How Does "The Rules Aren't Physics" Fix Anything?

[hong]

I think you just invented Hong's 4th Law of Gamerdom.

Actually, that would just be a corollary to Hong's 2nd law.

Hong's 4th law of fantasy: if you can't fix it with a sword, fix it with a fireball. If you can't fix it with a fireball, it isn't worth fixing.

 

[robertliguori]

Do you mean "game" here, or "gameworld"?

By all accounts the 4e rules have no obvious holes, given the typical sort of RPG one might try to play using D&D as one's system. So no brain turn-off required in that respect.

Provided that the GM and players are half-sensible, they can ensure that the narration of the gameworld which they engage in makes sense and doesn't have any gaping holes. So no brain turn-off is required simply because the rules move from a simulationist approach towards a "distribution of narrative control" approach.

If you choose to interpret the relationship between non-simulationist mechanics, and the gameworld, in a way that does not make sense for such mechanics, that is your choice. Interpret otherwise and the problem will disappear.

Well, by the preview materials, they do have large and obvious holes, the biggest so far revealed being the lack of transparency between PCs and NPCs. The characters don't know that goblin picadors and bugbear stranglers are meant to be single-encounter monsters; if they encounter mundane, unpowered weaponwork that can do new and interesting things, they should ask how it was that the humanoids came to learn those tricks, and how they can, as well. A sensible GM can reverse-engineer exotic weapon proficiency and weapon maneuver feats, explain to the PCs that if they invest these resources that they can do these tricks, or they can try untrained at this penalty, yes, but from what we've seen, the rules don't do this for you. It is possible to come up with an accurate simulationist way to interpret this lack; the problem is that it ends up enshrining a difference in kind between PCs and NPCs severe enough to justify the Belkars of the game world.

 

[DandD]

A sensible GM can reverse-engineer exotic weapon proficiency and weapon maneuver feats, explain to the PCs that if they invest these resources that they can do these tricks, or they can try untrained at this penalty, yes, but from what we've seen, the rules don't do this for you.

According by Mike Mearls himself, the rules will exactly be able to do this.

 

[hong]

Well, by the preview materials, they do have large and obvious holes, the biggest so far revealed being the lack of transparency between PCs and NPCs. The characters don't know that goblin picadors and bugbear stranglers are meant to be single-encounter monsters;

But the players do.

 

[AllisterH]

Personally, I'm a GM and anything that makes my life easier means my players will actually get to PLAY more often which I think should be the ultimate goal of any game.

Thus, for me, dividing PCs from NPCs gets a "Hell yeah".

For example, Solo Monsters. The idea of the BBEG has been with us since time immemorial but it never works well in D&D because even in 1E, THACO was tied to HD. But here's the thing, a fun BBEG has to be able to survive the attacks from multiple PCs (high HP) but at the same time, I don't want to auto-hit/TPK the party (high BAB/spellcasting level)

4E is saying to me as a GM. "Yes, we recognize what you need to make for a fun game, here's the solution" whereas the previous versions were "Well, here's what makes for a consistent world".

It's the same thing with special abilities. I like using special abilities on monsters that can stand out but I don't necessarily want to have PCs utilizing them ALL the time. Another example,

Supposedly, the 4E version of Improved Trip is akin to the Setting Sun school Trip manoeuvers in that they are limited to once an encounter. For many people, this breaks "realism" in that why can't I use it again? But I've run 3E with a chain tripping fighter and it becomes so damn tiresome that I purposely send creatures that can't be tripped as the effect of him with his Spiked Chain/Improved Trip combo was detrimental to the game itself. In 4E, if Improved Trip is an encounter power, I'm not going to go out of my way desiging encoutners just to screw the player over

 

[robertliguori]

According by Mike Mearls himself, the rules will exactly be able to do this.

