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

[Herschel]

It's like the old Intelligence vs. Wisdom description: Intelligence tells you it's raining, Wisdom says 'go inside, dummy, you're getting wet'.

In other words, Intelligence tells you 'Hey, that's a riposte strike' where wisdom say 'ouch, pointy thing hurts.'

Just because something isn't intelligent enough to know exactly what a power or spell is, it is wise enough to know that it hurts and is "bad".

 

[Raven Crowking]

This may sound like an aside, but it isn't:

Models are not the thing modeled. However, the closer the model is to accurately representing the thing modeled, the more people will confuse the model for the thing. This is true of all RPGs.

And the more the model jars with what is being modelled, the more immersion will be damaged. One might almost define immersion as "willingly confusing (in the sense of making indistinct the lines between) the model for the thing".

However, the amount of effort that is being expended to "prove" that Imaro's fairly obviously correct point is wrong leads me to suspect that there is more to what he's saying than is immediately apparent to me.

I mean, I was thinking, "Yes, but is that important?", and making posts to the same effect. However, if the "other side" cannot also say "Yes, but is that important?" and get onto the significance (or lack thereof) of Imaro's point, it leads me to believe that it is more important -- for some reason -- than it appears to be.

So, AFAICT Imaro is not only right, but he is obviously so. As Crazy Jerome has pointed out, though, this is nothing unusual -- you could make a version of the same point accurately about any rpg. So, why is it important to deny the accuracy here?


RC

 

[Greg K]

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.

Not sure. I am not familiar with the original source quoted.

Anyway, some of the characters that I have had:
1. a rogue that started with no ability to deal with traps. He was just a layabout that picked the pockets of travelers arriving on the docks. He got caught up adventuring when he thought acting as a guide for foreign diplomats and a warrior priest would earn him a handsome reward. When the party killed a member of the ruling Wizard's Guild, he ran off with them for protection.

2. a "druid" (GR Shaman) was a teacher, scholar, priest. He was sent to the Wizard's Island to negotiate a hostage release. Crossing the Wizard's Guild earned their animosity and like the rogue got him caught up in circumstances when all he wanted was to return home and attend to the needs of his clan. The player had even lowered his BAB to Poor and his hit die for some benefits similar to the cloistered cleric and minor illusion spells.

Now, His "body guard", the barbarian, was definitely a adventurer, who volunteered, soley, to gain renown, money and for the chance to kill things- especially wizards- if given the chance.

3. Another group had a halfling that was travelling to different nations to gain recipes for his mother, an innkeeper. The character class was a barbarian hunter variant, but the player gave up favored enemy for favored terrain. We later switched it to a ranger that gave up favored enemy for favored terrain and spellcasting for feats (to represent tricks he picked up along the way from the fighter once he got caught up in "circumstances"). The initial wilderness skills simply reflected growing up in a rural environment and childhood games. However, he also placed initial ranks in profession:cook, profession: baker, profession: innkeeper. Throughout the campaign, he would seek out cooks and bakers, trade recipes, and even boost those skills to reflect his increased knowledge and talent. And, I threw in some adventures and subplots based upon demonstrating his skills and his reputation.
edit: Given the character concept and background, if I was to have this player, now, I would probably have the character start as a rogue with both the wilderness and martial variants from Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Imaro]

He knows he is being controlled by you, in the same sense that he knows the fighter hit him with a sword. He might not know what a sword is, but he knows what damage is. He might not understand magic, but he knows he is being made to do something he doesn't want to do, and can sense that you are doing it. The intelligence simply determines how well he understands all this and what he does with the information.

But wouldn't intelligence factor into something like Riposte Strike? The Rogue has done a maneuver that has basically set it up so he is fast, positioned, whatever to strike again if and only if the dog attacks him... the fact that the dog knows this grates on my nerves...

 

[Locutus Zero]

But wouldn't intelligence factor into something like Riposte Strike? The Rogue has done a maneuver that has basically set it up so he is fast, positioned, whatever to strike again if and only if the dog attacks him... the fact that the dog knows this grates on my nerves...

