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

[Tony Vargas]

Right, the interesting meme to me is the 'mechanics trump anything else' one. Certainly players aren't free to invent different mechanics for their powers arbitrarily like they can fluff.

Well, for powers, mechanics absolutely trump flavor texts, since, as you say, players can't arbitrarily make up mechanics, but can arbitrarily change flavor text. If 'fluff' or 'narrative situation' could trump rules, than players /would/ indeed be free to alter how their power worked by describing it differently.

Indeed, you advocate that, with Come And Get It, below.

OTOH nothing says that powers MUST always work 100% of the time in exactly the same way regardless of the situation. That one seems to be considered canon, yet nothing actually even suggests it is an intended property of the game.

They are 'rules,' though. So, one would think, you'd generally follow them. The DM is always free to /change/ rules, of course.

And, while a power need not always work /exactly/ the same way, since the flavor text of the power can be changed at whim, it cannot reasonably be one of the factors that would be used to determine when it might work differently.

Inarguably the rules several times state outright that the DM should apply modifiers for situations not explicitly covered by the rules, this presumably can only refer to 'fluff'

One example I can think of is a player character 'throwing' another an object, like a potion. The rules do not cover it, yet the 'fluff' of the action (whether it's over- or under- hand or via telekinesis) hardly matters. What matters is what the heck action or actions are required of the 'throwing' and 'catching' characters. Non-adjacent character want to exchange an item. The rules do not cover it. OK, DM, make a ruling.

Also, there's a world of difference between a +/-2 (the usual 'modifier' DMs throw around) and neggating a power or allowing it to be vastly over powered on an arbitrary basis.

Now, by definition, if there is a rule describing how a power works, then it would not be something 'not covered by the rules.'

Balance and players being able to count on their powers is one thing, but I don't see where either of those necessarily requires every use of Come and Get It to work exactly the same way regardless of the player not being able to explain any plausible narrative to attach to that.

The 'narrative' is a matter of flavor text, which is changeable at whim and explicitly does not determine the details of what the power actually does.

In other words, you're saying that how the player modifies his the flavor text of /that particular power/ should be used by the DM, to determine how the power works.

Why?

Again, you run the risk of disfavoring martial characters, but I don't think that's a serious issue for any DM on this thread...

It's a serious issue for me. And, it should be a serious issue for any DM. Martial archetypes are popular, it's a rare party that has no martial characters - how the DM treats them matters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, for powers, mechanics absolutely trump flavor texts, since, as you say, players can't arbitrarily make up mechanics, but can arbitrarily change flavor text. If 'fluff' or 'narrative situation' could trump rules, than players /would/ indeed be free to alter how their power worked by describing it differently.

Indeed, you advocate that, with Come And Get It, below.

They are 'rules,' though. So, one would think, you'd generally follow them. The DM is always free to /change/ rules, of course.

And, while a power need not always work /exactly/ the same way, since the flavor text of the power can be changed at whim, it cannot reasonably be one of the factors that would be used to determine when it might work differently.

One example I can think of is a player character 'throwing' another an object, like a potion. The rules do not cover it, yet the 'fluff' of the action (whether it's over- or under- hand or via telekinesis) hardly matters. What matters is what the heck action or actions are required of the 'throwing' and 'catching' characters. Non-adjacent character want to exchange an item. The rules do not cover it. OK, DM, make a ruling.

Also, there's a world of difference between a +/-2 (the usual 'modifier' DMs throw around) and neggating a power or allowing it to be vastly over powered on an arbitrary basis.

Now, by definition, if there is a rule describing how a power works, then it would not be something 'not covered by the rules.'

The 'narrative' is a matter of flavor text, which is changeable at whim and explicitly does not determine the details of what the power actually does.

In other words, you're saying that how the player modifies his the flavor text of /that particular power/ should be used by the DM, to determine how the power works.

Why?

It's a serious issue for me. And, it should be a serious issue for any DM. Martial archetypes are popular, it's a rare party that has no martial characters - how the DM treats them matters.

Maybe my previous post didn't manage to convey the idea well...

No, players are not free to change the rules by changing fluff. They are certainly free to explain how the mechanical effects could be plausible using ANY possible narrative (fluff). The DM is certainly free to make adjustments to the mechanics as well. This is the idea that some people seem to feel goes against some 'rule'. Rules like the exact effects of a power are never absolute. No designer can ever anticipate even a fraction of the situations which will arise in any game. This is why page 42, the "DM's Friend", and ultimately rule 0 exist. The specific rules for say a specific power only make sense within that framework and when people complain that a given power often doesn't make sense they are trying to look at it in isolation from the larger structure of the game. This is an error and I contend is not at all the intent of the designers.