I cheerfully await the possibility of an exotic weapon talent tree, which gathers all of the nifty things we've seen monsters do with nonstandard weapons in one place, and gives rules for how to access the talents and what this access represents in-game (I.e.: whether the talents represent simple training and practice, or are themselves fueled by the martial power source).

I'm just worried about things like trip being an encounter power. This does not jive with the above design pattern. We see monsters performing powerful, useful maneuvers with harpoons, garottes, and the like, and nothing about these maneuvers being encounter powers. It may well be that trip is just different than what we've seen, there is a pile of exotic martial powers, and trip appears as an encounter and harpooning and garotting are both at-will. This is the only real way to reconcile what we've seen statted with the ability of monsters to perform certain tricks.

For example, Solo Monsters. The idea of the BBEG has been with us since time immemorial but it never works well in D&D because even in 1E, THACO was tied to HD. But here's the thing, a fun BBEG has to be able to survive the attacks from multiple PCs (high HP) but at the same time, I don't want to auto-hit/TPK the party (high BAB/spellcasting level)

4E is saying to me as a GM. "Yes, we recognize what you need to make for a fun game, here's the solution" whereas the previous versions were "Well, here's what makes for a consistent world".

I would disagree. To me, the fun comes from putting together a world out of discrete, understood elements, combining the elements in interesting ways, and watching the players respond in kind. I like a ruleset well-designed enough to be turned up to eleven, that can handle extreme creativity and being pushed to the limits of its well-defined boundaries and still produce comprehensible results. Most of all, I like a ruleset which doesn't produce suboptimal results when the results of it are observed and analysis applied. For example, the design we've seen so far in 4.0 suggests that setting up a dungeon with individual, discrete encounters is a horrible strategy to defend against adventurers, and that a much better strategy would be to provide a warning system, so that when adventurers were discovered, every minion in the dungeon could rush in, denying the all-important five-minute recovery period.

Really, my problem is that fun is often the opposite of smart. The ideal tactic, which should be chosen by PCs and NPCs alike, is often one that results in trivial encounters, or no encounters at all. I like rule systems that get around this by having both sides be a bit desperate, so that the fun game elements can be more easily lampshaded. I might design a dungeon to provide appropriate, interesting encounters, but I need an in-game reason why the makers of the dungeon didn't put brutally effective ones instead. Generally, resource economy and solving a different problem are my watchwords. Dungeons are primarily built to delay armies; when you're three weeks away from performing the Ritual of the Falling Sky, you retreat to a dungeon, load up on minions, and hope your defenses against the Alliance of Light hold. Meanwhile, the Alliance, knowing that a direct assault not only has a large chance of failure to succeed before the ritual will be complete but will devastate their armies and leave them vulnerable, instead send five to go where five thousand may not.

The corollary of this, of course, is that later on, when the party faces a dangerously genre-savvy dungeoneer who builds a fortress utterly unassailable to an adventuring party, returns to the Alliance and says "We'd like to borrow a company or two. We'll give them back when they're done."

Pure intellectual tactical puzzles are interesting, as is the visceral thrill of slaying evil and claiming its loot. But, to my mind, games are superior when they combine complex tactical challenges, action and adventure, and a world consistent within its explicitly-stated premises with potential for unexpected and interesting emergent behavior. I'm most definitely in favor of the changes we've seen in 4E that increase the first two; I simply disagree that you need to sacrifice the third in order to acheive them.

 

[pemerton]

Well, by the preview materials, they do have large and obvious holes, the biggest so far revealed being the lack of transparency between PCs and NPCs.

This is not a hole: there is no gap in the action resolution rules for PCs, for NPCs, or in the interaction between the two (at least as far as we know).

The build rules for the two are different - but the build rules are not part of the gameworld, and so generate no inconsistencies in the gameworld.

The characters don't know that goblin picadors and bugbear stranglers are meant to be single-encounter monsters; if they encounter mundane, unpowered weaponwork that can do new and interesting things, they should ask how it was that the humanoids came to learn those tricks, and how they can, as well.