He has taken up a physical stance, probably similar to how a readied action looks. The Rogue is standing right there, in a position to attack if you get close enough. He's not looking like he just got done doing something and is gathering himself for his next "turn".

 

[Imaro]

It's like the old Intelligence vs. Wisdom description: Intelligence tells you it's raining, Wisdom says 'go inside, dummy, you're getting wet'.

In other words, Intelligence tells you 'Hey, that's a riposte strike' where wisdom say 'ouch, pointy thing hurts.'

Just because something isn't intelligent enough to know exactly what a power or spell is, it is wise enough to know that it hurts and is "bad".

Right, I get that... but how does it know that if it attacks the pointy thing will hurt it again quicker than if it doesn't attack?

 

[MrMyth]

But wouldn't intelligence factor into something like Riposte Strike? The Rogue has done a maneuver that has basically set it up so he is fast, positioned, whatever to strike again if and only if the dog attacks him... the fact that the dog knows this grates on my nerves...

Technically speaking, the dog doesn't. It doesn't apply a condition to the dog, it gives a buff (the counterstrike) to the Rogue, and nothing says that is apparent. Its certainly reasonable to conclude it is obvious, but equally so to conclude otherwise.

Look, this is overall a relatively silly tangent. The goal of the 'knows all conditions' rule is obviously to prevent abuse and let the DM make informed decisions on behalf of NPCs without having to get into arguments with players.

Yes, this leads to occasional weirdness, mainly in the realm of charm spells and similar effects - something WotC has clearly addressed, as seen in some of the most recent versions of those spells.

In most cases, a DM will use the knowledge as is appropriate for the creature, just as they would with any other bit of knowledge the adversary gained access to. Any DM who is likely to use this knowledge in ways that immersion-breaking ways... is likely to be the same sort of fellow who would do so with or without a rule involving it.

Can't we agree that, yes, this rule leads to occasional silliness, but that such silliness is few and far between, and the vast majority of such exceptions will be smoothly handled by the DM in the course of play without any great disruptions?

Or do folks really see this as a serious underlying issue of the game?

 

[Imaro]

He has taken up a physical stance, probably similar to how a readied action looks. The Rogue is standing right there, in a position to attack if you get close enough. He's not looking like he just got done doing something and is gathering himself for his next "turn".

Ok, but same as I asked Herschel... how does the dog make the leap in logic that this stance is that one where if I attack he'll get a chance to strike me quicker than if I don't?

 

[Imaro]

Technically speaking, the dog doesn't. It doesn't apply a condition to the dog, it gives a buff (the counterstrike) to the Rogue, and nothing says that is apparent. Its certainly reasonable to conclude it is obvious, but equally so to conclude otherwise.

Look, this is overall a relatively silly tangent. The goal of the 'knows all conditions' rule is obviously to prevent abuse and let the DM make informed decisions on behalf of NPCs without having to get into arguments with players.

Yes, this leads to occasional weirdness, mainly in the realm of charm spells and similar effects - something WotC has clearly addressed, as seen in some of the most recent versions of those spells.

In most cases, a DM will use the knowledge as is appropriate for the creature, just as they would with any other bit of knowledge the adversary gained access to. Any DM who is likely to use this knowledge in ways that immersion-breaking ways... is likely to be the same sort of fellow who would do so with or without a rule involving it.

Can't we agree that, yes, this rule leads to occasional silliness, but that such silliness is few and far between, and the vast majority of such exceptions will be smoothly handled by the DM in the course of play without any great disruptions?

Or do folks really see this as a serious underlying issue of the game?

I think you are confusing conditions with effects... an effect can contain a condition but doesn't have to... Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...

 

[TwoSix]

Look, this is overall a relatively silly tangent. The goal of the 'knows all conditions' rule is obviously to prevent abuse and let the DM make informed decisions on behalf of NPCs without having to get into arguments with players.

I'd XP you for that if I could.