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

[Dannager]

Let me try this another way... I'm assuming, when fighting, the rogue is always in a fighting stance of some sort or another... what differentiates this attack stance (to a dog) from others that all drive the sharp pointy thing into the dog so that it knows without a doubt that it will be attacked again if it attacks... has it studied rogue fighting stances so that it can differentiate them?

There are animals who hunt snakes. These animals understand that a snake is a threat all the time, but it is especially threatening if it is coiled up in a certain manner. These animals understand, whether via instinct, training, experience, or animal intuition, that certain positions can telegraph certain movements, and certain movements can lead to certain attacks.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Let me try this another way... I'm assuming, when fighting, the rogue is always in a fighting stance of some sort or another... what differentiates this attack stance (to a dog) from others that all drive the sharp pointy thing into the dog so that it knows without a doubt that it will be attacked again if it attacks... has it studied rogue fighting stances so that it can differentiate them?

Well, from a real-world perspective, this dog has probably got a better understanding of the body language than many people would have. Dogs are often pretty good at distinguishing real and fake threats simply from body language (though eye contact and elevation can really skew their perceptions). People, in contrast, get fooled less thoroughly, but they get fooled more often by all kinds of extraneous things, too. My fencing teacher refers to this effect in humans as, "a cluttered mind". Animals don't tend to have clutter in their minds.

Not that your point doesn't have some force. I'm merely pointing out one way in which is not as clear cut as it first appears.

Why did it work out such that when researchers took the score from "Jaws" and played the shark theme for primitive people who had never even heard of the ocean, they reacted with dread?

 

[Dannager]

I am not at home with my books right now but I believe you are wrong, when I get a chance I will word for word quote what is in the PHB 1 about powers, effects and what the creature who is affected by a power knows.

From page 57 of the Player's Handbook: "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin."

The creature would not know, however, if you had some special ability that keys off of this somehow. For instance, a target marked by a shielding swordmage knows that he is marked, and takes a penalty when attacking other characters. He probably doesn't know, though, that you can use an action to negate some of the damage. And he definitely doesn't know that you have the Transposing Lunge power which allows you to snatch him away from his intended target with an attack.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Because it's the same old badwrongfun bull that's trying to tell me how to play. D&D has always had extensive combat rules. So what? It has them because, in order to have a reasonably fair game between the PCs and the NPCs, you need more rules than you do for peaceful role playing.

But there may be many other parts of the game rules that I like even if I'm not running a combat heavy game. Who is anybody to tell me I'm playing the wrong game?

I can't xp you right now, so let me just say: "Damn right."

 

[LostSoul]

From page 57 of the Player's Handbook: "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin."

That's interesting, because to me, the question isn't what the creature knows, but how the player (including the DM) is supposed to act on the information the player has. Does the DM make his decisions based on metagame information or should he play the NPCs according to their goals & desires? What about players?

This is probably answered somewhere else.

 

[MrGrenadine]

2 – Sudden (seeming) lack of out of combat ‘support’. By shifting this part of the game back into a more free-form DM fiat zone (compared to 3e where everything was becoming strictly codified) it suddenly looks like your character has no life outside of the encounter.

I find this so interesting, because I see 4e as much more codified (the power system), shifting away from a more free-form DM fiat zone, which is how I perceive 3.5.

Perfect example of YMMV, that.

 

[Dannager]

That's interesting, because to me, the question isn't what the creature knows, but how the player (including the DM) is supposed to act on the information the player has. Does the DM make his decisions based on metagame information or should he play the NPCs according to their goals & desires? What about players?

These are questions with answers that probably depend heavily on personal playstyle, but the game itself does make some suggestions (at least for DMs). From page 41 of the Dungeon Master's Guide:

"Smart monsters act differently in combat than dumb ones do. Look at the monster's Intelligence score to help you decide what it does. Smart creatures plan their actions and choose the best course of action. A vampire might focus its attacks on the cleric who keeps hitting it with radiant damage. Less intelligent creatures don't plan, they react. A wolf turns to bite the last opponent that hurt it or the nearest enemy."

While a monster might be "aware" of something that is happening to it, its intelligence determines if it's smart enough or mentally agile enough to do something about it, or to change its tactics to avoid a certain outcome.

 

[Imaro]

From page 57 of the Player's Handbook: "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin."

The creature would not know, however, if you had some special ability that keys off of this somehow. For instance, a target marked by a shielding swordmage knows that he is marked, and takes a penalty when attacking other characters. He probably doesn't know, though, that you can use an action to negate some of the damage. And he definitely doesn't know that you have the Transposing Lunge power which allows you to snatch him away from his intended target with an attack.