And nothing stops the PCs doing this. Presumably they can, in-game, get answers to their questions.

A sensible GM can reverse-engineer exotic weapon proficiency and weapon maneuver feats, explain to the PCs that if they invest these resources that they can do these tricks, or they can try untrained at this penalty, yes, but from what we've seen, the rules don't do this for you.

You now seem to be talking not about the PCs, but about the players. The players know that, unless they or the GM has purchased the appropriate sourcebook (or done some houseruling), they cannot play PCs with abilities X, Y or Z. But this has always been the case in RPGs, that the character build rules are incomplete (in the sense that they do not cover everything that can be conceived of as existing in the gameworld - whether this be for reasons of balance, or complexity, or flavour, or whatver) to a greater or lesser extent.

In short: Hong is correct when he replies

But the players do.

It is possible to come up with an accurate simulationist way to interpret this lack; the problem is that it ends up enshrining a difference in kind between PCs and NPCs severe enough to justify the Belkars of the game world.

My point was that choosing to play in a simulationist mindset is just that: a choice. If you drop the assumption that player = PC, and are prepared to recognise that there are other ways of understanding the relationship between game (and rules) on the one hand, and gameworld on the others, then there will not be problems. Which was the point of my original question about whether Derren was critiquing the game, or the gameworld.

 

[Stogoe]

Corollary: If you read something that begins with "I'm not trying to insult you" and contains no ", but...", you should maintain the benefit of the doubt that the author isn't trying to insult you.

Bull. I've seen enough post history from these "I'm not trying to insult you..." vagabonds to know that they're not arguing in good faith, and probably never were.

 

[D'karr]

I'm not trying to insult you, but your style of play sucks...

 

[AllisterH]

I'm just worried about things like trip being an encounter power. This does not jive with the above design pattern. We see monsters performing powerful, useful maneuvers with harpoons, garottes, and the like, and nothing about these maneuvers being encounter powers. It may well be that trip is just different than what we've seen, there is a pile of exotic martial powers, and trip appears as an encounter and harpooning and garotting are both at-will. This is the only real way to reconcile what we've seen statted with the ability of monsters to perform certain tricks..

Even here, I have to applaud this. The design recognizes that a monster is only going to be on-screen when I intentionally as a DM use it. If I use said monster, monster uses ability maybe once or twice and that's it. Whereas in 3.x, with Improved Trip, the fact that it could be spammed on the player side and thus making it annoying to such an extent that DMs purposely go out of their way to nerf it, is poor design.

I would disagree. To me, the fun comes from putting together a world out of discrete, understood elements, combining the elements in interesting ways, and watching the players respond in kind. I like a ruleset well-designed enough to be turned up to eleven, that can handle extreme creativity and being pushed to the limits of its well-defined boundaries and still produce comprehensible results. Most of all, I like a ruleset which doesn't produce suboptimal results when the results of it are observed and analysis applied.
.

To me though, that basically doesn't make a good GAME as the rules treat the world the same as the player and this ISN'T how the game is played. Getting back to SOLO monsters, the game itself needs to recognize that a BBEG that is intended to be a solo threat can NOT be designed using the same criteria that regular monsters/pcs use since it is operating under different assumptions.

For example, the design we've seen so far in 4.0 suggests that setting up a dungeon with individual, discrete encounters is a horrible strategy to defend against adventurers, and that a much better strategy would be to provide a warning system, so that when adventurers were discovered, every minion in the dungeon could rush in, denying the all-important five-minute recovery period.

.

Actually, in 4E, either one works. Healing Surges are limited on the character being healed so even if the encounter is under the xp budget (equivalent to a party facing an under their level CR creature), you can still drain a couple of healing surges from said party.

Repeat ad nauseum and even a 5th level party will have to retreat from 1st level kobolds much earlier than in any other edition.

In fact, sending low-level threats against the party works much better in 4E than any other edition since characters do have an innate limit to how much healing surges they can have.