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

[Mistwell]

I've been playing and DMing RPGs for 30 years and the only time I ever heard a gamer use the word "verisimilitude" is on this forum when I joined a few months ago...

Rant Disclaimer: The following is not intended to offend anyone, nor is it directed to anyone in particular.

[rant] Yes. It's a very lame term for this game that became a fad because some gamer guys thought it was cool to use a word that is not often seen in popular usage. It's the same reason some folks use too many acronyms around here.

And the louder and more often they claim it's a word that fits perfectly, the more I roll my eyes that it can't fit perfectly if they have to continually justify and explain and debate it's usage and definition. Just using the definition in plain language rather than the word would actually communicate their message better. But, I am not positive that communication is the actual goal.[/rant]

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I "enjoyed" your "post." And I "agree" to a large "extent."

-"O"

"I'm" "very" "glad".

 

[Mistwell]

I really wish people would read my posts.

We know. Everyday, we know that you wish people would read your posts. And yet it seems to me that every day, fewer people are reading your posts. I wonder why that might be? I can take a guess at the reason, but can you?

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

Except that saying that the power doesn't work when you hit a buddy (who is not an opponent) is using the definition of the power ("this power works when you hit an opponent") to answer the wrong question. I want to know why was designed the way it was. Why *should* the power only work when an opponent is attacked?

And, what are the limitations? If your buddy is covered by an illusion and you think they are an enemy, does the power work? What if you attack an enemy and your buddy is behind a wall from you, do they get the benefit? What if they are in the same room, but there is an opaque curtain between you and them?

 

[Wormwood]

I want to know why was designed the way it was.

So that clerics could heal *and* join the rest of the party in stomping Goblin ass.

In other words, to make playing a cleric more fun in actual play.

If you want to go through the effort to make it less fun, go for it.

 

[Knightlord]

Except that saying that the power doesn't work when you hit a buddy (who is not an opponent) is using the definition of the power ("this power works when you hit an opponent") to answer the wrong question. I want to know why was designed the way it was. Why *should* the power only work when an opponent is attacked?

And, what are the limitations? If your buddy is covered by an illusion and you think they are an enemy, does the power work? What if you attack an enemy and your buddy is behind a wall from you, do they get the benefit? What if they are in the same room, but there is an opaque curtain between you and them?

Oh, then probably what Wormwood said.

 

[Mistwell]

4e conveys the appearance of truth better than some role playing games, and worse than others, and about the same as many. To be more specific, I think it conveys the appearance of truth about as well as 3e.

I think a lot of folks are confusing behind the scenes mechanics with the scene that is playing out. Mechanics are irrelevant to how well something conveys an appearance of truth. If the hands of a clock move because of a series of gears behind the faceplate, or because some invisible tiny gnomes are waving daffodils enough to generate a magic breeze to move the hands behind the faceplate, both convey the appearance of truth (moved hands on a clock) equally well.

So if it's the mechanics of hit points, or anything else, that is bugging you, then it's an issue that is different from the appearance of truth. As long as the scene plays out in a manner that is described sufficiently to convey an appearance of truth (Second Wind: "you noticed how skilled your foe was with that last axe swing that you barely dodged, briefly demoralizing you, but you manage to put your own inexperience out of your mind for now") then the system is doing enough in my opinion to hold my attention and make it believable enough.

And if you are having trouble coming up with how a scene plays out in a manner that conveys enough of an appearance of truth for you, then you should consider the possibility that it is a failure of your own imagination. For example, if you cannot initially imagine how a scene would play out where a character swaps places with a gelatinous cube in combat, then you would probably get more mileage out of redoubling your efforts to imagine how such a scene might play out, rather than spending your efforts complaining about how the game doesn't give you that explanation.

Part of the fun (for me at least) is thinking through how scenes can play out in a believable, imaginative manner. And I find almost any scene can be formulated in a believable-enough manner to reflect the mechanical results, if you are imaginative. Usually, the more difficult it is to imagine the scene, the more interesting and memorable that scene will be after you actually apply the effort to work it out.

 

[Voss]

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.

This I agree with. The numbers are nicely consistent (except for damage vs. hit points, which falls off at higher levels), but there isn't any sense of verisimilitude, let alone anything fun or interesting. There are a couple good ideas buried in the dross that may be worth mining for another system, but I can't muster any urge to actually play it as written.

The design decisions seem to revolve around making future products easier to design, since everything can be plugged in and compared to the standard formula-by-level. As a side effect, this makes the game fairly easy to DM, but it also makes the game fairly bland and boring. None of the powers are particularly interesting, and almost everything is an excerise in pure dice rolling. 30th level characters have all of 17 discreet things to do, and all of them are variations of the same things they were doing at first level, but with bigger numbers (which are exactly matched by the opposing numbers on the other side of the table, which makes it a wash).

Since normally, 75% to 80% of the people at the table will be players rather than DMs, I can't see this level of boredom as a good thing, and wouldn't want to subject players to it. The game really feels like a hybrid of D&D and Advanced Heroquest, but somehow less interesting than both.

 

[The Little Raven]

Rant Disclaimer: The following is not intended to offend anyone, nor is it directed to anyone in particular.

Verisimilitude is the new THAC0: it keeps the riff-raff out. Or something.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

4e conveys the appearance of truth better than some role playing games, and worse than others, and about the same as many. To be more specific, I think it conveys the appearance of truth about as well as 3e.

I agree with the above, by and large (I think it's actually little behind, but not very far).

I think a lot of folks are confusing behind the scenes mechanics with the scene that is playing out. Mechanics are irrelevant to how well something conveys an appearance of truth. If the hands of a clock move because of a series of gears behind the faceplate, or because some invisible tiny gnomes are waving daffodils enough to generate a magic breeze to move the hands behind the faceplate, both convey the appearance of truth (moved hands on a clock) equally well.

I don't think this is as absolutely true as you'd like it to be. If the mechanics were invisible, it would be. But they're not. The players are aware of them, and they can affect the suspension of disbelief.

And if you are having trouble coming up with how a scene plays out in a manner that conveys enough of an appearance of truth for you, then you should consider the possibility that it is a failure of your own imagination. For example, if you cannot initially imagine how a scene would play out where a character swaps places with a gelatinous cube in combat, then you would probably get more mileage out of redoubling your efforts to imagine how such a scene might play out, rather than spending your efforts complaining about how the game doesn't give you that explanation.

Whilst I have some sympathy for what you're suggesting, and sometimes it's even true, I think this is argument that gets weaker every single time someone uses it, because the very fact that it's having to be endlessly repeated suggests that it's NOT the imaginations of the players that are at fault, but the judgement of the designers, or their way of putting things.

Ultimately, you cannot always blame the audience for failing to "imagine hard enough".

4E is strong in many regards, but I don't think many people would put versimiltude as one it's primary strengths, would you?

The game really feels like a hybrid of D&D and Advanced Heroquest, but somehow less interesting than both.

It sure does feel like a hybrid of the two, in fact I was thinking that very thing on the train earlier. I just don't find that as something that makes it less interesting. Time will tell of course. I thought 3E was jolly exciting at release and had stopped playing it entirely within two years (started again in late 3.5E, though), I guess the proof of 4E for me, will be in future supplements and where they take the line.