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

[Tony Vargas]

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.
...
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.

The Knight and Slayer are replacements for the Guardian and Greatweapon Fighter builds. They do away with the mechanical parity that 4e Fighters enjoyed with casters, having no attack powers as such. Instead of at-will powers, they have stances which modify basic attacks; instead of encounter powers, they have a 'Power Strike' extra-damage feature which is applied to successful MBAs one or more times per encounter (basically, as man Power Strikes as regular classes receive encounter powers); and they have no dailies whatsoever; they also have exclusively encounter utilities.

Essentials returns martial classes to the basic damage-trading 'meat shield' role of prior eds. Well, not quite that bad, but in that general direction. They have a more distinctly mundane feel, so the magic of casters stands out as more magical. A boon for those who disliked the way 4e achieved class balance.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I feel both 3e and 4e (and 2e and all the editions before that) are fairly awful at simulating any type of "real world" or even "medieval world plus magic."

I do, however, feel that 4e "simulates" genres far better then 3e does.

The consistency argument is somewhat of a non-statement, in that what counts as consistent and what doesn't is left to the viewer. The same goes for verisimilitude - 3e broke my verisimilitude far more then 4e does, to give the example.

Thus the issue - when I'm told that 4e "breaks verisimilitude," my instinctual thought is "How could it ever break it more then 3e did?" Which, uh, generally isn't the response that's expected

 

[Herremann the Wise]

And separating HP and physical damage is a good trick. I like to think of the first solid hit as being the one that bloodies the target. Everyone has their own HP. The wizard is deflecting blows with magic, the rogue is twisting and rolling with hits, etc. I'm surprised you suggested this. Most simulationists I know hate the idea of abstracting HPs.

While I'm a simulationist, I only wear the viking helmet occasionally. I think the abstraction that is hit points can be a really good one at mechanically representing the things I mention. As long as actual physical damage is removed from the mix, then you can run the game more efficiently in a simulationist manner without having to go to the next degree of hit locations and large and many tables of data.

Well poison is a bad example.

Or at least I think my example of it was a poor one at articulating my dissatisfaction with this element of 4e play. As I mentioned to NeonChameleon, for me it is as much about the process as the result. I want the two to mesh together in a satisfying (to me as a "simulationist") way.

But why would a spell be physically exhausting while a physical maneuver isn't? I think our main difference here is that you don't see martial characters as fantastical and impossible, and I do.

Magic is more exhausting than regular combat was more what I was getting at here as a way of balancing a 3e/Pathfinder style wizard to the fighter. I prefer this method of balance than the one used in 4e. Again, I'm not that conservative in terms of martial characters but I have a lower threshold than your good self on this issue.

I again agree. This is an example of sacrificing detail and realism to achieve simplicity. You can explain away many things, perhaps the wizard is augmenting his strength checks with some magic, and your dumb fighter would probably learn a few tricks from experience. At some point you are going to great stretches to explain why your level 15 barbarian who has never seen a lock before can pick it with ease, but it's a sacrifice I make .

I agree here, I would just prefer 4e to allow a little more complexity on this one.

I think this is the one point where we disagree most. If you were to bind fighters by the laws of reality and disallow them any magical explanation for their abilities, they wouldn't last. There's no sensible reason a high level fighter should be able to soak 150ft of falling damage.

In my dual hp model such damage would be directly applied to physical damage, although you could still "spend" hit points in trying to grab hold of something on the way down to lessen the impact (something that the high level adventurer would be better at than a lower level one).

If a first level commoner stabs a sword through the fighter's neck in his sleep, he gets up, bludgeons the commoner to death, and goes back to sleep to get his HPs back. A 30th level fighter, (or 20th, in 3e, etc...) can survive 8 doses of poison that would kill a level 1, even if he hasn't built resistance to that particular poison. That's impossible.

Exactly. Which is why damage from a knife in the neck while sleeping should go straight to the physical damage part bypassing being able to take it as hit point damage if one was awake and readied. As I said, separating physical damage from hit points provides a natural simulationist clarity to these awkward 3e/4e corner-cases.

