D&D 4E How does 4E hold up on verisimilitude?

[Hussar]

4E is much worse than 3E in this regard.

Here some examples:

• 
  /snip
• There is a huge difference between what PCs can do and what NPCS/Monster can do, making PCs looks like some aliens or mutants which are not a normal part of the world

That's always been true though. That's hardly a 4e issue. How many PC's had a death gaze like a bodak? Or can create spawn like many undead?

Put it another way. If there was parity between PC's and monsters, then how do you explain the failure of the Level Adjustment system? It's not exactly a secret that most people feel that the LA and ECL system were less then superior to say the least. If there wasn't a huge difference between what a PC could do and a monster could do, then a LA'd PC should be par with a non-LA'd PC.

However, in play, that's simply not true. The LA'd PC is way behind. The higher the LA, the further behind he gets.

Heck, in 3e, many, many monsters had no daily limits on a fair number of abilities. Dragons could breath all day long. Lantern Archons, a very low CR creature, could cast cleric spells with no limit, teleport at will. On and on and on.

Yes, monsters are now created with different rules than PC's, in 4e. The justification for that is because the PC will be involved in every scene in the campaign. Monsters will likely only feature once or twice. Monsters don't need the same level of detail as a PC.

However, this is a simultionist issue, not a verisimilitude one. Simulationism =/= believability.

 

[Hussar]

Explain, explain, explain, ...

So many people trying to explain game mechanics in real world situations. So many people denying that those explanations really fit.

It's all about game mechanics. The wonkiness that bug some people is that in order for the game mechanics to fit nicely together and be balanced and consistent, some believability gets stretched or assumptions get made.

Understanding that a minion is a minion and it's ok for it to have 1 HP is fine. Trying to explain that in any sort of real world terms doesn't make a lot of sense. The 1 HP rule is merely a game mechanic to simplify the use of mooks for DMs. Nothing more. It has no decent explanation because it's believable that a Minion could actually survive getting hit once in a whiie, but the game system prevents that.

Ditto for a lot of the other explanations for Shift, Pull, Hit Points, "why Dex helps Hide armor, but not Chain armor", etc.

There are several 4E mechanics that need new (or even more detailed) explanations for it to fit into some people's versimilitude than others. That's why we keep having these discussions.

But, it's just a game. These rules are no more believable or less believable than falling damage in earlier editions. Either a given DM and group buy into them, or they house rule them to make them more believable, or they don't play the system.


Just like going into a campy movie, if one goes in with the mindset that it's a campy movie and will have stupid stuff in it and that's expected, they generally tend to have a better time at the movie then if they go in picking the movie apart.

For 4E, it's all in the mindset of the players. JMO. If one tries to pick it apart, it's not that hard to do. If one concentrates more on having a good time understanding that this is not a simulationism type RPG, then enjoying the game is not that hard to do either.

To me, some level of versimilitude is important. But, not enough that I am going to make the game less fun for my players by throwing dozens of pages of house rules at them. That's not why I play the game. I play the game because I LMAO more times in a four hour period than I do in the rest of my week combined.

Quoted for Troofiness.

 

[Derren]

That's always been true though. That's hardly a 4e issue. How many PC's had a death gaze like a bodak? Or can create spawn like many undead?

If the PCs would be of the same race as the monster he would have been able to in 3E.
And of course you ignored the most obvious thing, namely comparing a PC with a NPC with the same race and function.

In 3E a PC fighter wasn't really different from a NPC Fighter. The NPC had the same options and features than the PC. He might have taken different feats and spend its skills in a different way, but in the core they are the same.
In 4E the PC is totally different than the NPC even though they do the same and are member of the same race. Bot can do things the other one can never do.

• PC cannot always set up the attack. Limited opportunity.
• Easier to play, easier to manage=more fun, less frustration.
• Willing to bet no one really wants to play a commoner in D&D. PC's are "Heroes", and they probably should feel like it.
  
