Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[I'm A Banana]

This basically illustrates why I have such a problem with process based Simulation. It makes any action that is not expressly permitted so difficult that it's just not worth it and players IME don't even try.

Your first sentence doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on your second.

There's nothing inherent to "process-based simulation" that necessarily means that actions that are not allowed are made impossible.

The 3e bull rush rules can be kind of trash (and, like many non-attack options in 3e, they kind of are, IMO) without that impugning an entire method of action resolution.

 

[Hussar]

KM, the problem is though, the more random chances you add into the process (the more "realism points" I guess you could call it) the greater the chance of failure. Process based Simulation needs to make those kinds of calls doesn't it? You can't abstract it all to a single die roll because now you're no longer doing process based Sim.

I have nothing against simulation inherently, but, I find that process based Sim falls down when in actual play because the odds start stacking up against you so quickly. Because the goal is believability, the cost/benefit isn't grounded in "What will make people want to do this and use this in the game" but in "How will this better simulate the action in the fictional space?"

And, when you start injecting realism like that, of course game play takes a back seat. It has to. Anything that is covered by the process becomes the default because it's the most reasonable/believable series of actions. Anything that falls outside that default by definition has to have less chance of success. Unfortunately, that includes things that might be interesting, but really aren't as effective as the default actions.

So, you wind up with things like Bull Rush where, from a process Sim viewpoint, makes perfect sense. As Tovec points out, what should be the chance of success? How good should it be? My answer to that is not going to make process Sim players happy.

My response is, it should work as often as would make it more interesting to use in the game and it should be as effective as the narrative warrants. The bad guy gets tossed off the roof more often than he doesn't because that would result in more interesting play (for me). If the bad guy doesn't get tossed off the roof very often, and the costs for trying are too onerous, then a rational player simply won't bother trying it at all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Process based Simulation needs to make those kinds of calls doesn't it? You can't abstract it all to a single die roll because now you're no longer doing process based Sim.

I'm not sure that it necessarily has to force a "roll for every part of the action." It seems to me that as long as the rules encompass the outcomes, making the rules simpler and more direct are not negative things.

I mean, in the Actual World, hundreds of thousands of micro-decisions are made and executed all just to twiddle your thumbs. Pretty sure no one is demanding mechanics for all of that, just for "enough" of that.

Because the goal is believability, the cost/benefit isn't grounded in "What will make people want to do this and use this in the game" but in "How will this better simulate the action in the fictional space?"

I think most people will freely acknowledge that you must account for playability. The goal is ultimately to play a game, after all, even if that game is grounded in a simulation of action.

So, you wind up with things like Bull Rush where, from a process Sim viewpoint, makes perfect sense. As Tovec points out, what should be the chance of success? How good should it be? My answer to that is not going to make process Sim players happy

I think the important question isn't "how SHOULD it work?" but "how do we WANT it to work?" It's a subtle distinction. Tovec's example of two people pushin' each other around isn't taking into account, for instance, the idea of a D&D milieu where I am not me, I am a big strong warrior with big strong muscles and a big strong axe, and I should be able to shove some orcs around, probably.

Because that's what we're "simulating." Not reality, but a heroic world. And it's only ever a "simulation." It's never exactly accurate to the real thing.

The 3e rules for "bull rush" aren't any great paragon of simulation. They "make sense," but that doesn't mean different rules won't also make sense (though it kind of does mean that the 4e rules where no one can push anyone unless they have a magical power that lets them doesn't make much sense).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the important question isn't "how SHOULD it work?" but "how do we WANT it to work?" It's a subtle distinction. Tovec's example of two people pushin' each other around isn't taking into account, for instance, the idea of a D&D milieu where I am not me, I am a big strong warrior with big strong muscles and a big strong axe, and I should be able to shove some orcs around, probably.

Because that's what we're "simulating." Not reality, but a heroic world. And it's only ever a "simulation." It's never exactly accurate to the real thing.

A big part of the point I've been trying to make is that a lot of simulation advocates do ask "how should it work" instead of "how do we want it to work". Or rather, they assume that there is no distinction in those questions whatsoever, because what they want is for everything to act as they think it should.

These are the people (some on these forums) that advocate as Hussar has indicated, and pile on details and rolls until the thing doesn't really work at all. But you are entirely correct that you can abstract a process sufficiently that it will work just fine. But in order to do that, you have to know to ask the question in the way you said.

BTW, Bull rush in our 3E campaign got used several times--until the players realized that it was seldom a good option, where upon the began to ignore it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, it strikes me that even modern computer games that turn up the simulation to 11 (Minecraft, or Dwarf Fortress, forex), the question still is, "How do we want it to work?"

In Dwarf Fortress, forex, your dwarves go insane, or get depressed if their friends die. They have emotions. But it's important for gameplay that those emotions get expressed in a particular way (suicide, maniacal rampage, etc.) that affects the entire fortress.

