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

[Knightlord]

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?

Your buddy is not an opponent (theoretically), and a wall certainly is not an opponent (Unless its a Sentient-Megalomania-Driven-Super-Evil Wall of Doom ). So, I would say, IMO, no, neither situation would be legal.

As for the "shouting down", I'm sure there are probably some powers that exist or will exist that will be similar in effect, like a Battle Cry power or something.

Just a thought.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I think it's a step up from 3E in this regard... This is made worse by the perception that the game rules are also meant to essentially describe the physics of the world.

In 4E, that's clearly not true. Things are described as circles but mechanically represented as squares, and that's okay — the rules are there to help you display the world in-game in a quick and convenient manner, not to say how things "really are". The world itself is free to go on following common sense.

In other words, simplifying the rules doesn't ruin the ability to make your game "simulationist". It just means that the rules for playing the game aren't meant to be tools for running the universe — you should do that separately.

This is exactly how I view the issue (and more clearly written than I've managed).

There is nothing inherent to roleplaying games that says that the rules have to describe *both* the mechanical effect of actions and the "in-fiction" effect of those actions.

As we're seeing with the hit points discussion, HP provide a game mechanics measure of how long you can stay in a fight. The in-fiction description of how this is expressed in terms of actual wounds, etc. is largely independent of that. This is honestly true of any game with hit points.

I remember a 3.x campaign (around 10th level) where our DM described every HP loss as an actual physical wound. We also faced a number of monsters who could cast fireball and repeatedly did so on us. At some point after a few sessions, we sort of came to the realization that unless magical healing restored hair, every one of the characters would be completely bald. Then we went, "No they're not", and just pushed forward. We essentially rejected the DM's "flavor text" descriptions of damage. The mechanical effects didn't change, but the folks at the table were imaging it differently.

Encounter and Daily powers mean that, from a mechanics perspective, your character can perform actions that have significant effects on the battle, and the amount that they can do so is limited. What does that mean in terms of the game fiction? Does it mean that the fictional characters are aware that they have X Encounter powers and Y Daily powers? Probably not, so that needs an "in game" explanation that works for your group. One example would be that the characters are just plain fighting hard, looking for openings, and that the player's decision to use a power maps into the fiction as an opportunity to strike a decisive blow. That's not the only explanation, it's just one of the options.

Does this mean that 4e doesn't try to provide mechanics that directly map into a description of the game world? Absolutely. That flavor text listed below a power's name -- it's not what happens, it's an example of how you might choose to describe what happens.

The idea of having to map mechanical results to in-game descriptions goes back as far as roleplaying games themselves. Think about AD&D's 1 minute combat rounds; in the game text it's made clear that an attack roll does not represent one single swing. So everyone's been doing this mental trick for as long as they've been playing RPGs. It's just that 4e does it a bit differently.

 

[Shabe]

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?

Because you are smashing someone you have a reason to kill / subdue while you utter a prayer to your god, who is then blessing you with the ability to help that go a little more smoothly.
If you miss god didn't hear/wasn't interested, perhaps your weapon and the act of hitting is part of the holy prayer that helps the prayer be channeled to your god.

Maybe like spells, prayers are fundamental parts of the multiverse, they just do work that way, much like fireballs just do 3d6.

Its not a 100% convincing i must admit, but its a reason.

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?

Because its not in a life threatening situation and not having a date has nothing to do with whether you believe you can come back from a desperate situation to win the day?
Quite a lot of things in real life are doable if you believe and not if you don't, shucks back at school there were times when i could clear 1m20cm on the high jump and then other days when i would just come to a stop before the bar because it looked too high, a bit of encouragement from the warlord and i would have been sorted.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

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?

There are a number of roleplaying games that actually do include those kinds of effects. (e.g. in The Shadow of Yesterday, you might play out a debate essentially as a combat, with damage affecting your social abilities similar to how physical combat affects your physical abilities.)

I think 4e with an add-on that uses HP damage to track the back-and-forth effect of skill challenges would actually work pretty well. Thanks for the idea!

Quick example off the top of my head: In some versions of Arthurian legend, Arthur probably did take HP damage when he learned Guinevere was unfaithful to him. It did make him less effective in the battles to come, possibly more so than a physical injury would have.

These kinds of things definately require everyone at the table to "buy in". As far as the Warlord side of it, if people are sitting there thinking "Man, shouting at people to heal them is stupid"... then why are they describing it as "shouting to heal them" in the first place? The Warlord is taking an action, its mechanical effect is to enable someone to continue fighting when they otherwise might not have been able to. The game mechanics don't describe what happens in the fiction, so the group's just hurting themselves by picking the simplest possible description and then complaining that the description is unsatisfying.

To quote the PHB about powers:

A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description however you like, to fit your own idea of what a power looks like.

Not "Your GM tells you what it looks like". Not "You can house rule what it looks like". The rules flat out tell you that it's your decision.

"But I could describe my Cleave as pink bunnies falling from the sky and biting my enemies!" Yes, by the rules, you are absolutely allowed to do that (not really, the Martial and Weapon keywords indicate the type of action it is, but you can hopefully see my point.) OH NO! But wait, we're back to "buy in". If one's complaint about 4e is that someone can describe something in a silly or inappropriate fashion, that complaint applies to any game out there. It's not as obvious in some games, because the player's given more authority to describe how things look, but it's always there.

