D&D 4E Bridging the cognitive gap between how the game rules work and what they tell us about the setting

[Zeromaru X]

If all of those provide the exact same effect, then the situation feels hollow and inauthentic, yes, because they shouldn't. Different cause, different effect.

Are you aware that you can start a fire using different methods? Or that you can use different devices to access the Internet? That you can get the same stuff from different causes?

 

[James Gasik]

I don't know, it's like saying you can't produce the same effect by different methods. Like saying Aganazzar's Scorcher's effect has to be different from a flamethrower. Or a Wand of Fire. Sufficiently advanced science and all.

 

[Alzrius]

That seems to be the problem of the original poster. Each of the power sources in 4e represented different kinds of energy and forces in the universe that you could use to do stuff. It's different to get a fireball by creating it using arcane power, than getting one by praying to the gods for it. Yeah, you may have got the same fireball in both actions, but how you got it also matters.

The thing to remember about the cognitive gap is that it's the area between what the game's mechanical operations perform, and what the game tells us those operations mean in the context of the game world. In that sense, the power sources "matter" (where "matter" is taken to mean "helps us bridge the gap") where the game presents them as being mechanically distinct from each other, and gives in-character weight to what those distinctions are indicative of.

Now, "power sources" have been part of D&D since the beginning, e.g. arcane and divine magic. But while different editions have lent different weight to them, there was typically always some degree of differentiation between them (even if a lot of it was folded into the classes that utilized them). Divine magic required you to adhere to the tenets of your faith, leaving you subject not only to divine review of your conduct (potentially losing spell access if your deity didn't like how you were behaving), but also had you requesting spells via prayer instead of just preparing them without overview; your god might very well not give you the spells you asked for, but something else altogether (which was supposed to be the DM's way of helping you out for an upcoming adventure, at least as I read it).

Arcane spells, by contrast, were things you either had to find or invent on your own. You needed to record them in a spellbook, which could be lost or stolen or destroyed (and so you better have backups prepared), and even when you found a new one, you weren't guaranteed to be able to learn it. Specializing in a school a magic was something you could do to help out with that, and make your spells harder to resist.

And that's not even getting into things like psionics, which had very different mechanics from arcane or divine magic. Or incarnum in 3E, which was its own system. Or spellfire, etc.

In standardizing a lot of the mechanics related to those, 4E widened the cognitive gap, doing away with many of the details that differentiated things. There's no check or roll involved with wizards learning new powers, and clerics are explicitly stated not to receive their spells from their god. Psionics uses AEDU just like arcane and divine magic. And that wasn't just on the mechanical side, either; the "martial" power source talks about what it does, but not what it is, etc. There's a reason why "sameyness" is a term that gets thrown around in this regard. Certain things remained (e.g. wizards' spellbooks), but the formalization of "power sources" as a term under the rules didn't mean that it hadn't reduced their distinctiveness in how those rules operated.

Now, it should be noted that 4E isn't unique in having this particular aspect of the cognitive gap, but overall it did widen it. 3E had problems in terms of explicitly allowing for clerics with no gods, doing away (as of 3.5) with psionic combat, allowing arcane spellcasters (such as bards) to cast healing spells, etc. 4E simply pushed the envelope in that regard, and for many people that widened the gap to the point where bridging it was more work than they were comfortable with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know, it's like saying you can't produce the same effect by different methods. Like saying Aganazzar's Scorcher's effect has to be different from a flamethrower. Or a Wand of Fire. Sufficiently advanced science and all.

But if description is fungible, like it is in 4e, why have separate powers at all? Why not just have a power called "Fire Blast" that several classes have on their lists? It works for spells, after all. The whole system is effects-based anyway as far as powers are concerned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That seems to be the problem of the original poster. Each of the power sources in 4e represented different kinds of energy and forces in the universe that you could use to do stuff. It's different to get a fireball by creating it using arcane power, than getting one by praying to the gods for it. Yeah, you may have got the same fireball in both actions, but how you got it also matters.

In what way, in the game, does how you got it matter?

 

[James Gasik]

In what way, in the game, does how you got it matter?

Mike Mearls claimed, in an interview, that each Power Source had a sort of "sub-role" associated with it- for example, all the Arcane Power source classes had a slice of Controller, the Divine Power source classes had a touch of Leader, and all the Martial Power source classes had a slice of Striker, for examples.

There were a few effects that required a power source- Wands, for example, required you to have an Arcane power to use their built-in power.