So it's an extensive simulation of an emotion, but the effect is realized in gameplay -- it's about the chaos that a crazy dwarf might cause.

 

[Tovec]

BTW, Bull rush in our 3E campaign got used several times--until the players realized that it was seldom a good option, where upon the began to ignore it.

In 3e, it was a sup-par option because:
1. it didn't damage the enemy as much as a full attack
2. movement is a cost, not a simulation
Ie. The fighter can't effectively stop enemies from approaching the party wizard, not really.

In OUR games we used bull rush plenty, but we used it as a means to an end. Yes the fighter did (and should) have a better chance of it than the wizard but that didn't stop the wizard from trying every once in a while.
It was used when we needed to knock the enemy out the window, or to move them back. It is a mechanic which doesn't work when the point of the game is to merely "hit the enemy with my weapon until dead". That isn't what it was designed for.

In 4e, it isn't an option because:
A. every character can't just do it, they need a power
B. it isn't special because if you have it as a power then it is used just to move someone around the board, err, room.
Ie. First Player: I knock the guy back 3 squares and he is prone.
Second Player: Cool, I use my encounter power to advance 3 squares and wail on him.

4e doesn't solve the root problem Hussar or Crazy Jerome seem to be having. All it does is give people who are trained in it a higher chance of succeeding.
I find this part particularly laughable as that is how it worked in 3e too - with the aid of feats, buffs and picking your moment - all of which they claim are an unfair deal.

Oh [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - yes, it is a crappy result if you are untrained and fail the check. But in 4e, if you are untrained you can't do it at all.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

In 4e, it isn't an option because:
A. every character can't just do it, they need a power
B. it isn't special because if you have it as a power then it is used just to move someone around the board, err, room.
Ie. First Player: I knock the guy back 3 squares and he is prone.
Second Player: Cool, I use my encounter power to advance 3 squares and wail on him.

...Except that in 4e it is still something that everyone can do. It is one of the "Default Attack Powers" that "Any creature can use". (RC p.215)

Your second point makes no sense. That's all pushing a creature has ever done. And you can still push someone out a window, over a ledge, etc. It doesn't even require a DM call (Forced Movement, RC p.211-212).

It's fine to argue that you don't like 4e. It's a matter of preference, and I respect that. That said, if you're going to argue about the rules, it helps to have read them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

4e doesn't solve the root problem Hussar or Crazy Jerome seem to be having. All it does is give people who are trained in it a higher chance of succeeding.
I find this part particularly laughable as that is how it worked in 3e too - with the aid of feats, buffs and picking your moment - all of which they claim are an unfair deal.

Well, this specifically is not a huge problem for me either way. Long before 3E was launched, I was consciously using vertical space and other location elements to create more "action movie" scenes in my gaming. But this was hardly limited to pushing people off of ledges or out of windows. We were more interested in things such as rolling the barrels of lamp oil down the ramp, off the ledge, and tossing torches after them. (Or with Arcana Evolved, conjured fire monkeys. Man, I loved that little guy!) So "bull rush"--however conceived, is not that critical in and of itself.

But on the math and who can do what, I'd say that you are not taking page 42 into account. Nor is this limited to my preferences for how action resolution is conceived or approached. In Fantasy Hero, it is a mix of simulation techniques, with a few other things thrown in, but pushing someone off a ledge is a combo or reasonable abilities that everyone has, which can be enhanced by a specialist. It got used well by the specialists and some by everyone else. In 4E, the same results held, though the means are signficantly different--"stunts" are required for just anyone to do it in spectacular fashion. In 3E, in contrast, the problem is that the non-specialist who is remotely aware of the results has no interest in doing this whatsoever, while the specialist is too interested in doing it all the time (aka the tripping expert).

If you approach D&D from the mindset of, "the fighter can stop people getting past me to smack the wizard because it says in the description of my class that I can do that"--such that you can ignore the plain fact of the mechanics not in any way really supporting that--then "bull rush" will work for you more or less in any system, as long as you name it right and give the people that ability that you think should have it. OTOH, if you want "action hero" results, and are willing to sacrifice a bit of the tyranny between direct cause and effect, then the first approach will not satisfy you. In that case, the game doesn't do what it says it does on the tin.

 

[Tovec]

...Except that in 4e it is still something that everyone can do. It is one of the "Default Attack Powers" that "Any creature can use". (RC p.215)

Your second point makes no sense. That's all pushing a creature has ever done. And you can still push someone out a window, over a ledge, etc. It doesn't even require a DM call (Forced Movement, RC p.211-212).

It's fine to argue that you don't like 4e. It's a matter of preference, and I respect that. That said, if you're going to argue about the rules, it helps to have read them.

I'm unfamiliar with RC, it has something to do with not buying MORE books for a system I dislike. I refer to buying MORE, because I DO have the PHB, MM and DMG. I never realized what I SHOULD have spent my money on was the Rules Compendium. (Well, what I should have spent my money on was Pathfinder but whatever.)

