Do YOU nod to "realism"?

[pemerton]

Conversely, I think that criticizing someone for criticizing a metagame mechanic that isn't used in a way that nods to realism is missing the point (in context of this thread anyway).

But how is giving enemies a -2 to hit as a metagame mechanic failing to nod to realism? The enemies are marginally more unlucky than they otherwise would be. It's (approximately) as if the player has given the GM a d18 to roll with, rather than a d20.

To put it another way: what is the point of criticising a game whose action resolution mechanics are obviously and notoriously heavily metagme for having such mechanics? Criticise the balance of the mechanics, sure. Or their (lack of) elegance. Or explain how it is hard to build sensible narratives and colour around them (preferably with some nods to actual play experience). But to complain that they exist strikes me as pointless.

 

[Kalontas]

That is too far for me to go.

Plus stuff like that is just too hard to remember session to session.

I try to just follow logic - so mindless undead are not afraid of anything, or don't understand taunts - or animals can't be bluffed. So I think it's not too hard to remember.

 

[LurkAway]

But how is giving enemies a -2 to hit as a metagame mechanic failing to nod to realism? The enemies are marginally more unlucky than they otherwise would be. It's (approximately) as if the player has given the GM a d18 to roll with, rather than a d20.

Ya, you're right that it's not probabilistically significant. Perception wise, though, why is that one element being singled out? That makes it feel like that modifier or action resolution (and the corresponding narrative) is more significant somehow than other potential narrative elements.

To put it another way: what is the point of criticising a game whose action resolution mechanics are obviously and notoriously heavily metagme for having such mechanics? Criticise the balance of the mechanics, sure. Or their (lack of) elegance. Or explain how it is hard to build sensible narratives and colour around them (preferably with some nods to actual play experience). But to complain that they exist strikes me as pointless.

I agree with this. Sorry, I must have misunderstood your original statement. I'm not against metagame mechanics on principle, only when they are wielded (or not wielded) in the ways you mentioned.

 

[KarinsDad]

They added that in as an at-will power also and its not really all that imbalanced.

I beg to disagree because there is often not just a single bonus in play.

As an example, I had an NPC attack with combat advantage in my PBP just this weekend. He rolled a 19 on the die for an effective add of 21 to his normal add. Because of all of the other bonus defensive effects at the time, he hit a slightly above average AC by 3. If the PC attacked had had a +4 AC bonus from the previous round in that round, the foe would have missed with a 19 and combat advantage.

It's not just the +4 bonus that's the problem. It's the +4 combined with the the plethora's of +1 here, +5 there, +2 over here.

A single +4 in an encounter, yeah I agree with you.

But, it's rarely just a single bonus, especially at high Paragon and Epic levels. The example of the 30th level PCs wiping through the 37th level encounter in 4 to 5 rounds is a prime example.

If the group does not have a lot of buffing powers and PCs, it's not so bad. But it can easily get way out of hand and WotC doesn't control what type of classes and powers that players at a given table take.

Hence, if the designers limited it to +2 or +3 for the vast majority of buffs, the odds of multiple buffs getting to a +8 or +10 total are greatly decrease. One has to look at the entire situation and not just look solely at a single +4 bonus to be mathematically objective about this.

 

[KarinsDad]

Marking gets the idea across, it works well enough mechanically, and gives the player some control.

I really don't have a problem with marking other than the fact that the counters to it are almost non-existent. Most effects in the game have obvious and semi-frequent counters of some sort. Stunned and Weakness are exceptions. Marking is as well. Yes, there are a tiny number of monsters that can shake off a mark and one can always knock the defender unconscious, but it is pretty much few and far between.

I do have a bit of a problem with multi-target marking. I totally understand that the bookkeeping is easier with aura marking, but it's just one more step away from plausibility. I do think that there are probably better mechanisms and I also think that there should be a mundane way to get rid of a mark (e.g. some sort of Move Action skill check, possibly Athletics or Acrobatics to get past the marker). It shouldn't be fire and forget and it auto-affects foes with no recourse. Most other effects in the game system require that one hit the foe in order for the effect to take place.

It seems logical to me that if a foe has to use up a Move Action and a die roll to get rid of a mark, that would be balanced since it's using up action resources of the foe.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This kinda reminds me of when rogues couldn't backstab vampires and the like. It might "make sense" from a "fantasy realism" point of view, but it's pretty lame when your main bit of combat utility is taken away from you.

(although whoever thought making vampires - you know, the guys who are extremely vulnerable to decapitation and being struck through the heart - should be immune to sneak attacks and critical hits was bloody stupid)

Well there were ways around this with the right gear. Sometimes classes had to rely on certain types of gear for certain situations. Now there were rules for using a stake on a vampire but i can see the argument for not being able to sneak attack a vampire. They don't have functioning organs so stabbing one in a vulnerable spot which it did not have made sense.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There have been any number of proposals of 'more realistic' ways to handle this, but IMHO all of them are rather convolved and awkward to actually use at the table. Marking gets the idea across, it works well enough mechanically, and gives the player some control. And honestly, given how unrealistic the whole situation is anyway, can we just play and have fun? Why is it that 4e in particular has to be nit-picked to death and every other edition of the game gets a pass? I don't get it. I've played all of them. They have all been highly enjoyable and I've never had major issues with any of them as long as people were willing to just get on with it and play instead of crawling up the systems tailpipe and get all finicky about it. Really, its a question, WHY do people feel so compelled to get all on 4e's case? There's some sort of bad attitude that was somehow released by 4e changing some things. I'm absolutely at a loss to even begin to understand it.