It could only happen in a fantasy world. It could only happen if something outside of phsyics, chem, and biology were on the fighter's side. And without these things, the fighter can't compete with the wizard, so these things are necessary to have the game.

You see I don't think an adventurer of any ilk should be able to defy the gameworld physics and logic without a very good reason (such as magic or divine intervention or upon the most extreme of cases: dumb luck).

Sorry, the remark about the textbook made me thing you were struggling with the math.

That's cool and no need to apologize at all (even though I have a Mathematic's degree and have tutored high school and university students in mathematics for over seventeen years in my spare time ).

I'm not sure what a realistic market for magic items would look like.

My own preference is for a much flatter structure where an exquisitely constructed piece of full plate armour is the most expensive thing that you can actually purchase. There is generally not enough coin around to pay for highly magical items, so such items are either traded for something else (land, title, honour, other magical items or services) or else given away or possibly sold on the cheap in a black market.

But if you're saying that the wealth a high level PC carries makes most economies look trivial, and that such a world wouldn't function, then you have a point.

It would function but in a bizarre way that I have little comprehension of and so would struggle to roleplay with.

It's very eerily reminiscent of the way we construct math models at school. We can add more parameters to a model to make it behave how we would expect in some situations, but it doesn't make it better. We are just overfitting the model to the data.

What you class as overfitting and what I class as overfitting may differ, but I truly grock your point here.

So I'm on the simplicity side of the argument. And not because it's my own personal play-style. I think most changes intended to make a game more simulationist don't do so in a measurable way. They only increase bookkeeping.

Where as for me, I like the dual hit point idea, a dual, Double DC core mechanic and a handful of other ideas so as the process elegantly matches the situation with satisfying nods to abstracting things that should be naturally abstracted and representing things that should be represented. Where we draw the line between the two may differ a little though.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: I tried to XP you for the extended and well considered discussion but alas I must be more liberal with my XP giving first. If someone would be so kind as to pass some XP cheer to eriktheguy, I think it is well deserved.

 

[Aegeri]

Magic is more exhausting than regular combat was more what I was getting at here as a way of balancing a 3e/Pathfinder style wizard to the fighter. I prefer this method of balance than the one used in 4e.

Balance?! Magic?? 3E? Pathfinder?

BWUH??!??

There is absolutely no balance in that system. Magic users become - invariably - vastly superior to anyone else. They start out more useless yes, but once they get enough power there is no real stopping them and any semblance of "balance" is non-existent. Fighters in 3rd are essentially pointless once you get to mid level play and aren't really a lot better off in Pathfinder either.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Magic is more exhausting than regular combat was more what I was getting at here as a way of balancing a 3e/Pathfinder style wizard to the fighter. I prefer this method of balance than the one used in 4e.

Balance?! Magic?? 3E? Pathfinder?

BWUH??!??

There is absolutely no balance in that system.

Actually in 3.5 there is reasonable balance up until mid levels when the wizard starts pulling away in power; significantly so by the time higher levels are reached. In essence I agree that there is a problem there which is why I suggested the above as a method of equalizing the effect of wizards and fighters while maintaining the differentiation of the two (as well as allowing the upholding of certain fantasy tropes that I enjoy - but expect that you might not).

Fighters in 3rd are essentially pointless once you get to mid level play and aren't really a lot better off in Pathfinder either.

In terms of Pathfinder, I think you might need to re-evaluate your opinion if you played it (although obviously you seem a hardcore 4e player/DM/fan and so would have close to zero motivation to do so). Martial types get a lot more perks and are significantly more well-rounded at all levels (including the highest). Likewise, wizards have been significantly addressed in terms of spell power and significantly harder concentration checks to casting that make for a much more cautious caster at high levels.

Perhaps the biggest balancing though is in restricting things to the Core Rules and the one or two splat books that they have produced and are producing(Advanced Player's Guide and the forthcoming Ultimate Magic and Combat). There is no complete series, player's handbook II or spell compendium to completely spoil the wizard and trash a campaign with over-powered magic. I think given their want to maintain backwards compatibility (not wanting to invalidate their entire line of products in one go); they did as much as they could to balance and empower the classes while maintaining that compatibility. Certain high level spells are hard-coded into the OGL and it is this facet that still gives the wizard the edge in power at highest levels (16 to 20). For the majority of DMing and play, my experience has been (as have a lot of others) that Pathfinder significantly addressed the issue and were successful.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Tony Vargas]

Balance?! Magic?? 3E? Pathfinder?

