D&D 4E 4e and reality

[CovertOps]

Really, D&D level gaining bit is more to engage the player than to model anything. Yes, heroes often become more powerful (or at least confident) as they progress through their story arc, particularly in modern literature, but not generally to the degree of the gulf in power that separates a level 1 from a level 20 D&D character.

I don't think the play of D&D across levels is meant to model anything, but, rather, is meant to be engaging and interesting to the player. The things his player can do, posses, or encounter, though, are drawn heavily from a wide variety of sources, including heroic myth, legend, literature, and film that features basically 'martial' heroes who do extraordinary, superhuman things, or otherwise face and overcome challenges that should be far beyond RL human ability.

I think that this analysis is a very strong point in favor of no edition of D&D ever being simulationist. I do agree that it's interesting for the player and gives you a feeling of accomplishment.

 

[pemerton]

D&D level gaining bit is more to engage the player than to model anything.

I think this is very true.

In 4e, the only mandated ingame consequences of level gaining are taking up a pargon path, and pursuing an epic destiny.

The rest can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. I see it as a metagame device which, in conjunction with the distribution of monsters across levels, tends to make a by-the-books campaign reflect the "story of D&D" ie we start with kobolds and finish with Demogorgon.

But there is no need to assume that, in the gameworld, the PCs have mutliplied their power by a factor of some hundreds.

 

[pemerton]

if you put the players at least partly in charge of narrative then you've just shifted the responsibility for that coherency on them. The grabby fighter grabbing the swarm is still a narrative problem. Except now the people trying to solve it aren't the arbiters of the rules, so the solution is not even in their sphere.

This reply seems to presuppose that the GM is the "arbiter of the rules". That's part of what I was denying in my earlier post. The idea that the GM chooses when the rules are applied or suspended is an artifact of a certain approach to D&D play (which 3E formalised via Rule 0) which I'm not a big fan of, and which I see 4e as implicitly rejecting.

4e's approach is much closer to that of modern indie games: say yes or roll the dice. And when the dice are rolled, it is the rules that are applied, not the GM's discretion.

No system is perfect all of the time. Basically what you're saying is something like "Gosh, grabbing just isn't realistic in 4e, if that bothers you then ditch the whole thing and go play 7th Sea".

I don't think that's what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if the rules produce this sort of problem that is a flaw in the rules. Whether the best response to such a flaw is to houserule, to go and play another game, to suck it up and keep going, etc, is a different question.

I'm entirely mystified by how one could conclude that rigid adherence to the mechanics of the game is a principle that comes out of that blog post.

Well, I'm reading the blog post keeping mind prior knowledge about Vincent Baker's approach to game design, and also in light of his response (at #28) to the comment at #26:

Beastin: My personal preference is giving the GM fiat power to choose probabilities. . . My basic philosophy is that game mechanics exist to add chance to a story in a convincing way.

Vincent Baker: That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.​

It's interesting to notice that the way Baker sets up his initial example - the Thatcher-era Londoner with nothing to lose confronting his lover - there is not even a GM present, and there is no need for a GM to aid in adjudicating the conflict resolution. That's not to say that GMs are a bad idea, but I share Baker's preference that the role of the GM be established by and within the rules.

 

[LostSoul]

Nice post pemerton!

The idea that the GM chooses when the rules are applied or suspended is an artifact of a certain approach to D&D play (which 3E formalised via Rule 0) which I'm not a big fan of, and which I see 4e as implicitly rejecting.

I was reading the 3E DMG the other day and looking at skill checks. Apparently, in the game, the DM only calls for skill checks when the PCs take actions that require skill checks. When the PCs take actions that require skill checks - like sitting in a bar - they are supposed to roll.

That was interesting. I didn't get that far, but I didn't see a point where it told DMs to ignore the rules. If the PCs can hear something - anything - they need to make Listen checks. It doesn't matter if what they hear has anything to do with the game; they need to make those checks.

I believe many DMs ignore that rule as it doesn't always serve the game, but it's interesting.

 

[pemerton]

Nice post pemerton!

Thanks. Did you have any thoughts on my reply to you upthread?

I didn't see a point where it told DMs to ignore the rules. If the PCs can hear something - anything - they need to make Listen checks. It doesn't matter if what they hear has anything to do with the game; they need to make those checks.

I believe many DMs ignore that rule as it doesn't always serve the game, but it's interesting.

Hmm. I think the 3E DMG says something in the introductory chapter about the GM having the power to suspend the rules in the interests of fun. And the 3E PHB mentions "rule zero" as the GM's ultimate authority over PC build. (I frequently see "rule zero" used more genrally, though, to describe the GM's discretion over the rules.)

If I get a chance when I get home, and remember, I'll look up my copies. (Also - my memories here are based all on 3E 1st printing books. I can't vouch for 3.5.)

