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

[Herremann the Wise]

...lots of good stuff...

I think it fair enough to say that our styles of play differ, our experiences of 4e differ somewhat and our view of magic and its role in an RPG differs. I applaud your enthusiasm, as much as it seems to be a different flavour to my own.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with some of the earlier posters that it doesn't make sense to talk about whether 3e is "more simulationist" than 4e or vice versa, if "simulation" is defined as simulating the real world. After all, neither system comes even close to simulating the real world (even the parts that aren't explicitly magical).

So I think the appropriate definition of "simulation" to use is not whether it simulates the *real* world, but whether it simulates *a* self-consistent world. Of course the problem with this definition is that *any* set of self-consistent rules by definition simulates a self-consistent world, if you just assume the rules are what govern the world.

A better way of thinking about it is to imagine: "what would the world that the rules simulate actually be like?" True, you would have absurdities like healing to full after a night of rest, etc. But I don't see that as really a problem, because we already accept that things like that are possible because of magic, and if the whole debate about what parts need to be realistic or not just boiled down to which things have the label "magic" on them, I don't see why it would be such a big deal.

But there is another category of things that are issues, and that is: what do the rules imply about what is a part of the world? That causes other problems. For instance, consider the power "Own the Battlefield" (another power that causes problems similar to Come and Get It) that moves every enemy three squares (I think) but only works on enemies, even if you wanted to do it on allies. The most commonly cited problem is that there's no "explanation" for how it works. This doesn't bother me; there's no "explanation" for how magic works, either (and if this were a wizard instead of warlord power it wouldn't be complained about as much.) The bigger problem is that it implies that "whether you're an enemy" is always clear. For instance, let's say you're in a busy tavern and you think there's an assassin disguised as a regular patron. Activate Own the Battlefield, try to move everyone three squares to the left. The one who moves is the enemy. I can think of lots of situations (more than two sides, a Mexican standoff, all-out confusion) where it's not clear who the enemy is.

3.5e also has examples of this, in particular the ability to detect alignments. That implies that, for example, "evil" is objectively measurable, which supports an ethical theory that not everyone would agree with.

A while ago, I wrote another post along these lines, more focused on combat and powers specifically, here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/255663-power-system-combat-rest-game-2.html

(scroll down a bit)

Another reason I think that these "simulation" discussions often end up with people talking past each other is that everyone has very different ideas of what is important to simulate, as well as very different experiences that inform what they notice. For instance, I'm a computer science and math student, and a lot of computer science and math is figuring out what you can deduce from a set of information. So I tend to follow those chains of implication ("if you have Goggles of Aura Sight which measures hit points, and there's a power that does a constant amount of damage equal to your wisdom modifier, you can figure out how wise someone is by having them use that power and measuring the damage output...")

On the other hand, I don't really have much experience with combat or medieval history, so I don't notice things related to that ("tactic X was mainly used to help people using weapon Y overcome their inherent disadvantage against armor type Z, so if Y doesn't have a penalty against Z there's no reason tactic X should even be in the game").

I think the problem is nobody is even remotely able to discern what the implications of even the simplest elements of the game would really be. The game generally supports a conceit that the world is "Medieval Europe with Magic" or something analogous. Even if a setting is quite different from that assumption we have no real way of knowing what the effects of things like a disease curing ritual or a resurrection ritual would be. So any such consistency is basically 'skin deep' at best.

Beyond that I think there is a common sin which is committed by people who advance this argument. That is the notion that the world is "made of numbers" (Credit to Wrecan for that phrase, dunno if he hangs out here at all). Actually I'm using the notion in a wider sense, that is that the world is made of rules.

My view is that the game world is a construct of the imagination. The rules only exist to 'clothe' it in mechanics for purposes of running a game. In other words specific things happen in specific ways, and the world may well be self-consistent, but that self-consistency does not derive from the mechanics of the game.