Unfortunately, the full potential of Power Sources wasn't touched upon- there weren't a lot of things that referenced them, and even with the early ones, what you could or could not do with a given Power source was unclear (let alone the later, more esoteric sources, like Shadow or Elemental).

For example, I noted that every Power source allowed for a teleport ability with the exception of Martial. Even Rangers could teleport, because they had access to a few Primal powers in later books. And there was nothing that Martials could do that other power sources couldn't, so it seemed like it was just a limitation to be Martial.

In the end, it was a neat idea that they got carried away with, leading to some of the odder classes that simply existed to match Power source A with Role B (like the Seeker). And there wasn't even an attempt at a Martial Controller until Essentials (one of the E-Rangers, and it didn't do a very good job of it).

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why not just ignore the rules and the created implied setting if you don't like it???

People ignored gold for EXP and racial class limits when it created setting implications people didn't like?
AD&D was filled with rules people just didn't bother to look at?
And didn't lots of group ignored all sorts of game breaking loop holes in 3E for the sake of play style or world considerations?

 

[James Gasik]

Why not just ignore the rules and the created implied setting if you don't like it???

People ignored gold for EXP and racial class limits when it created setting implications people didn't like?
AD&D was filled with rules people just didn't bother to look at?
And didn't lots of group ignored all sorts of game breaking loop holes in 3E for the sake of play style or world considerations?

I mean, most game breaking loopholes in 3e required the DM to be on board with them. Few things could just be accomplished without the DM being complicit (it's why we don't talk about Pun-Pun, no no no).

But, you're not wrong in that people have always played the game differently from what the books say. It's like when people say "5e empowered the DM again" I'm always like "since when did the DM need to be empowered? When have they been not able to make house rules?".

People like to say that 4e was "anti-houserule", but there's a section about it right in the DMG, not just saying "you can houserule", but helping you to figure out how and if you should!

I'm positive that no matter what the canon of any setting says, people have played it how they wished. Don't want Cyric as a God? Done. Don't want LN Clerics of Wee Jas cranking out undead minions? Done. Think everything after the first three Dragonlance novels needs to be set on fire? Done and done!

 

[Voadam]

I feel like the OP highlighted an interesting problem, but not the one they intended to highlight.

If Healing Word and Inspiring Word or whatever have the same exact mechanics, making them two separate powers is increasing the cognitive load the system requires, but it's doing so in a way that isn't helpful at all. If I'm doing the same thing as that person is but with a different line of text, then why does it need to be repeated for every class? What's the actual difference between us if we're achieving the same thing mechanically AND a similar thing in terms of narrative? After all, if "speaking words = heal someone" then Healing Word and Inspiring Word are really just the same thing pretending not to be.

This pretending is rife in 4E, and it turned a lot of people off. 5E does it a bit too, but they decided ultimately to call a spade a spade and to reuse their huge library of spell mechanics for various other mechanics. And that makes sense and does a better job at making the universe feel """"sensible.""""

So when it comes to cognitive gap, this is where it's actually at for 4E. Trying to remember all these different powers that are quite literally the same thing and then translating that into story and fun roleplaying is difficult. Tom is casting firebolt, Brad is throwing firesphere, Amy is praying for an emberarrow, and Mike is slinging a flamebullet. Pretending to be different but actually being the same just feels so much more hollow and inauthentic than just all doing the same thing.

Is there anything besides healing word and inspiring word that has the exact same mechanics in 4e? Lots of powers and abilities fill the same general thrust because they share the exact same class role (defender marking, striker damage and mobility, leader healing or buffing, etc.) and powers are well balanced, but the specific mechanics are different and seem to give a different mechanical game feel and narrative feel.

I am also not convinced taking a gunslinger class and saying it casts a firebolt spell instead of describing it as slinging hot lead alchemical flamebullets feels less hollow and and inauthentic.

 

[Shardstone]

Is there anything besides healing word and inspiring word that has the exact same mechanics in 4e? Lots of powers and abilities fill the same general thrust because they share the exact same class role (defender marking, striker damage and mobility, leader healing or buffing, etc.) and powers are well balanced, but the specific mechanics are different and seem to give a different mechanical game feel and narrative feel.

I am also not convinced taking a gunslinger class and saying it casts a firebolt spell instead of describing it as slinging hot lead alchemical flamebullets feels less hollow and and inauthentic.

Ideally, a gunslinger would have much more then that, making the similar base a non problem.