I think there is a degree of ambiguity, in both older and newer D&D rulebooks, over what "the rules" includes. Sometimes it is used to refer only to character build and action resolution mechanics (sometimes only to the latter), but sometimes to such aspects as rewards, encounter design etc. With respect to these categories that are closer to "guidelines", it can sometimes be ambiguous as to whether a GM is suspending or altering the rules, or simply exercising a discretion to which the rules give rise.

Be that as it may, one thing that I notice about your listening example (and we could imagine that being formalised into a guideline about automatic successes, as per HeroQuest), is that it is a suspension of the action resolution mechanics that gets the players to where they want to go in the game. (Suppose we had a situation where the listen check in the bar involved two PCs - one whispering, the other trying to overhear. At this point I would expect the whispering player to be able to insist that the dice be rolled, analogously to the exmple on Vincent Baker's blog.)

Whereas what I object to in the case of the swarm grab example is that it is a suspension of the action resolution mechanics that thwarts the player by GM fiat. Now you might instead compare it to genre constraints on scene-framing in HeroQuest - the GM does not permit the player to frame a scene in which his/her PC grabs a swarm - but HeroQuest works on the implicit assumption that the player has a sufficient alternative ways of engaging the ingame situation, whereas for the brawler build fighter that's probably not the case. In a game that permitted liberal use of page 42 as a substitute for encounter powers then this last assumption might be wrong, at which point I might start being more flexible. But a better alternative might be for the swarm to use page 42 to get in an improvised attack on the PC that has grabbed it! Let the GM use the fiction to progess the situation rather than block the player's engagement with it.

Absent improvised attacks, a 4e GM who wants to engage the players more with the nature of the swarm as an element of the fiction - which is an admirable goal in many circumstances - can use those aspects of the swarm mechanics that do engage the fiction. In this case, that would be having the swarm escape or manoeuvre through tight spaces that the PCs can't themselves squeeze through. This would bring the fiction to life as relevant to the play (and not mere theatrics), again without thwarting the player with the brawler PC.

 

[Aegeri]

Whereas what I object to in the case of the swarm grab example is that it is a suspension of the action resolution mechanics that thwarts the player by GM fiat. Now you might instead compare it to genre constraints on scene-framing in HeroQuest - the GM does not permit the player to frame a scene in which his/her PC grabs a swarm - but HeroQuest works on the implicit assumption that the player has a sufficient alternative ways of engaging the ingame situation, whereas for the brawler build fighter that's probably not the case. In a game that permitted liberal use of page 42 as a substitute for encounter powers then this last assumption might be wrong, at which point I might start being more flexible. But a better alternative might be for the swarm to use page 42 to get in an improvised attack on the PC that has grabbed it! Let the GM use the fiction to progess the situation rather than block the player's engagement with it.

This is the argument I made myself effectively and this is precisely the best way of doing it. I do this in my games and it works infinitely better than "No, your power doesn't work. Sucks to be you for wasting space on your character sheet." It also makes life more interesting for everyone involved. Something I describe as influenced by necrotic energy may be resistant, but it could just as well augment its attacks, recharge powers or do anything else. Technically it is "resistant" to radiant energy, despite taking the full damage but the damage dealt boosts/influences the creature in a negative way to the PCs. Thus the power becomes a choice that influences the combat with distinct pros and negatives.

Immunity is boring. There is always a negative and it's usually the worst kind in "lol you wasted your turn, a power AND several minutes of real time. Good for you."

Note that immunity is okay in limited amounts as I keep stressing. But when whole groups of creatures and similar are immune - like making a creature group like swarms immune to grab, is just boring design. Especially when there are many many many ways of making interesting powers that will interact with grabs. You grab the swarm, but like the bees that Draco is so fond of the swarm grabs you. So yeah you're "grabbing" the swarm, but only because it takes that as a challenge and pours all over you while you're grabbing it. That makes it an interesting choice, instead of telling the brawler player he might not as well have turned up to that encounter.

 

[pemerton]

Aegeri, I would have posrepped you for your earlier posts and/or for this one, but still must spread around more XPs!

But yes, I agree that we are in agreement.

 

[eamon]

Of course, taking the problematic poison-immunity as an example, there exist feats such that specialists that are dependant and invested in that particular keywork can overcome such immunity.

Similarly with grabs & Brawlers: just because something doesn't work doesn't mean it can't be made to work. The question is what the default should be - should a swarm be grabbable without specialized tools or training despite that undermining believability, or should it be impossible as common sense would suggest, and there exist a fantasy workaround? Note also that swarms are not a common creature type; and no character is completely helpless against them; in short, this is a specialized challenge.

Compare it to disarming a trap - a challenge that cannot be overcome by many PC's - in a sense, a challenge that immune to all "attacks" by most PC's. Is this a problem? I'd argue that it's not a problem; PC's may have differing strengths and weaknesses, and such immunities only become a problem when they:

• are common (which swarms are not) and insurmountable (which it needs not be) and affect several common PC builds (which the brawler is not)
• or they are overbroad such that entire parties are affected.

