D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Crazy Jerome]

And, over the years, the latter has described more than a few PCs played in my games.

How many of them sort of matched the original speaker of Danny's aluded quote? I find it kind of interesting that Twelflth Night should be invoked when "not as farce" was an earlier concern.

I ran a homebrew D&D scenario based on that play, once. It's always been my favorite Shakespeare.

 

[Imaro]

That's silly. All the power has to do is say "the target of the power is not aware of the spell's effect". Heck, bake it into the description of the charm keyword if you need to. Exception trumps general rule (per RAW).

Again... just because DM fiat can solve a problem... doesn't mean it isn't a problem and doesn't exsist. I am not looking for a way to solve this, I was bringing it up as somehting that breaks immersion for me.

Also, what should be the general method of rule interpretation comes into play here. You say narrative concerns can't mitigate knowledge of effects (as per RAW). I'm saying the RAW doesn't force that knowledge on the fiction, but merely on the DM. My general method is "If there are two ways of interpreting a rule, and one doesn't work, use the other one."

How many times do I have to go over this... it isn't about RAI, you're changing the actual rule here. The rule is not ambiguous it clearly states... The creature is aware... not that the DM is aware and can determine whether the creature is or not.

And if your concern is the newbs....well, don't worry, they'll figure it out.

I don't have any concern about anything this was just, IMO, an example of how 4e sacrifices immersion for a gamist conceit. The game is more fun and easier to play when the effects are known since one can then make informed "tactical" decisions based on the effects. Now whether you personally play this way or not is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Imaro]

Ok, then I understand "narrative" here to mean "all possible narratives". There is, of course, a limit on "all possible" as soon as you have any kinds of rules. In Basic Redbox, I can't have a story where a wizard uses a sword, by RAW. In any version of D&D, I can't reproduce Harvey with much fidelity. Until 4E, I can't reproduce the feel of certain Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, by RAW.

You can't do those things, by RAW, because no one considered them important enough to trump other considerations. I've never cared that much about secret charming, but I did care about a wizard using a sword in 1981. (It doesn't have to make sense--it's a preference.)

But you realize that if you go back to 4E and change that rules on powers, that whatever you change it to will also have narrative limits under your definition. It can't help but. Enforcing gravity limits the narrative.

You were the one who claimed it created no narrative limitations... I was just showing you that yes... it does.

 

[Gryph]

How do they know what is happening to them if they have never studied magic or been charmed before in their life... Or as I stated above... how does a dog (with animal intelligence) know it has been "charmed" as well along with exactly what that means?

I think the rule says that they know the effect and the source, not necessarily how the source achieved the effect. "So that wizard used a spell to make me do something I wasn't going to.", is sufficient to cover the knowledge granted under the rules.

Nowhere does the rule about affected creature knowledge dictate actions or reactions relative to that knowledge. The dog in your question may react at a instinctual level akin to "fire bad, run away" but I don't think however the DM decides an npc responds to knowledge of effects on itself is a matter of rule or inherently immersion breaking.

Though, honestly, when I'm DMing I never worry about my own sense of immersion, I filter npc actions to the scene at hand to try and maintain the players SoD.

I could go either way with the ooze and riposte strike. Maybe the ooze sees the rogue as a good food source and has no ability to anticipate the damage from the riposte; or maybe the ooze having just been smacked by its food decides to go try that other walking food over there. I would choose between them based on the play on the mat and what I think would be the most fun (valuing fun includes considerations of immersion) for the table, at that moment.

 

[TwoSix]

How many times do I have to go over this... it isn't about RAI, you're changing the actual rule here. The rule is not ambiguous it clearly states... The creature is aware... not that the DM is aware and can determine whether the creature is or not.

Except that I do think it's ambiguous, because I don't think "aware" means what you think it means.

Feel free to pull up Wikipedia or Webster's to prove me wrong, of course.

 

[Dannager]

Using this definition, I am saying when playing 4e by RAW... there will never be a story created by players and DM where a wizard (PC or NPC) is able to use his powers on another creature without that creature knowing it has been hypnotized, charmed, etc. even if there is no logical reason for it to know and whether it has the intelligence to even recognize magic or what has been done to it on a conceptual level.

It's a good thing 4e already has a power that totally cripples that particular argument: Instant Friends.

I'm not going to copy the whole power if you can't see the Compendium link, but on a successful save, they aren't charmed and they know what you tried to do. On a failed save, though, they're your friend for the next few hours, and when it wears off they forget everything that happened to them.

Enjoy your narrative!

 

[Imaro]

It's a good thing 4e already has a power that totally cripples that particular argument: Instant Friends.

I'm not going to copy the whole power if you can't see the Compendium link, but on a successful save, they aren't charmed and they know what you tried to do. On a failed save, though, they're your friend for the next few hours, and when it wears off they forget everything that happened to them.

Enjoy your narrative!

Yawn... yet we have a ton of powers that inexplicably auto-magically explain exactly what they are doing to you as the wizard casts them on you. I'm sure there are always going to be outliers, but it's annoying when someone tries to dismiss the overall point (that majority of powers inexplicably give you a meta game definition of their effect as in-game knowledge when they are cast on you) because there are a few outliers. The narrative tangent is just that, a tangent to my main point.

Edit: I bet that's a much later designed power... in fact probably around the time the new direction for 4e was instituted with essentials... how about a corebook power that works that way?

 

[Dannager]

Yawn... yet we have a ton of powers that inexplicably auto-magically explain exactly what they are doing to you as the wizard casts them on you.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't consider a magic spell doing something magical to be problematic.

 

[Imaro]

You'll have to forgive me if I don't consider a magic spell doing something magical to be problematic.

I said powers... not spells.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And, over the years, the latter has described more than a few PCs played in my games.

How many of them sort of matched the original speaker of Danny's aluded quote? I find it kind of interesting that Twelflth Night should be invoked when "not as farce" was an earlier concern.

I ran a homebrew D&D scenario based on that play, once. It's always been my favorite Shakespeare.

Over the course of my 34 years in the hobby, I'd have to say that about 25% of my PCs- regardless of genre- are reluctant adventurers. However, as I've aged, the ratio has changed quite a bit to the point that I'd say that a full third I design these days are reluctant, as opposed to almost none in my first decade in the hobby.