Or to put it another way, if the folks at the table haven't "bought in" to picturing a shared imagined world where things make sense, I don't think your game is in a good place regardless of whether or not the rules make some token attempt to provide "the right way" to picture things.

 

[mhensley]

It's really, really bad. The designers made a lot of design decisions to enhance playability of the game at the expense of verisimilitude, realism, simulationism, whatever you want to call it. I know a lot of people like this, but it's exactly the opposite of what I want out of an RPG.

QFT

 

[Danzauker]

If I can give my take on the HP / Hit Roll issue, I agree that they tread on their own feet.

But that's for a very precise gaming need: HP give the player a sort of gauge of how things are going on.

You could easily well go to the opposite end of the spectrum and model a combat system with no HP, where, for example, everything adds up to the Hit Roll modifier (like different weapon types) or AC, so that the first "hit" that comes up is the deadly one.

Probably this is a more realistic simulation of melee fighting, but is it funnier? Basically you're waiting for your number to come out of the hat before your opponent. I'd personally rather play bingo.

HP are there to allow all sorts of tactical response from the players depending on how the fight is going.

They also have a sort of "tradition" in fantasy / faction / martial arts movies. In Kill Bill, the Bride excanges several connecting blows with her opponents, some of those fly them through a wall or a table.

In real life, most of these would result in a broken leg or arm, and the abrupt end of the fight. Yet, they get up and keep fighting. They only lost some HP. After all, it's an action movie.

Personally, my BEST example of a 4ed D&D fight is the final fight between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in RotJ.

They exchange lots of blows. Then Luke is very down of HP. Darth says: "so you have a twin sister. If you don't follow me to the Dark side, maybe she will". Luke burns his second wind. Maybe some Action Points. Performs his best daily exploit and scores a critical and Darth is out.

If 4ed allows me to represent in gameplay those sort of stunts, color me content.

 

[JesterOC]

Abstracting HP would actually increease 'realism', for what it's worth.

I agree.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

"If you want real, step out your door, that's as real as it gets, from the sky to the floor..."
-Violent J, ICP

I have no idea why people play a FANTASY GAME and complain that it's not real enough. Its fantasy game... as in things are supposed to be FANTASTIC.
If you want to play a game with Magic, Dragons, Demons, Beholders, Living shadows, etc. etc. I think you need to calm down on the realism-nazi-ing.

(PWN, at will, )

 

[Derren]

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.

I really wish people would read my posts. If they had, they would have noticed that the problem is not the power level but the skill points and that every adventurer is able to do everything (While every other person on the planet has to actually learn to do his job and does not pick up every possible skill automatically)

"If you want real, step out your door, that's as real as it gets, from the sky to the floor..."
-Violent J, ICP

I have no idea why people play a FANTASY GAME and complain that it's not real enough. Its fantasy game... as in things are supposed to be FANTASTIC.
If you want to play a game with Magic, Dragons, Demons, Beholders, Living shadows, etc. etc. I think you need to calm down on the realism-nazi-ing.

(PWN, at will, )

If the game has dragons in it its completely normal that balls are cubes, adventurers don't have to train to learn every possible trade on earth, people regenerate by their own power and swords can only be swung in a certain way once a day, because as soon as the game has one thing in it which is not completely realistic it can be as silly as it wants without it making a difference....

 

[Hussar]

If the game has dragons in it its completely normal that balls are cubes, adventurers don't have to train to learn every possible trade on earth, people regenerate by their own power and swords can only be swung in a certain way once a day, because as soon as the game has one thing in it which is not completely realistic it can be as silly as it wants without it making a difference....

Must ... resist... urge... to ... quote.... Hong....

Honestly though, the main issue here is you are conflating realism with verisimilitude. They are not the same thing. Take the 1-1-1 counting rule for example. Yup, it's less realistic than 1-2-1. But, 1-2-1 was abstract anyway. Square fireballs? Squeezing corridors just because of a bend?

But, you're trying to conflate combat rules with physics. The ONLY time you count squares is in combat. 1-1-1 is faster in play. It has nothing to do with weird geometries and everything to do with making it easier at the table. But, it has NO impact on your game world. The only time it comes up is during play, where you have a fairly abstract combat system, coupled to a very abstract hit point system.

Heck, you have no problems with the idea that people can make one and ONLY one attack every six seconds. That's about as realistic as a rubber hammer, but, it certainly satisfies verisimilitude. It's good enough for believability.

Or, the fact that some classes are proficient in EVERY weapon? One level gives me the knowledge to use every possible weapon? ((Other than those restricted by the Exotic label)) That's realistic, but, being somewhat proficient in a bunch of adventuring related skills isn't?

Or, your next example of a sword that can "only be swung in a certain way once a day". That's just an intentional misread. I cannot think that's being done in good faith. Explaining that has been done to death. You try to swing that certain way all day long, but, it only works once. And, the PLAYER, (not the character) decides when that time is.