As long as it's a rare challenge, it's perfectly OK for it to highlight distinct abilities.

Also, the argument that immunities are player traps rings untrue because if this is such a major issue, then the far more common and serious player traps deserve much more attention. These traps being the multitude of feats, powers and items which absolutely terrible and will have a much greater impact on the PC due the fact that they always with the character. Infrequent, non-partywide immunities just don't matter that much, and avoid making a joke of the game.

Unless you like prone gelatinous cubes to have an AC bonus versus ranged attacks. Or, being able to walk through one that's unconscious.

 

[Aegeri]

Of course, taking the problematic poison-immunity as an example, there exist feats such that specialists that are dependant and invested in that particular keywork can overcome such immunity.

Yes, they're called "Feat taxes". You may have missed where most people completely hate feat taxes and think they are detrimental to the game. I mean your argument is "You have to take a feat or be useless", which is the definition of what we should try to avoid with feats. Poison is exceptional as well because not only does poison immunity utterly ruin your damage types, it completely negates ALL non-damaging effects of the power as well. This makes poison immunity an awful double whammy, even compared to fire or other energy types immunity.

Note also that swarms are not a common creature type; and no character is completely helpless against them; in short, this is a specialized challenge.

There are 20 swarms spread over several encounters in the first part of one my campaigns. It's insect/arachnid based initially and so, as many swarms are insects there are therefore a good chunk of swarms in that part of my game.

"Swarms" not being a common creature type is irrelevant. I make the game and I decide what is in it. If I decide I want to run a delve into a crypt, it doesn't matter a damn if undead are "uncommon" in the game, because that's the predominant enemy. The theme of the adventure dictates the enemies: Not how common they are in the book. So if I adopted such positions as this thread, certain players would be absolutely useless in that game. Swarms are also already awesome, why do you think a creature that gets 1/2 damage from all melee and ranged attacks needs a further buffing in terms of resistance?

Compare it to disarming a trap - a challenge that cannot be overcome by many PC's - in a sense, a challenge that immune to all "attacks" by most PC's.

It's also capable of being solved in one round of combat - often a single check. Traps have numerous fundamental differences to creatures as well, they can't be affected by conditions or marked for example. So this is an irrelevant comparison.

As long as it's a rare challenge, it's perfectly OK for it to highlight distinct abilities.

I agree, but it's boring to make it immune and doesn't add a single thing. Also, as I said "Rarity" depends of the theme of the adventure. Swarms are not rare in the first adventure in one of my campaigns as swarms are perfect creature types for insects.

Also, the argument that immunities are player traps rings untrue

No it doesn't.

These traps being the multitude of feats, powers and items which absolutely terrible and will have a much greater impact on the PC due the fact that they always with the character.

This is the perfect example of missing the point entirely, PCs can be allowed to retrain options they find completely useless. You can't retrain a creature making your powers or core class features utterly useless. ESPECIALLY when it's the DM and not the default games assumptions that have made those useless.

That's why this point is fundamentally flawed as a response to my argument.

Infrequent, non-partywide immunities just don't matter that much, and avoid making a joke of the game.

Except to the player who is screwed over by it.

Unless you like prone gelatinous cubes to have an AC bonus versus ranged attacks. Or, being able to walk through one that's unconscious.

Or grabbing a phasing creature, or critically hitting an undead creature without vital organs and such forth. I mean, there are so many holes in the way 4E does that once we start this we're never going to end until we might as well pretend we're playing Final Fantasy. Where every creature is a ton of random immunities to anything interesting and the game becomes a contest of figuring out what debuffs actually work on it.

Incidentally, that's pretty boring gameplay.

Once again, I invoke the slippery slope argument. As mentioned however, I'm into making things interesting and immunities are flat out boring to me. Now if the ooze expands its size and makes difficult terrain (or a damaging zone) when knocked prone (as it spreads out when out of shape) now we're actually making something that's interesting. Just saying "Your power doesn't work" = yawwwwwwn.

Basically, if you can say "Making an entirely awesome, fluffy and fun build like the Brawler fighter utterly useless is good" then I can never ever agree with you on this point. I don't care about the rarity in the book, as I'm well aware that published adventures and my own have swarms as essential features of the encounter making the context important. When you make an entire class build useless in an encounter, you need to assess the worth of that rule and why it's being implemented. There are lots of ways to do something for an hour (the rough time of one encounter in 4E) and not enjoy yourself - DnD shouldn't be one of them.

 

[eamon]

It's a feat tax if you're required to take it; this isn't. It's an enabler for a new build - almost no PC will take it, after all, only those that deal a significant amount of poison damage. Also, it needn't be a feat; a class feature for instance would be a better fit for things every member of a class will want; however, class features have other problems in 4e for this kind of thing, namely that they all kick in at 1st level.

Perhaps the essentials classes (which seem to have graduated class features) will work better here.