to pull out a success in a skill challenge, those who didn't focus are just plain doomed to auto-fail.