So for instance the case of Own the Battlefield. Any attempt to use the power as you suggest would clearly be inconsistent with most interpretations of what this power is representing (I'd also argue there are mechanical reasons it wouldn't work but we'll leave that out of it). Honestly nothing absolutely forbids a player from describing the way his power works in such a way that is NOT inconsistent with this use, but that just illustrates the point. The WORLD is consistent, Warlords aren't Wizards. The means they use to accomplish their exploits are generally non-magical in nature (though often quite fantastic). An explanation for this power might be along the lines of "By use of tactical acumen the warlord insures that his troops are ideally positioned." Its mode of operation is a mixture of retcon and simple narrative. By expending his daily plot coupon he gets to change the narrative of battle. There is simply no mechanism within the WORLD for that ability to be used to detect an enemy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree with some of the earlier posters that it doesn't make sense to talk about whether 3e is "more simulationist" than 4e or vice versa, if "simulation" is defined as simulating the real world. After all, neither system comes even close to simulating the real world (even the parts that aren't explicitly magical).

So I think the appropriate definition of "simulation" to use is not whether it simulates the *real* world, but whether it simulates *a* self-consistent world. Of course the problem with this definition is that *any* set of self-consistent rules by definition simulates a self-consistent world, if you just assume the rules are what govern the world.

I think the 'simulationist' would like a game that simulates a genre. So in High Fantasy, there are fire-breathing dragons and wizards who weild magical powers and heroes who do impossible deeds of strength and valor - so the game better cover such things. If it has Dragons and Heroes but charlatans instead of Wizards, or Heroes and Wizards but dinosaurs instead of dragons, or Dragons and Wizards but brainless meat-shields instead of Heroes, it's not quite pulling it off.

The bigger problem is that it implies that "whether you're an enemy" is always clear. For instance, let's say you're in a busy tavern and you think there's an assassin disguised as a regular patron. Activate Own the Battlefield, try to move everyone three squares to the left. The one who moves is the enemy. I can think of lots of situations (more than two sides, a Mexican standoff, all-out confusion) where it's not clear who the enemy is.

Technically, 4e defines all creatures that are not allies as 'enemies.' So in this case, you'd move everyone. Similarly, a doppleganger who has killed and replaced an ally and is cooperating and behaving like him is still an 'ally' - until it stabs you in the back, that is.

3.5e also has examples of this, in particular the ability to detect alignments. That implies that, for example, "evil" is objectively measurable, which supports an ethical theory that not everyone would agree with.

But not one that's terribly inapropriate to the genre, were evil can be palpable even without a magic spell to detect it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My view is that the game world is a construct of the imagination. The rules only exist to 'clothe' it in mechanics for purposes of running a game. In other words specific things happen in specific ways, and the world may well be self-consistent, but that self-consistency does not derive from the mechanics of the game.

So for instance the case of Own the Battlefield. Any attempt to use the power as you suggest would clearly be inconsistent with most interpretations of what this power is representing (I'd also argue there are mechanical reasons it wouldn't work but we'll leave that out of it). Honestly nothing absolutely forbids a player from describing the way his power works in such a way that is NOT inconsistent with this use, but that just illustrates the point. The WORLD is consistent, Warlords aren't Wizards. The means they use to accomplish their exploits are generally non-magical in nature (though often quite fantastic). An explanation for this power might be along the lines of "By use of tactical acumen the warlord insures that his troops are ideally positioned." Its mode of operation is a mixture of retcon and simple narrative. By expending his daily plot coupon he gets to change the narrative of battle. There is simply no mechanism within the WORLD for that ability to be used to detect an enemy.

I more or less agree with that. I suspect my application of it to the narrative would be somewhat different than yours, but then that is part of the point.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm just not convinced I could generate a set of mechanics that would reflect all the hundreds of ways that trade offs could be made in all of the situations where SCs are possible. I totally agree that an SC needs some 'tactical depth' and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some extra mechanics could exist in the rules that would be useful in a lot of places, but again I think the advantages are intended to fill that role. The players should be looking for ways to invoke them. It may have been a mistake for the rules to state that SC of difficulty X should always grant N advantages. I consider that more of a guideline as to how many opportunities to present for them to exist than anything else, and some of the specific ones aren't always very usable.