The balance in 3.x was tenuous but it existed on several levels. For one, casters started out under-powered and eventually became overpowered, begin briefly balanced somewhere in the 'sweet-spot,' as in AD&D, though to a lesser degree. For the other, casters had starkly limitted-use resources. Each spell was used once, then gone. You had to anticipate which spells you would need - spells were stituational, some for combat, some for not-combat, some /very/ specific. Spells could - concievably - be interrupted (not nearly the problem it was in 1e). And, for the wizard, preparing spells was dependent upon retaining a rather bulky, rather obvious, not supremely durrable book.

If the DM really, really hammered those limitations, relentlessly, the casters could remain balanced, even at relatively high level. They'd be balanced by riding over some encounters like they were nothing, and being reduced to sniveling pointy-hat wearing commoners in others. The party might be anihilated from time to time as a consequence. But it was possible, after a fashion.

 

[Aegeri]

Actually in 3.5 there is reasonable balance up until mid levels when the wizard starts pulling away in power

Wizards are not the only type of caster, for example your first level Druid not only outfights any martial character they can also cast spells. Same with the Cleric - who just outright does everything the fighter can do while casting spells. These aspects only get worse as spellcasters level up. There is also no "Reasonable balance" because low level wizards are essentially useless up until mid levels - by the time they aren't useless the fighter is basically confined to the back of the party with a soup ladle and a colander hat. That by definition is not "balance" whatsoever.

In terms of Pathfinder, I think you might need to re-evaluate your opinion if you played it

I have and it doesn't fix a thing. It pretends to and gives a really good attempt at pretending like it did, but it ultimately doesn't.

For the majority of DMing and play, my experience has been (as have a lot of others) that Pathfinder significantly addressed the issue and were successful.

While I haven't DM'ed pathfinder, what I have played indicates that anyone who knows how to build spellcasters can still break the system utterly in half. They didn't succeed at all - but made a notable attempt at pretending to actually do so. Part of why I never took more of an interest in Pathfinder, because they never actually fixed the aspects of 3.5 that were the significant problems. One of those to me was the fact casters are still far superior to martial characters (whom with higher levels rapidly become increasingly useless) and lo and behold, casters still are in Pathfinder.

Edit: Tony: I am aware of how spellcasting worked in 3rd edition. I started playing and then basically became a near permanent DM since 2nd edition. The fact is "Near useless at level 1" and "Overpowered after X level" is not balance. Nor does it fit any actual working definition of the term

Edit2: Also I am aware of the high level 3.x campaign magic user "DM wins initiative, party dies" vs. "They win initiative, everything dies" type of concept for making the game challenging. Glad those days are long gone.

 

[pemerton]

is "simulationist" used to mean "models the game reality similarly to the 'real' reality at most points (i.e. except where "magic" is happening)" or to mean "a focus in play on the internal consistency and coherency of the game-world reality in its own right, regardless of rules or story considerations" in this thread?

Good question. I think that most uses of "simulationism" on these boards, in discussions of 3E and 4e, are meant to invoke something in the neighbourhood of "purist-for-system" simulationism ie a system for building game elements, and determining the character and consequences of interaction between them, that models the ingame causal processess and logic of the gameworld. (Not that I think most posters on this board have purist-for-system preferences. I think the received approach to play is a type of very dialed-down gamism, with a very heavy chassis of purist-for-system exploration underlying play, and play skill being demonstrated by effective manipulation of the build-and-resolution mechanics in order to ensure the PCs' triumph over the foes the GM throws at them.)

Occasionally reference is also made to "simulation of genre", but in my view that is such an unhelpful criterion - who's conception of genre? and simulating what characteristics of it? - that I tend to ignore that alternative notion.

