D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Tiitha]

I'm a big fan of 3.5 and enjoyed the variety of things you could do to make a game of D&D more realistic, yet creative. I'm disappointed that WotC took a lot of simulation away in 4e, so I've found it not as enjoyable to play.

But what exactly has WotC done with 4e to take that simulation away? I think it mainly has to do with the skill point system taken away, and the skills list tapered down to being more general and combat based. The random element of dice and customization of skills is really what can shape a memorable game, and 4e takes a lot of that away.

No longer can your characters try to tell a joke to an NPC to lighten their mood, and end up rolling a 1 and completely tick them off instead. Or forage for herbs to make scented soap out of dragon fat with an alchemy kit (I've done this!). You COULD do these things, but you'd have to shape the rules a lot, or the DM could make them objectives... but the fact that my character could do it just as well as any other character and not be SKILLED at it takes a lot of fun away from it.

What do you think took a lot of simulation away from 4e that 3.5 had?

 

[Ryujin]

What took away the simulation aspect? Largely, it was people thinking that they couldn't do the sort of things that you described, because they weren't specifically stated somewhere. What to be able to tell a joke and drop the punchline? Rolling a '1' on Diplomacy will handle that. You want to be able to make dragon fat soap? Maybe use a skill challenge related to Arcana and Nature, to create an alchemical formula for it.

The only thing stopping you from being able to do virtually anything in any edition of D&D, from Basic through 4e, is not letting yourself believe the words, "It can be done."

 

[Saeviomagy]

No longer can your characters try to tell a joke to an NPC to lighten their mood, and end up rolling a 1 and completely tick them off instead. Or forage for herbs to make scented soap out of dragon fat with an alchemy kit (I've done this!). You COULD do these things, but you'd have to shape the rules a lot, or the DM could make them objectives... but the fact that my character could do it just as well as any other character and not be SKILLED at it takes a lot of fun away from it.

Well, you see, the thing is:

The very PRESENCE of craft(scented dragon fat soap) in the game means that in another game, in another time, some player is being told "No! I don't care that you've got this cool idea for making scented dragon fat soap and using it to wash the golden mare so you can get the holy sword! You don't have craft (scented dragon fat soap) so you can't do it! So stop this silly thinking, planning and storytelling and go kill something!".

And frankly, that's a lot less fun that if the system encourages the DM to say "ok, sounds like a skill challenge to me. Describe what you're doing to craft the soap, I'll determine the skill DC".

D&D has never been a simulation of anything, even when it has tried to be. It's a game, and it's at it's best when everyone remembers that.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The only thing stopping you from being able to do virtually anything in any edition of D&D, from Basic through 4e, is not letting yourself believe the words, "It can be done."

This is the essence of it.

Most of the 4e (and even now Essentials) naysayers seem to be in the same mindset, where "you can't do x in 4e," which is entirely a frame of mind and does not have anything to do with the game or its rules.

I don't know if it's because the 3.x crowd are more used to having every option and use of a skill or spell explicitly written out, or if it is just a mindset going in, wanting to find things not to like about it, or maybe because they'd heard 4e doesn't do 'x' well.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not hating on 3.x or any other edition. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day, they're all limited in what can be done only by the imaginations of the players and the DM.

While it may be true that 4e takes out a little of the simulationist design that was baked into 3.x, that still doesn't limit what you can do, it only changes how you go about resolving the actions to do it.

There are some who prefer to resolve actions one way to another, and that's fine. Use whichever ruleset pushes your buttons right.

 

[mudlock]

Collapsing the skill list and going to trained skills over skill points was the best design choice ever. I agreed to play in a friend's PF game, and needed to make a 10th level character. Spending the 100+ skill points across some 30-to-40-odd skills (much more, actually, since he'd decided to explicitly list every craft, profession, and performance for his campaign) was the most excruciating task ever, and reminded me what I didn't miss from 3.x.

Haven't got a clue why that would cause someone to decide their character can't tell a joke anymore though.

 

[LostSoul]

Metagame mechanics and the generally-accepted idea that the details of the fiction shouldn't have any effect on action resolution.