So if a character employs Come and Get It in a situation where the power's stock effect might not make sense there are a whole array of things that come into play. First the player could simply narrate it in such a way that it does make sense. This might not always be possible, but given that a power is a 'plot coupon' the player really should have a fair amount of leeway, narratively. Thus the player could for instance retcon the narrative "no, those goblins didn't really make it out the door, instead they turned and fought" (a situation where no mechanical significance exists to the exact positioning of the creatures in the meantime). The player could request to change the mechanics in some fashion, this will normally require a page 42 type check, though if the alteration gives little or no advantage the check might be forgone. Finally the DM might simply alter the mechanical effect for whatever reason (rule of cool, better narrative, etc).

When I say DMs who are likely reading this thread need not be overly concerned what I mean is I think most of them are quite experienced and will not have problems insuring that a looser implementation of the rules doesn't favor certain types of character. I don't think that's really much of a leap. Honestly, 99% of the time the existing mechanics work fine anyway with a bit of creative narration.

 

[Balesir]

Levels are simply an abstraction of expertise, favor of the gods, access to power, etc. There's no requirement that there be one way only to get them. PCs have one way because that's the way that drives the game forward for the players and gives them a framework for advancement. OTOH if the players say wanted to jump ahead 20 years in the story there's nothing stopping the DM from leveling them up some arbitrary amount and just describing how they spend 20 years honing their skills.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. There is no way I can "prove" that levels make it impossible to play simulationist-ly - because they don't, and that wasn't what I said. What I said was:

"I have come to the conclusion that no system that uses levels can be very good at any form of Simulationism"

If you want to use D&D (or whatever) to play sim, go for it. I have simply come to the conclusion that systems with levels and hit points don't support that style of play well. If I want a style of play I will pick a set of rules that I think support what I want to do. That's all.

I think the reason we were all having this little conversation was your insistence that only one kind of world would make sense and work. It wasn't about preferences, it was about a statement you made that the D&D society would be totally different and consist of some kind of tyranny of high level guys that nobody could resist and would kill off all competition. We don't agree that that is the inevitable consequence of levels existing. It is all just wool-gathering anyway.

The post I was responding to here was not by you and was not related to the 'levels hurt sim' point, so I'm not sure where this came from...

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, players are not free to change the rules by changing fluff. They are certainly free to explain how the mechanical effects could be plausible using ANY possible narrative (fluff).

While free to, they should be under no compulsion to do so. Just as players cannot use a change they make in the flavor text of their power to alter the mechanics of that power, the DM should not use the flavor text of a power to alter it's mechanics, either.

Doing so is unfair and unneccesary, and only of value if the DM wishes to persecute a given player, power, class and/or source.

When I say DMs who are likely reading this thread need not be overly concerned what I mean is I think most of them are quite experienced and will not have problems insuring that a looser implementation of the rules doesn't favor certain types of character.

Ah. Yes, I think there's a lot of experienced DMs here. While I don't run long campaigns anymore I DM'd (or 'GM'd other games) quite alot. You do get very accustomed to iterpreting rules and what the player is trying to do with them.

I think part of what's going on with this issue is that DMs are used to doing that, but that 4e doesn't /need/ it the way D&D used to. Like jumping from a car with not just a manual transmission, but a choke and maybe a hand-crank, to a modern car with auto-everything, you find yourself worrying about things you don't really need to take care of anymore.

In prior eds (and, for instance, in 4e rituals) flavor text or 'fluff' were intertwined with rules, and often inextricable from them. As a DM, you had to draw a line on a case-by-case basis between what a spell (or other ability, but most often a spell or magic item) implied it might be able to do, and what was reasonable within your campaign, taking into account both game-balance and verisimilitude (in whatever proportion you prefered).

In 4e, specifically with powers, the mechanics were fairly well balanced and clearly stated, and the flavor text was separate and explicitly doesn't determine the details of how the power works. (That's how I got sucked back into the, a couple of you were going on about how weird it was that people got this impression that fluff and rule were separate - I just had to chime in and point out that PH1, p55, spells just that out, for Powers.)

You don't /need/ to have an ongoing give and take with each player, making judgement calls on what his character should or shouldn't be allowed to 'get away with,' on a round-by-round basis. You /can/ - you can still put your automatic transmission in low gear or turn off your cruise control when you really want to - but you don't need to.