• No, it makes the PC's feel like Heroes. When the town is being ravaged by a vile dragon, and the commoners are nearly powerless to stop it, they put out a call for Heroes (ie the PC's). And why not? If your tough enough to raid dangerous and trap ladened dungeons every other week (as the PC's are and the commoners are not), and survive, then your tough enough to face a dragon.

1. Not all martial attacks require a specific setup. Some are just really hard hits.
2. But the issue remains, also it is not automatically more fun
3. Hero != Superman. And again this doesn't change that there is an issue
4. This does not require the PCs being build differently than NPCs. See 3E.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If the PCs would be of the same race as the monster he would have been able to in 3E.
And of course you ignored the most obvious thing, namely comparing a PC with a NPC with the same race and function.

In 3E a PC fighter wasn't really different from a NPC Fighter. The NPC had the same options and features than the PC. He might have taken different feats and spend its skills in a different way, but in the core they are the same.
In 4E the PC is totally different than the NPC even though they do the same and are member of the same race. Bot can do things the other one can never do.

Interestingly, from a game balance point of view, you'd might quickly note that the CR = Clas Level system is for NPCs is accurate. It might work for a Fighter, but try a Wizard. PC Wizards would rarely fire a barrage of high level spells at their enemies, since they know they'll miss the spells later that day. A NPC wizard can happily fire away, and this can be more costly then a Fighter just doing the best he can do.

Of course, that's besides the point. We're talking about simulation, not game balance. Or maybe this is exactly the point? The tools that provide us with a good simulation don't neccessarily provide us with a good game.

If we'd use the LA system for characters, and create a Bodak PC, we would quickly notice that the CR and the effective character level will be very different. That looks like great inconsistency in the system. Wha does it tell us about the simulation? The PC => NPC conversion tells us that PC Level = Challenge Rating. But the reverse is not true? Is our world simulation leaking "challenge energy", so to speak?

 

[timbannock]

Well, there have been people who have survived many, many stab wounds in real life, so...

How many?

Fitty cent survived X number of bullet wounds. I think that's pretty unique. Many people don't survive just the one.

Oh, and of all the people who've ever been shot, how many go into shock? I don't think anything remotely close to "shock" exists in D&D (or most rpgs), but it's pretty dern common in the real world.

Just sayin'

 

[Puggins]

In 3E a PC fighter wasn't really different from a NPC Fighter. The NPC had the same options and features than the PC. He might have taken different feats and spend its skills in a different way, but in the core they are the same.
In 4E the PC is totally different than the NPC even though they do the same and are member of the same race. Bot can do things the other one can never do.

Responding to this criticism is tricky, because I sympathize with your grievance. I agree that, in theory, the perfect system models both PCs and NPCs in the same fashion. 3e does so, and I agree that it is a good system.

But here's the problem- it's a good system that ultimately runs up against a wall because, as noble a goal as PC/NPC homogeneity is, it ultimately burdens the game with useless information, extremely rigid limitations and a faux-realism that fall flat on its face when you stare at it too long. That NPC fighters in 3e are built the same way as PC fighters really doesn't benefit anyone playing the game, ultimately. Most of the character's profile isn't used during the short combats that 3e tends to promote (how often does a fighter's charisma or skills come into play during combat?) and the fact that players use the same framework means that it becomes difficult for an NPC fighter to surprise the players (which, though it may not be "realistic," is highly desirable in a game). Ultimately, PC/NPC homogeneity provides no benefit to the game.

1. Not all martial attacks require a specific setup. Some are just really hard hits.

... And those are called at-will attacks in 4e.

 

[Knightlord]

1. Not all martial attacks require a specific setup. Some are just really hard hits.
2. But the issue remains, also it is not automatically more fun
3. Hero != Superman. And again this doesn't change that there is an issue
4. This does not require the PCs being build differently than NPCs. See 3E.

1. In all honesty, how often do you see a fighter in fantasy or, indeed, reality, attempting heavy blow after heavy blow? First off, its tiring. Swing a weapon of war as hard as you can, everytime, is extremely difficult to maintain I would imagine. Second, your not always able to perform a heavy blow as you also must concern yourself with defense, not simply offense. The monster your fighting is probably not going to just stand still while you wail on it with all your might.