 

[BobTheNob]

Yep. Goodbye skill points. The old 3.x system which looked great when I first read it all those years ago, but which got stale and arbitrary VERY quickly. Compared the 4e. Coming into our 3rd year of playing and the skill system is still holding up.

Its more simplistic than 3e's, but thats its strength. It has SOME rules around its usage, buts its utter simplicity allows the DM and Player to fill the blanks, leading to much more open play.

Dragon Scented soap? In 3.x you were obligated to have the appropriate crafting skill. In 4e, you wing it. So in 3.x it couldnt be done because you didnt have that ultra obscure crafting skill (and who would?) but in 4e you can.

I found this post rather strange in the end, because if I got the OP right, the very thing that was pointed at 4e as being a weakness compared to 3.x I actually consider it far, far stronger in this aspect.

Still a little weirded out by this one and kinda curious to here the OP's repsonse.

 

[mudlock]

Metagame mechanics and the generally-accepted idea that the details of the fiction shouldn't have any effect on action resolution.

Oooh. That's a much better answer, thank you.

I mean, yeah, I admit it, I'm a 4e apologist: When someone asks "How do you knock an ooze prone?" I tell them "Well, you know, just think of it as, some how, the ooze looses its next move-action and grants CA to melee attacks; maybe it gets all wiggly like jello, ignore the word 'prone' when thinking about prone." I've more-or-less come to grips with that.

However, I absolutely DESPISE powers that explicitly refer to skill challenges and monster level. I gotta draw the meta-line somewhere.

 

[Zaran]

I don't agree. There are alot of powers that are made to deliver mechanics without alot of explanation. It's very hard for me to describe how a fighter can make every foe around them in a 15 foot radius to come next them so the fighter can hit them all. Is it a cool game effect? Sure but you have to leave the story at the door with that one. Alot of people I have seen don't care about the story though. WotC has seen this and has given them a game that is fun to play tactically and everyone has eaten it up. Also things like Golems being resistant to damage or lightning bolts striking water causes area effect damage went away because they no longer fit the rules. Where a warlord can yell at an unconscious companion and they all of a sudden get back up is really hard to swallow but if they couldn't do that then who would ever play a warlord over a cleric? The rules became more important than what we believe would happen in the real world.

Also, the Campaign material, Monster info, and info on world building was reduced down to very minimal. This means that all that falls on the hands of the GM to create and describe and many don't bother. The game is great for making encounters, who cares if the monsters in it don't belong in a forest setting when their level is what's important? While most people would say this is how it should be, I would rather more fluff that I can absorb and use for my game. I like it when my players try to do something wild and crazy outside of their powers.

At the same time, I do not want to see powers removed and Essentials type abilities to take their place. Not without a way to add in alot of the flavor that was removed to save book space. I think Essentials was done because of the protest against 4e being less simulation and more game. I do not think simplifying everything down and relying solely on imagination will work. Because I find when I am working on setting I'll reach for past editions and look up info.

What is my solution? More GM material. Give me back the Terrain Type. Give me the ability to have worg riding goblins without having to add 6 levels to the goblins. Give the player more maneuvers that don't require a certain power to be known. Sure page 42 gives us the ability make stuff up but it's not always easy for a GM to to come up with that sort of thing.

I grew up thinking that we are playing characters in a story and that the GM is a storyteller. But I see too much that people just think it's board game and the purpose is to accumalate XP and level up.

Do I hate 4e because it's turned into Warhammer Quest? No, I love playing it. When I GM , I do my best to create a believable story. When I am a player, I work on a backstory over trying to get every possible point of damage I can. I just think that there is not enough emphasis on helping the GM with the storytelling part. I have seen more fluff lately in both Dragon and in the SPLAT books. It would be nice to have more adventures that aren't just encounters strung together.

Anyway I think I keep veering away from the subject. Let's just leave it at you have to do your best to work the encounters into your story and don't let the rules "rule" your world.

 

[kaomera]

What do you think took a lot of simulation away from 4e that 3.5 had?

I don't personally feel that D&D has ever simulated anything but D&D. 3.5 simulates 3.5 much better than 4e does, but it also simulates 4e much worse.