Yes, and my engineering mind pretty much agrees with you. My story-telling mind simply isn't grasping what mechanics would do that in the vast set of potential situations that SCs encompass. Anyway, it is certainly something that could be explored in more detail. I've seen a few proposals, but they always seem either not very simple or not very widely applicable.

It would certainly require some work to balance it properly and make it really useful. If it was trivial, I'd just do it. But again, my point was that it was something that could be done by game designers that would not put an onerous burden on the people at the table.

Ever seen the resource system in Burning Wheel? Or the circles mechanics, for that matter? Those are good examples of how a mechanic can invoke a different axis, be used more or less generically within its sphere of control, but still provide a lot more depth than the space it takes up would first have one to suspect.

We can't just lift those directly from BW for 4E. For one thing, the resources system in BW isn't meant to handle a constant influx of gold from adventuring (though it does have provision for such at times). What makes it work but still be applicable is that is conceptually tight on what and when it addresses: Do you have enough cash, favors, friends, loans, etc. to make this thing happen that people want that stuff for, or do you not? If you try and fail, what are the consequences? That kind of stuff comes up in the narrative all the time, and with 4E we don't even have the existence of profession skills or merchant skills in the way to use something like it!

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

But not one that's terribly inapropriate to the genre, were evil can be palpable even without a magic spell to detect it.

This was one issue that my group kind of had an issue with. For us, the whole "alignment magic" subset of spells made us cringe. Paladins detecting evil was one thing, but the alignment-as-game-mechanic was, for us, worse than things like "Come And Get It."

It's all about what you prefer. I think that's the point we all seem to be driving at in our own ways. Or maybe you (in the general sense) can appreciate many different approaches, and will use whatever suits the story you want to tell, or the preferences of the others at the table. That's cool, too.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Depends on the poison. Clouds of gas don't have this problem. Blade venoms will hit the barbarian more than the rogue.

I think my example may have been a little specific here to highlight one of the annoyances I have with it. It is very easy to come up with a counter-argument to my example and I think I have been caught trying to present a mathematical model to explain what I have experienced in-game. For better or worse, I find this facet of play the least satisfying and the first thing I would change if I could.

Indeed. The 4e Combat Magic/Ritual Casting separation is IMO the closest D&D magic has ever been to something like this - but it's only just starting out.

And if I was to say one of my favourite 4e things it would definitely be rituals. If the ritual concept was applied back to 3e, then I think you could go a fair way to fixing most of the problems that people had with magic. I am surprised that WotC have not pushed this barrow more than they have.

For some values of mundane that include James Bond and John McClain.

Perhaps I have presented myself as more conservative than what I am, but yes most certainly I would include James Bond and John McClain into the "mundane mix".

And martial stuff is more obvious than arcane in 4e. Also have you seen the Essentials martial classes?

Nobody in our group has touched essentials yet. I have had a DDI account from day dot so my knowledge of essentials is only fair while my play experience is zero. I have not had a reason to bother investing in essentials.

An issue, I agree. One trick I use is to tinker with what's required for an extended rest to make it more ... extended and supplement this with magical sources. (In practice it's little different to 3e with cheap wands of CLW).

Agreed with both, neither of which I like. I would prefer that hit points be split into two: hit points which are easily spent and restored; and physical damage which is more serious and heals slowly (but is protected by the layer of hit points above it representing skill, capacity to turn a serious blow into a less serious one, luck, divinity etc.) This separation would solve almost all issues with damage, healing condition effects and so on from my simulationist point of view.

Again while this was a major speedbump when we started, it has now become a noted blip that is quickly forced out of the mind.

In practice in my experience there are three basic types of poison. Assassins poisons are PC only. Combat poisons do hit point damage - and wizards have both fewer hit points and fewer healing surges than barbarians, meaning that if the poison does the same amount of damage (as on average they do), the wizard has only about two thirds the hit points of the barbarian, meaning he needs to spend 50% more healing surges to recover. And has fewer to start with - it hits him much harder. The other type of poison is long term debilitating poison (using the poison/disease track) and that's based on Endurance. Now it's possible for a wizard to have a higher con than a barbarian and thus a better chance of recovering assuming the barbarian isn't trained in Endurance. But that means that the wizard isn't that puny and the Barbarian's muscle-bound. Normally the barbarian will recover at least as fast. So your argument to me oversimplifies matters - and it's that oversimplification that produces the result you don't like when in practice what you want happens.