I think it is limited awareness of the range and depth of a lot of subjective feelings, across gamers. Look, nothing against Karin's Dad or me, but I bet if we tried to play any game together, we'd be at each others' throats within 2 hours. I've read enough of these posts to understand that his idea of what is "realistic" and mine simply aren't compatible at the same table. But I think there is a tendency to conflate the overall drift and focus of a game with some its particulars. And in fairness, with feelings, you can't always completely control that.

For example, do I think that there are serious problems with the 3E skill system, that interfere with my ability to accept the game world as somehow consistent or sensible? Why, yes, I do. However, as a first cut for 3E, it really isn't that bad. I made it work and had a lot of fun with it for a 3 year campaign. Sure, sometimes that was in spite of the skill system, but it wasn't so awful that we couldn't live with it and move on. I wasted some time trying to tweak it to my tastes, but that was my own fault, and didn't damage play at the table one whit. So I have criticisms of the system, but I'm not emotionally invested in being an "anti 3E skill system" guy.

OTOH, take things like double-bladed swords, weapon weights in general, and the 3E crafting system. My objections to them are two part. I have thoughtful reasons for disliking them, and those can be discussed and argued. But I also have an emotional reaction against them which I can explain, and you might understand, but you can't talk me out of.

Every system has things that provoke those kind of dual reactions, and people aren't always aware that the reactions are dual. And a lot of times, it doesn't really matter. You don't like something, whether critically or emotionally. So you don't use it, and that's that.

Where 4E was different was that it is really in your face on the changes. That makes it harder for people to ignore elements that they dislike. This is more than merely the 4E "bad marketing" of telling people that a lot of stuff would be "fixed"--though that is part of it. Dropping all pretense of simulation, including some deliberate and central metagaming mechanics, reining in magic while expanding mundane means--all of these combine to make it suddenly hard to ignore. It was brutally honest about what it was doing.

It doesn't bother me, and I get along better with 4E than 3E/3.5/PF, in part because I like brutal honesty in my game materials. Some people don't like that kind of brutal honesty at all. And others don't mind it, but the changes are just to big to ignore. And still others really have no concept whatsoever how D&D is played at other tables, and this narrows the range of their acceptance. They can't possibly imagine how feature X or rule Y could be catering to anything involving "good roleplaying". When it was just hit points or Armor making you harder to hit, they could survive on the occasional drive by slam, and then go back to ignoring it.

"Come and Get It" to them is like you suddenly saw a pair of monkeys in tuxedos. There probably is a good reason (or chain of reasons) for it, and it probably involves someone's idea of "fun", but chances are you aren't going to understand it, possibly not even after an explanation.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To answer the original question, I've seen a few theoretical problems in 4E that might induce me to adjust results for realism, but none of them have ever come up in actual play. The closest is the "daily limit" on magic item usage at the start of 4E, but my objections were more on the goofiness of the mechanics, the lack of a need for it, and the handling time. That is, too little reward for bothering with it. I understand that Essentials took that out. I suppose there might have been a twing of "lack of realism" in the fantasy world in my original objection.

I had far more things in previous versions that bothered me. Some of them I even went to a lot of trouble to change completely.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think another way that 4th edition walked away from the realism aspect is how the game is designed around the players and not vice versa.

It used to be that the players would need to prepare for what could come their way. Now the players really don't have to worry about that because they are essentially going to be able to handle anything.

For example if you were a rogue back in 3rd then you knew that you couldn't sneak attack undead, oozes and constructs. Well it was your job as the rogue to find the tools or the means around that, makes sense from a realistic point of view. 4th edition eliminated a lot of niche elements. Your Pyromancer doesn't really have to worry about those Fire Elementals or that Lava Dragon. Your rogue doesn't have to worry about those pesky undead because his sneak attack will affect them.

I actually like the older way because if my usual tactics didn't work i had to sometimes think outside the power.

 

[Phaezen]

For example if you were a rogue back in 3rd then you knew that you couldn't sneak attack undead, oozes and constructs. Well it was your job as the rogue to find the tools or the means around that, makes sense from a realistic point of view. 4th edition eliminated a lot of niche elements. Your Pyromancer doesn't really have to worry about those Fire Elementals or that Lava Dragon. Your rogue doesn't have to worry about those pesky undead because his sneak attack will affect them.

I actually like the older way because if my usual tactics didn't work i had to sometimes think outside the power.

This comes back to what is realistic for one person may not be for another. I am perfectly fine with the idea that undead and constructs have weak points which a precision warrior such as the rogue can exploit. Even oozes may have weak areas where they may have over extended or bunched up and the rogue is taking advantage.

As for the pyromancer, depends on how you see fire based creatures, he may be directing his attacks to cuts the melee combatants have inflicted on the dragon, using them to penetrate its normally heat resistant skin. Focused bursts of magical flame may disrupt the essence of fire elementals weakening them.

Your Miles May Vary, but this is acceptably plausible to me.