2. What issue? And you are correct, I was in error when I made the declarative statement that such equaled more fun. I should have said it is more fun and less frustrating for the majority of people, to be fair.

3. Not much different than 3E, really. 1-10, low-level hero (but still a hero, except for perhaps at level one-two). 11-20, High level hero with lots of magic items that allow for "superhero" occurances and situations. 21-30+, named EPIC for a reason, for even without magic items, PC's could pull off superhuman stunts and do the impossible. I don't see an issue here, honestly. Indeed, the only thing I really see different is the reduced reliance on magic items to feel badass, and you start out as a badass from level 1 instead of having to wait until you reach level 3 or so.

4. See Elminster.

 

[Shabe]

In 3E a PC fighter wasn't really different from a NPC Fighter. The NPC had the same options and features than the PC. He might have taken different feats and spend its skills in a different way, but in the core they are the same.
In 4E the PC is totally different than the NPC even though they do the same and are member of the same race. Bot can do things the other one can never do.

Have you looked at the class templates for NPCs in the core rulebooks? It gives the monster the class abilities and an appropriate number of powers(not the same but 1 or 2 of at-will/encounter/daily/utility) for the monster so it doesn't give you a headache to run when you face the party off against an npc party, heck with the templates you could be upagainst a beholder paladin, a kutoan rogue, a gelantinous cube wizard and a mindflayer warlord.

edit: heck i quite like the sound of that, if my players ever stumble down to the underdark they are in for a big surprise.

 

[tomBitonti]

So ... to get back to the original question ... there do seem to be quite a few abilities that just feel wonky.

A cleric "infusing an ally with positive / divine energy invigorating them to fight harder, taking away fatigue, and even healing wounds" has a decent feel to it.

The same cleric having to hit an opponent with a weapon to trigger the same effect ... why? Is that a magical or psychological effect? Can the cleric take a swipe at a (hopefully uninjured) buddy to get the same effect? How about a wall?

I thought the example about loosing hit points for being turned down on a date was a nice example. If a Warlord can cause you to gain hit points by shouting at you, why can't an enemy cause you to lose hit points by shouting you down?

 

[Puggins]

11 inches blade, blade is much thicker than on a pocket knife. How many time you think you can get this through the chest and keep fighting? In the opinion of sister who is a MD ; Once. Maybe you'll die,
...
To imply that this is what happens when a 3e PC suffers a critical blow from a a dagger in 3e, whether he has 10 hp or 100hp, makes more violence to realism than using abstract hp. Yet if you argue that the wound isn't as severe if you have 100hp (maybe it nicked instead going through the chest) you are already abstracting HP and are but one tiny step from 4e.

One step? You're already at 4e once you understand that. 3.5e makes the exact same abstraction of HP that 4e does, it simply doesn't include the more much consistent system for healing damage.

Consider a dagger critical hit on a 15th level rogue with 100 hp. It does 12 hit points, dropping him to 88hp. A passing 2nd level cleric notices that the rogue has a scratch on his arm, casts Cure Light Wounds and gets lucky and rolls an 8, healing 10hp. The rogue still has a bruise or something (98hp), but he thanks the cleric and moves on. The cleric couldn't heal the entire amount.

Consider that critical hit on a 7hp rogue. It does 12hp of damage, dropping him unconscious and in danger of dying within a matter of seconds (-5hp). That same cleric rushes in and casts the same spells and gets the exact same result. The "sucking chest wound" completely disappears, and the rogue is back to fighting form (5hp).

So the same spell, cast by the same character, with the exact same die result will either not manage to remove a scratch from a man's arm or will completely repair a dire wound- much like the one Mal described- and bring a character not only back from death's doorstep, but to the point where he can swing his sword and fight a battle quite well.

How, pray tell, does that pass any sort of verisimilitude test?