pauljathome
First Post
In previous editions I've always taken something of a middle ground.
Clearly SOME of the game mechanics ARE visible to the character. A wizard knows when he acquires new spells, characters in the world realize that a gobln just can NOT hurt them when they're fresh and unwounded, everybody knows that in a fight they fight at full effect until they drop unconscious, etc. The world the characters lived in was NOT the world of reality or even of movies. If you wanted that world, pick a different set of rules. The rules were sufficiently simulationist that the gap between character and player view was reasonably small
So, for example, characters have some concept of hit points and level. Oh, not exact numbers but some reasonable impression of what they entail in world. They KNOW that, after awhile, a single goblin just isn't a threat.
One of the costs of 4th editions gamist over simulationist approach is that the gap between character and player knowledge becomes significantly larger. That gap has become sufficiently large for me that I no longer have the remotest clue what my character is experiencing in combat. Once combat starts I almost completely treat D&D as a miniatures war game and just ignore characterization except for choosing meta tactics (save the child, kill the guy I really hate, etc).
I'm afraid that I just have to dismiss all the rationalizations I've heard about "the opportunity for that particular attack comes up only once a day". In world, the characters are going to notice that this opportunity comes up at most once a day and almost always does come up exactly once a day when adventuring.
This is especially true for all the powers that just totally break normal reality. How does a rogue occassionally manage to shoot 8 crossbow bolts at once when normally he has to take time to load? Why can my wizard who is held in a web spell move when the Warlord yells at him? Etc etc etc.
The above really isn't intended to start an edition war. There are costs and benefits to 4th edition.
Clearly SOME of the game mechanics ARE visible to the character. A wizard knows when he acquires new spells, characters in the world realize that a gobln just can NOT hurt them when they're fresh and unwounded, everybody knows that in a fight they fight at full effect until they drop unconscious, etc. The world the characters lived in was NOT the world of reality or even of movies. If you wanted that world, pick a different set of rules. The rules were sufficiently simulationist that the gap between character and player view was reasonably small
So, for example, characters have some concept of hit points and level. Oh, not exact numbers but some reasonable impression of what they entail in world. They KNOW that, after awhile, a single goblin just isn't a threat.
One of the costs of 4th editions gamist over simulationist approach is that the gap between character and player knowledge becomes significantly larger. That gap has become sufficiently large for me that I no longer have the remotest clue what my character is experiencing in combat. Once combat starts I almost completely treat D&D as a miniatures war game and just ignore characterization except for choosing meta tactics (save the child, kill the guy I really hate, etc).
I'm afraid that I just have to dismiss all the rationalizations I've heard about "the opportunity for that particular attack comes up only once a day". In world, the characters are going to notice that this opportunity comes up at most once a day and almost always does come up exactly once a day when adventuring.
This is especially true for all the powers that just totally break normal reality. How does a rogue occassionally manage to shoot 8 crossbow bolts at once when normally he has to take time to load? Why can my wizard who is held in a web spell move when the Warlord yells at him? Etc etc etc.
The above really isn't intended to start an edition war. There are costs and benefits to 4th edition.