And I think here you have helped me articulate the primary difference in simulationist play to 4e play and that is the black box effect highlighted by Mike Mearls. 4e worries about the end result. A simulationist worries about the result and in particular the process that achieved that result. When the process is awry; simulationists like me get on our high horses and start whinging and shaking our heads and feeling this curious itch between our choulders. For others, they must wonder why the hell we bother.

You're saying that people don't get physically effected by fighting in melee combat? Seriously?

Obviously not! I was merely trying to highlight that (particularly in 3e where magical effects were generally more powerful than "mundane" effects) that a round of spellcasting should be more exhausting for the caster than a round of combat is for the fighter if one wanted to attempt to restore some measure of play balance between the two. In other words, over 6 rounds of combat, the fighter gets 6 major attacks of differing flavours in while the wizard might get 2 major effects mixed in with a few lesser ones but where the sum total of each is comparable. Do you understand where I'm coming from here (remember I play 4e, 3e and Pathfinder so I'm generally always on the lookout how to cross-pollinate good ideas from one system into the others).

He isn't. He's learning to use his minor magic to shift things around more effectively.

Intelligence is what you use when you don't have knowledge. He's seen similar situations before. The tenth level barbarian's knowledge of the finer points of theology might be shaky, but he knows a lot more than the first level cleric about temples to dark gods through having knocked a few over.

I can understand these justifications and appreciate that they round the edges off the problem but for me, there is still a big bump in the middle. As I said, my preference is a little more attention to the details and process rather than the broadly painted end result.

Why are they getting better at skills they have likely never used?

Why not? They don't matter one way or the other.

Because the character's stats are meant to represent what that character can do. I think this is one of those situations where our philosophy of play differs. Chalk it up to another area where to quote the thread title 4e takes the simulation away and focuses on satisfying other issues.

Have you seen the Knight and the Slayer? I think they are almost exactly what you are looking for.

I'm not quite as sure but I understand the direction you're coming from here and will look into this on the basis of your good advice. And thank you overall for the time and effort responding.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Tony Vargas]

The big problem I had with the alignment series of spells, from the 'detects' on through the 'Holy Word/Blasphemy/Dictum/Whatever' was how symetrical they were. You'd expect the signature magic of Good and Evil to be /very/ different, but they weren't, both did damage, maybe one Blinded and the other Sickened. Yipee. It was too much like Red Team vs Blue Team rather than Good vs Evil. In that sense, it didn't simulate the genre well. But, the basic idea of alignments being real, palpable forces in the world, perfectly genre-apropriate.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The big problem I had with the alignment series of spells, from the 'detects' on through the 'Holy Word/Blasphemy/Dictum/Whatever' was how symetrical they were. You'd expect the signature magic of Good and Evil to be /very/ different, but they weren't, both did damage, maybe one Blinded and the other Sickened. Yipee. It was too much like Red Team vs Blue Team rather than Good vs Evil. In that sense, it didn't simulate the genre well. But, the basic idea of alignments being real, palpable forces in the world, perfectly genre-apropriate.

Genre-appropriate, sure. I even ran a game where a force of 'elemental evil' was infecting the world, like fungus rotting a tree from the inside out. So those magics and detections and such were very useful and appropriate. Though, I agree that the flavour distinctions could have been better between them.

That said, most of my group doesn't believe in, or like dealing in moral absolutes, so in many of our other games, such magic actually detracted from the game.

Clearly there is room for both points of view in the game, and the genre as a whole. I like that 4e mostly did away with alignments, but sometimes that's not what you want, so it's easy enough to put them (and the spells) back in, or go with a different system.

 

[Aegeri]

I have always hated alignment based magic with a passion.

Actually there are a lot of things from previous editions I hate with a passion and am glad they are gone.