My point A was that by default, in the PHB for example - not the RC, you can't bull rush someone anymore. Anything you don't have a rule for, or has to be made up, is suddenly impossible. Not hard, not difficult, but impossible. Unless of course you make something up - which happens to be a main gripe I have with 4e.

My point B was that EVERYONE gets a "pushback" power of some sort or stripe, like everyone gets a teleport-like ability and everyone can hit for about equal damage, unno cus the edition is "balanced". If EVERYONE can do it, and they can do it at least once a day, with little or no difficulty, then it becomes less special. My Point B also comes up a little later when I reply to Jerome (see below).

Well, this specifically is not a huge problem for me either way. Long before 3E was launched, I was consciously using vertical space and other location elements to create more "action movie" scenes in my gaming. But this was hardly limited to pushing people off of ledges or out of windows. We were more interested in things such as rolling the barrels of lamp oil down the ramp, off the ledge, and tossing torches after them. (Or with Arcana Evolved, conjured fire monkeys. Man, I loved that little guy!) So "bull rush"--however conceived, is not that critical in and of itself.

I'm glad you do, I don't see what either edition has to do with this? 3e did it differently than 4e, that is all. Either way, someone who has abilities can do it better than someone without. In 4e however if you DON'T have the ability you can't do it at all, whereas in 3e it was just more difficult.

But on the math and who can do what, I'd say that you are not taking page 42 into account. Nor is this limited to my preferences for how action resolution is conceived or approached. In Fantasy Hero, it is a mix of simulation techniques, with a few other things thrown in, but pushing someone off a ledge is a combo or reasonable abilities that everyone has, which can be enhanced by a specialist. It got used well by the specialists and some by everyone else. In 4E, the same results held, though the means are signficantly different--"stunts" are required for just anyone to do it in spectacular fashion. In 3E, in contrast, the problem is that the non-specialist who is remotely aware of the results has no interest in doing this whatsoever, while the specialist is too interested in doing it all the time (aka the tripping expert).

I don't take page 42 into account anymore than I take Rule 0 into account with 3e. I DO very much and heavily agree that in BOTH editions if you have the ability to do it (or do it well) then you want to do it as much as possible. That is a failing for BOTH editions, not just 3e. (Nemesis, read this part)

If you approach D&D from the mindset of, "the fighter can stop people getting past me to smack the wizard because it says in the description of my class that I can do that"--such that you can ignore the plain fact of the mechanics not in any way really supporting that--then "bull rush" will work for you more or less in any system, as long as you name it right and give the people that ability that you think should have it. OTOH, if you want "action hero" results, and are willing to sacrifice a bit of the tyranny between direct cause and effect, then the first approach will not satisfy you. In that case, the game doesn't do what it says it does on the tin.

If I approach the game with the mindset that the rules are made of jell-o I can do a number of extraordinary things with jell-o too. I don't see your point here.
Why is it tyranny to want a system that describes events in a way resembling reality, instead of one resembling a cartoon? (Note I didn't say realistic or realism.) Yes, in real life, it is tricky knocking someone over, or out a window, and I think there should be a certain amount of difficult to do it in the game too. (Here too Nemesis.)

In 4e however your choices are:
1. Have the power, do it, success. Don't have the power, can't do it.
2. Make something up.

In 3e it was:
1. Have the feats, do it (well), success. Don't have the feats, maybe still do it.
2. Don't have to make something up. Still CAN if something isn't working for you, but don't HAVE TO.

The downside with both is that if you have the power/feats you are going to want to do it it whenever the opportunity arises, I'll certainly agree with Crazy Jerome on that.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'm unfamiliar with RC, it has something to do with not buying MORE books for a system I dislike. I refer to buying MORE, because I DO have the PHB, MM and DMG. I never realized what I SHOULD have spent my money on was the Rules Compendium. (Well, what I should have spent my money on was Pathfinder but whatever.)

My point A was that by default, in the PHB for example - not the RC, you can't bull rush someone anymore. Anything you don't have a rule for, or has to be made up, is suddenly impossible. Not hard, not difficult, but impossible. Unless of course you make something up - which happens to be a main gripe I have with 4e.

PH1 p.287 - Bull Rush is listed.

And further, anything you don't have a rule for, that is what page 42 is for. So, possible, depending on the DC. No different than before.

My point B was that EVERYONE gets a "pushback" power of some sort or stripe, like everyone gets a teleport-like ability and everyone can hit for about equal damage, unno cus the edition is "balanced". If EVERYONE can do it, and they can do it at least once a day, with little or no difficulty, then it becomes less special. My Point B also comes up a little later when I reply to Jerome (see below).

Your point B is not accurate either. There are plenty of things that characters of different stripes can do better than others, or exclusively.

It's fine to argue that you don't like 4e. It's a matter of preference, and I respect that. That said, if you're going to argue about the rules, it helps to have read them.