OTOH, when dealing with rituals, the old mind-set is going to come in a lot more handy, since they're written more like old-school spells. A bit vague without such tightly-defined mechanics and without a clear line between them and fluff. Similarly, some powers may have a Special or Requirments line that gets into something a little less pat than the usual language of powers, and, again, our experience making interpretations and calls on the fly will be of help to us.

But, for something straightforward like a power that pulls enemies towards you before you make the associated attack rolls, or knocks opponents 'prone,' there's no issue and no need. Trying to make an issue of it is like pumping your anti-lock breaks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"I have come to the conclusion that no system that uses levels can be very good at any form of Simulationism"

Such systems are clunky and certainly have their limitations. They do simulate some apects of the genre, though, such as the sort of 'hero's journey,' where the main character starts out weak on out of his depth, and ends weilding great power. In most stories, it's not as even and protracted as with a level-based RPG. But, levels aren't pure gamist abstraction, they some have a foundation in the heroic fantasy genre.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While free to, they should be under no compulsion to do so. Just as players cannot use a change they make in the flavor text of their power to alter the mechanics of that power, the DM should not use the flavor text of a power to alter it's mechanics, either.

Doing so is unfair and unneccesary, and only of value if the DM wishes to persecute a given player, power, class and/or source.

Ah. Yes, I think there's a lot of experienced DMs here. While I don't run long campaigns anymore I DM'd (or 'GM'd other games) quite alot. You do get very accustomed to iterpreting rules and what the player is trying to do with them.

I think part of what's going on with this issue is that DMs are used to doing that, but that 4e doesn't /need/ it the way D&D used to. Like jumping from a car with not just a manual transmission, but a choke and maybe a hand-crank, to a modern car with auto-everything, you find yourself worrying about things you don't really need to take care of anymore.

In prior eds (and, for instance, in 4e rituals) flavor text or 'fluff' were intertwined with rules, and often inextricable from them. As a DM, you had to draw a line on a case-by-case basis between what a spell (or other ability, but most often a spell or magic item) implied it might be able to do, and what was reasonable within your campaign, taking into account both game-balance and verisimilitude (in whatever proportion you prefered).

In 4e, specifically with powers, the mechanics were fairly well balanced and clearly stated, and the flavor text was separate and explicitly doesn't determine the details of how the power works. (That's how I got sucked back into the, a couple of you were going on about how weird it was that people got this impression that fluff and rule were separate - I just had to chime in and point out that PH1, p55, spells just that out, for Powers.)

You don't /need/ to have an ongoing give and take with each player, making judgement calls on what his character should or shouldn't be allowed to 'get away with,' on a round-by-round basis. You /can/ - you can still put your automatic transmission in low gear or turn off your cruise control when you really want to - but you don't need to.

OTOH, when dealing with rituals, the old mind-set is going to come in a lot more handy, since they're written more like old-school spells. A bit vague without such tightly-defined mechanics and without a clear line between them and fluff. Similarly, some powers may have a Special or Requirments line that gets into something a little less pat than the usual language of powers, and, again, our experience making interpretations and calls on the fly will be of help to us.

But, for something straightforward like a power that pulls enemies towards you before you make the associated attack rolls, or knocks opponents 'prone,' there's no issue and no need. Trying to make an issue of it is like pumping your anti-lock breaks.

Well, YOU may not feel that there's any need to explain things in narrative terms. Obviously a VAST and rather loud choir of 4e detractors think differently (witness the very theme of this thread). So I would say that indeed many people DO need to do EXACTLY what I'm talking about, and my point is and remains that 4e doesn't seem to have put any kind of deprecation on these techniques, despite what many such critics seem to think.

So we will simply have to agree to disagree. In practice I find that 4e 95% of the time won't run into any problems and you can run things by the book. You can certainly run things by the book the other 5% of the time too, but many people will not care to do so and the game definitely gives them the tools they need to do otherwise.

I agree, rituals are more closely integrated with narrative elements and have more open-ended mechanics in some cases.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, YOU may not feel that there's any need to explain things in narrative terms. Obviously a VAST and rather loud choir of 4e detractors think differently (witness the very theme of this thread).

There's no need in the sense of resolving the use of a power, mechanically. There's also nothing that prevents it. That's the nice thing about separating the two. You can allow a player some latitude and creativity with how he envisions his character and the character's abilities without opening the door to abuse.

