Simulationists, Black Boxes, and 4e

[pemerton]

I actually think Action Points will bother most simulationists more, particularly when you consider Paragon Path features and Paragon Tier feats that allow you to use APs to exercise direct narrative control.

As an example, consider First Reaction. It allows you to spend an Action Point not to be surprised even after you have failed a Perception check. It doesn't just lack a game world correlation, it directly contradicts the rules mechanism in place for determining what happens in the game world. The character was never surprised despite the fact that the player failed the Perception check.

Fair enough. I just mentioned the first thing that came to mind, which has spawned a good number of "simulationist vs others" threads over the past few months.

 

[pemerton]

HP don't cause me more problems than any other abstraction causes, and fewer than some. I think the most obvious problem for Simulationists are Minions. They're a pure strain Narrativist/Gamist construct that have null HP and never register damage (just hits and misses). Any possible model that works for PCs, NPCs, Monsters, inanimate objects (even a glass pane has HP and hardness) breaks down on contact with Minions.

When I mentioned hit points I had Minions foremost in mind, given I've been posting a lot on the Fist Fights thread.

Whatever hit points are in 4e, they're something of which a Minion has only 1. Hence my suggestion that hit points might be disruptive for simulationist play, because (as you note) it is difficult to conceive of some ingame quality which Minions have always and only to degree 1, while at the same time other ingame elements (even many Kobolds) have to (often much) greater degrees.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I actually think Action Points will bother most simulationists more, particularly when you consider Paragon Path features and Paragon Tier feats that allow you to use APs to exercise direct narrative control.

As an example, consider First Reaction. It allows you to spend an Action Point not to be surprised even after you have failed a Perception check. It doesn't just lack a game world correlation, it directly contradicts the rules mechanism in place for determining what happens in the game world. The character was never surprised despite the fact that the player failed the Perception check.

I think you're confusing "Simulationists" with people who refuse to play a game unless someone can explain it to them in a way that makes sense to them. They'll refuse to use Action Points or Warlords that heal because "That doesn't make any sense." or "That's dumb." I'm pretty sure there isn't an official Forge term for these types (or any polite term, at any rate).

As a Simulationist, AP don't bother me. I can justify them as adrenaline or "innate magic", but frankly it doesn't matter. I take the game world as it's given to me and I see where it leads in an emergent manner. AP are a known factor, every PC and many monsters have them, and the world does not "break" if you try to use them in a way that the designers didn't mean for you too (unlike Minions). They're cool.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Whatever hit points are in 4e, they're something of which a Minion has only 1.

Actually, they don't have any. The "1" is just a place holder for the fact that it doesn't matter how hard you hit them and fractional damage isn't possible. They could just as easily have put "X" or "N/A" or "donut." The rule would still be: Hit/Die, Miss/Survive.

In fact, that would have been A LOT more clear, because we would have avoided all those arguments about "But I do DEX damage on a Miss!". It wouldn't have been any better for Sims, but it would have been clear.

Hence my suggestion that hit points might be disruptive for simulationist play, because (as you note) it is difficult to conceive of some ingame quality which Minions have always and only to degree 1, while at the same time other ingame elements (even many Kobolds) have to (often much) greater degrees.

Fair enough, but it's not HP themselves that are the problem - it's the fact that rocks, goblins and PCs have them and Minions don't. It would be just as bad as if something lacked an AC or was subject to the first two Laws of Motion but not the 3rd.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Fair enough, but it's not HP themselves that are the problem - it's the fact that rocks, goblins and PCs have them and Minions don't. It would be just as bad as if something lacked an AC or was subject to the first two Laws of Motion but not the 3rd.

Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't there minions with more than one hitpoint? Don't Devil Legionnaires have 12?

 

[Steely Dan]

Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't there minions with more than one hitpoint? Don't Devil Legionnaires have 12?

At first they toyed with the idea of higher level minions with more than 1 hp, but in the end they settled on all minions having just 1 hp.

 

[jackston2]

4th edition is like the movie 300.

All actions are described in a vague manner until a monster unleashes a special attack, after which the camera slows down and describes the action in detail (the Bullete burrows through the ground knocking people on the surface prone, and then burst out of the earth in a shower of stinging gravel). Everything else, basic attacks, hp, grappling... is blurred through.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think you're confusing "Simulationists" with people who refuse to play a game unless someone can explain it to them in a way that makes sense to them. They'll refuse to use Action Points or Warlords that heal because "That doesn't make any sense." or "That's dumb." I'm pretty sure there isn't an official Forge term for these types (or any polite term, at any rate).

As a Simulationist, AP don't bother me. I can justify them as adrenaline or "innate magic", but frankly it doesn't matter. I take the game world as it's given to me and I see where it leads in an emergent manner. AP are a known factor, every PC and many monsters have them, and the world does not "break" if you try to use them in a way that the designers didn't mean for you too (unlike Minions). They're cool.

I can deal with certain gamist concepts. Hit points have always been abstract in every edition, described as luck, magical protections, ect. Action points are fine too. A good mechanic to handle those moments of heroic effort. A great deal of things in fantasy "don't make sense" when viewed under the microscope of logic but within the construct of the game world there should be some consistency. If an action produces a specific reaction then it really shouldn't be changed depending on if it happens to a PC vs an NPC for example.

One thing about this edition that has been talked about a lot is how the rules were constructed to eliminate the "unfun" aspects of earlier editions. The question becomes, unfun for whom? It appears that being affected by any spell that doesn't just cause damage is unfun so saving throws become a coin toss. Being a wizard then becomes unfun because nobody is effected by even the most powerful spells for more than a round or so. This leads to all sorts of tail chasing with every game mechanic. Rules implementations like this are sort of a reactionary design theory that has no end. It seems like we have a classic case of "Mexicali Soup" here. All that said, I am still looking forward to trying out the rules and seeing firsthand how they handle.

 

[Steely Dan]

4th edition is like the movie 300.

…Homoerotic?

 

[WalterKovacs]

One thing about this edition that has been talked about a lot is how the rules were constructed to eliminate the "unfun" aspects of earlier editions. The question becomes, unfun for whom? It appears that being affected by any spell that doesn't just cause damage is unfun so saving throws become a coin toss. Being a wizard then becomes unfun because nobody is effected by even the most powerful spells for more than a round or so. This leads to all sorts of tail chasing with every game mechanic. Rules implementations like this are sort of a reactionary design theory that has no end. It seems like we have a classic case of "Mexicali Soup" here. All that said, I am still looking forward to trying out the rules and seeing firsthand how they handle.

To be fair ... many wizards liked the damaging/area effect spells.

And there are some duration spells that aren't nerfed by saving throws, and non-damage effects you can use spells for. Mostly it involves forced movement, wall spells, fog clouds, etc.

In general, the spells that were nerfed were the effects that would effectively eliminate a character from a fight for multiple rounds. Instead of "roll a d4 to see how many rounds you are unable to attack because you are nauseated by the spell" you roll a saving throw at the end of every round to snap out of it. Similar effects that would hold you, freeze you in place, etc ... especially things that prevent you from taking actions [including dying] allow saving throws so at least you are doing something on your turn.

I wouldn't say this makes wizards "unfun" per se. In general, these were mostly effects that monsters and NPCs would use against PCs. Certain effects [hold monster] were a useful tool for PCs to keep monsters at bay ... but there are other ways for a wizard to do that that don't leave him at the whim of the saving throw ... and in some cases, even the one turn before the save can be enough to help the party out.