More interestingly, and sometimes more frustratingly, what most posters on this board mean when they talk about "story" or "narrativism" is something like "high-concept simulationism" ie a set of mechanics that, if played according to the instructions on the box, and within the tolerance parameters specified on the box, will give you the story experience that you've paid for. In practice, I tend to agree with Ron Edwards that this is code for a high degree of GM power and GM fiat to ensure that the predetermined story is realised (or, in the case of adventure paths, the GM also concedes that power to the module author). What is left for the players, in this sort of game, seems to me little more than rolling the dice and injecting some colour around the narration of particular PC actions.

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).

<snip>

There is simply no mechanism within the WORLD for that ability to be used to detect an enemy.

I agree with this approach to 4e powers, although all this does is exclude purist-for-system simulationism. It leaves a further open question as to what affirmative playstyles are available: I think high-concept play is possible (and this is how LostSoul sees the game), that gamist play is possible (I believe that this is how Balesir sees the game) and also that narrativist play is possible (from my own experience). (All adjectives for playstyles in this paragraph are used in the Forge sense.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fact is "Near useless at level 1" and "Overpowered after X level" is not balance. Nor does it fit any actual working definition of the term

It is an attempt at balance. It turned out to be a bad one, but it was an attempt. That D&D kept trying it after 1e was probably more about sacred cow status than any hope that they could ever get it right. In fact, from 1e to 2e to 3e to 4e the limitations on casters became less and less substantial. The difference is that 4e finally took their power level down, to match, much to the horror of those who promptly defected to Pathfinder.

Edit2: Also I am aware of the high level 3.x campaign magic user "DM wins initiative, party dies" vs. "They win initiative, everything dies" type of concept for making the game challenging. Glad those days are long gone.

Oh, that wasn't the only way. Nor anti-magic. Equipment loss could devestate a wizard and be hard on everyone (except VoP Druids & Monks of course). Reducing lead times to encounters and not telegraphing the nature of the next day's enemies also put a strain on caster resources, particularly wizard's. Outright dis-information about a coming day's challenges could really hose any non-spontaneous caster. And the ability of CoDzilla to match fighter while still casting was over stated. A well-designed Fighter with cheap low-level buffs was still a better Fighter than a Raging Barbarian or rampaging CoDzilla - not by as much as it should have been, and being a 'better fighter' didn't count for much, but still better.

 

[Aegeri]

Oh I know, but what we found with 3.5 (when I was DMing) and what I saw when playing was just how useless the non-casters were. When we were playing Pathfinder to check it out and see if they had "fixed" things we had run out of spells (mostly). By we I meant the "Druid, Cleric and Wizard" of the party (I was the Wizard). The fighter and rogue were what was left and it was something like level 12 or 13. Now we had rolled every encounter before that trivially during the day and during the rest, the DM ambushed us.

Now at this point you'd say "Well the fighter/rogue have been pretty pointless, time to glow sunshine!" but they got annihilated first - monsters it turns out have magic too! We held off the enemies almost until one just just made a save that should have got rid of it. I ended up dying and then everyone else except the druid did - who somehow managed to kill the last creatures. So the druid had 4 dead companions and 3 HP. I will admit it was an awesome encounter, but it was somewhat pointless given we lost 2 characters practically instantly and then 3 characters - almost entirely depleted ran a combat that one-sided (or should have been) almost to a victory with no further losses.

Needless to say the player of the Fighter/Rogue who missed literally an hour worth of combat (much of it us carefully debating what we did with our limited resources) just about weren't impressed. At the time I remembered thinking "I am glad that I am not playing this anymore", because it really did remind me of exactly what happens in 3.x. You keep going until the spellcasters run out of spells and then you rest - because you're not getting anywhere without magic.

Of course the entire thing was my fault in the first place. I could have simply used rope trick (IIRC) and none of it would have been relevant as we wouldn't have been ambushed to begin with. But mea culpa.

Edit: It may seem more appropriate for magic to be far superior to your standard fighter or similar, but it doesn't make the game fun in the least when you need to rely on them - only to suddenly find out they can't handle anywhere near the challenge you can. That by definition is *imbalanced*.