4e is actually very narrativist-friendly. I played a lot of Storyteller in the 90s, and I still associate with quite a lot of the sort of gamers who prefer that style. When I got back into D&D with 3e, they were aghast, they hated the system. When 4e came around, they were actually delighted with it, because it did provide a great deal of narrative freedom, while keeping mechanics fairly simple.

So we will simply have to agree to disagree.

I'm not expecting to change any opinions. I just felt compelled to point out page 55, there.

I agree, rituals are more closely integrated with narrative elements and have more open-ended mechanics in some cases.

You still have to ride herd on 'em a bit, yeah. Maybe, had the 4e balance-first trend continued, you'd've eventually seen a more structured take on no-combat elements like rituals, too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's no need in the sense of resolving the use of a power, mechanically. There's also nothing that prevents it. That's the nice thing about separating the two. You can allow a player some latitude and creativity with how he envisions his character and the character's abilities without opening the door to abuse.

4e is actually very narrativist-friendly. I played a lot of Storyteller in the 90s, and I still associate with quite a lot of the sort of gamers who prefer that style. When I got back into D&D with 3e, they were aghast, they hated the system. When 4e came around, they were actually delighted with it, because it did provide a great deal of narrative freedom, while keeping mechanics fairly simple.

I'm not expecting to change any opinions. I just felt compelled to point out page 55, there.

You still have to ride herd on 'em a bit, yeah. Maybe, had the 4e balance-first trend continued, you'd've eventually seen a more structured take on no-combat elements like rituals, too.

I'm perfectly happy with the separation too. I'm just saying, it doesn't bother me to say "well, yes, that would make an odd outcome under these conditions, how about if we resolve the result of this particular action this other way this time?" Happens very rarely and with the group I run for they pretty much figure it out for themselves anyway (I too basically only DM, and mostly the players I have are ones I know well).

I think I'm OK with rituals being their own little corner of the system where things can get all mixed up now and then.

 

[pemerton]

First and foremost roleplaying is about acting in character in a somewhat logical and consistent world with realistic relationships between the characters. Such a relationship is impossible if the 10th level heroes with AC 30 walking through a town are invincible for a whole regiment of 2nd level guards or with the concept of 1 HP minons.

What I am against is the 4e focus on such ridicolous issues like "balance" and "cool powers" instead on good roleplaying, authentic world design and tense immersive adventures like it was in pre-4e editions. I mean there is not even a good world setting for 4e.

Personally, I see a big contradiction between "immersive adventures . . . [and] good world setting", on the one hand, and "10th level heroes being killed by regimens of 2nd level guards" on the other. The latter sort of scenario isn't my idea of immersive adventures in a good fantasy world setting.

More generally, you're making huge assumptions here about the relationship between mechanics and roleplaying that aren't true for a lot of RPGers. And your claim that there is no good seeting for 4e is, in my view, false. The PoL setting - as set out in the DMG, Worlds and Monsters and subsequent expansions (esp The Plane Above, the Underdark and the Demonicon) - provides (in my exerpiecne) a very useful and flexible framework for building situations and crafting scenarios to enage my players. Instead of being focused on minutiae like who lived where when (which is adventure limiting rather than expanding, at least for my style of play, because it means that the players miss out on the adventure if their PCs got to the wrong place at the wrong time) it gives me a history and a mythology of gods and other forces who are acting dynamically in the world in ways that players are likely to care about (given they've chosen to play D&D) and in ways that players can engage with via their PCs. And for me, at least, this is what fantasy RPGing in the D&D style is about.

 

[Tony Vargas]

it doesn't bother me to say "well, yes, that would make an odd outcome under these conditions, how about if we resolve the result of this particular action this other way this time?" Happens very rarely and with the group I run for they pretty much figure it out for themselves anyway (I too basically only DM, and mostly the players I have are ones I know well).

My DMing situation is a little different. I game with people I know well, as a player. As a DM, I often run for friends I game with very infrequently, or with total strangers (or near-total in the "oh, yeah, we were in that champions game two years ago" kinda way). So I don't know how they'll react to an arbitrary call. Having solid rules is thus a real plus, so I apreciate the more 'gamist' 4e aproach.

I think I'm OK with rituals being their own little corner of the system where things can get all mixed up now and then.

I'd like to see them presented a little better. More accessible, somehow. But, yeah, 'non-combat' is naturally a broader and harder to quantify realm than combat, so it's probably unavoidable. Still like to see some improvement on that front.