Yes page 57 was the passage I was thinking of, and upon re-reading it I concede that powers like Riposte Strike would not fall under it.

That said I still have a problem with meta game knowledge being introduced as in-game knowledge as far as immersion goes. Taking your example above... what does "knowing the swordmage marked me" actually mean in the narrative, if he had to...how would a character describe this to another character in-game. Or is this one of those places where 4e gives us all the mechanics for the game (and even introduces them to the in-game fiction in a concrete form) but then leaves us to figure out how it all fits together or to go the easier route and just ignore trying to explain it through the narrative?

Edit: Slightly altered post to express myself better.

 

[Keldryn]

If I may, I think the issue you are having here is presuming a single answer for all situations. That's a 3e approach. A power does X and it always does X and it always works in exactly the same manner is how 3e (and for the most part, earlier editions of D&D) operated.

I wouldn't really call it a 3e approach, as I learned that paradigm from BECMI, AD&D, and virtually every other RPG that I played as a teenager. Sure, there were exceptions (although I can't think of any off the top of my head, other than explaining what hit points represented or one attack roll representing 10 seconds or a minute of combat).

The power's effects change depending on what the PC is facing. A humanoid becomes enraged, flailing wildly, thus dies easier as he forsakes his defenses. A skeleton obviously isn't going to be enraged, but, perhaps the bard's running commentary reduces the horror that the rest of the group feels when faced by undead abominations reaching from beyond the grave, thus making everyone else a bit more effective - again simply mechanically realized by lessening the skeleton's hp.

That's the entire point of decoupling the mechanics from the narrative. You know what happened - the skeleton took X psychic damage. How did it take that damage? Pick a method that makes the most sense in the context of what you are doing at the time.

I understand the decoupling of mechanics from the narrative and what it entails. I just don't like it very much. The inexperienced players in my group have a particularly hard time with it. They expect that they will describe to me what their character is doing and then I tell them what happens as a result. Sometimes these actions need to have rules applied to them and the effects described in terms of game mechanics, and sometimes they don't. The powers in 4E generally require players to think in terms of what mechanical effect they wish to put into play and then describe how this was accomplished in terms of the narrative.

That's counter-intuitive to me, and my casual players find it even more so.

Either way, the player does have an end result in mind, but the "traditional" way leans towards determining the game mechanics effect from the narrative context, while the 4E way leans more towards determining the narrative context from the game mechanics effect.

In the first case, I feel like I'm interacting with the imagined world and its inhabitants and using the rules to facilitate that.

In the second case, it feels like I'm interacting with the game mechanics directly. This doesn't make the imagined world or the narrative irrelevant, but it's hard to shake the feeling that the game mechanics are the focus and the narrative is just fluff for my amusement.

This is entirely my own perspective (one which most of my players seem to share), and it is certainly not going to be shared by all players. I think that 4e demands a specific type of creativity from its players in order to really shine. Some players will really enjoy coming up with new descriptions as to how their powers work in different contexts, while others will get tired of it in short order. Using Viscious Mockery to incite rage in a bandit, orc, dragon, or goblin? No problem. When you've used it on oozes, slimes, skeletons, puddings, stirges, zombies, and now you're faced with an iron golem, you might just feel disinclined to explain a 1d6 + Cha mod psychic damage effect that inflicts a -2 penalty to hit for 6 seconds yet again.

 

[Dannager]

That said I still have a problem with meta game knowledge being introduced as in-game knowledge as far as immersion goes. Taking your example above... what does "knowing the swordmage marked me" actually mean in the narrative, if he had to...how would a character describe this to another character in-game.

The swordmage has story flexibility to word it in whichever way he would like. Maybe he placed a confounding hex on the enemy's weapon hand that causes it to waver if he doesn't attack the swordmage. Maybe he cursed the enemy such that his vision blurs when he's not focused on the swordmage. Maybe he conjured a magical dancing shield to follow the enemy and help deflect his blows should he attack the swordmage's allies. Or perhaps the swordmage taunted his enemy with words laced with arcane power, magically encouraging him to attack the swordmage.

All of the above are options, all of them make sense both flavor-wise and mechanics-wise, and all of them make it clear to the enemy affected by the mark that he is, in fact, marked by the swordmage.

Or is this one of those places where 4e gives us all the mechanics for the game (and even introduces them to the in-game fiction in a concrete form) but then leaves us to figure out how it all fits together or to go the easier route and just ignore trying to explain it through the narrative?

4e does this purposefully in almost every case. We are given the tools to craft the story, but those tools are made flexible enough that players have the freedom to adjust them to fit the circumstances of the narrative.