D&D 4E The (lack of a) Bag of Rats Problem in 4e

[The Little Raven]

Therefore, trying to generate a creature that triggers the meaningful threat rule while being less of a threat than it not being there (say, triggering a vampiric healing strike) is a valid, justified in-game action, and involves no metagaming at all; ergo, short of the GM providing helpful red circles around the feet of designated mobs, there's no reason to assume from the world as presented that you can't store meaningful threats in your pack.

There's no reason to assume that something you put into a bag over your shoulder is not a meaningful threat? Right.

Attempting to use paper-thin "in-game" logic to exploit game rules is not metagaming? Right.

Why is it that every argument you ever compose on this subject features players and DMs that are complete morons?

 

[robertliguori]

There's no reason to assume that something you put into a bag over your shoulder is not a meaningful threat? Right.

No; We have creatures that can be easily subdued, bound, and put into sacks who are valid targets for powers. We could posit that such creatures are not meaningful threats while bound, but if we're attacked by sixteen rats and we react by pulling a seventeenth rat out of our pack, untying it, and dropping it into the melee, there's no reason to assume that our prior defeat of the rat renders it any less of a valid target now.

Attempting to use paper-thin "in-game" logic to exploit game rules is not metagaming? Right.

Protip: Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. In logic, the thing's the thing, to bastardize the Bard. Valid logic is valid logic; calling it names does not render it invalid. Apples aren't oranges, even if a given apple is yucky and you think all oranges are yucky. The word 'metagame' does not mean 'a player action I disagree with'; metagaming means many things, including playing the game with reference to information not available to your character. Like, for instance, the fact that exploitable-but-unfun tactics aren't fun for the gaming group.

Why is it that every argument you ever compose on this subject features players and DMs that are complete morons?

Au contraire. I expect both players and DMs to be clever; GMs, to build consistent, fun-enabling rules sets and to stick to them (Or to announce, "Hey, time out from the game for a second; Rules X and Y are producing unfun results, so X is going away and Y is modified as so, which means that events A, B, and C are being ret-conned. We clear on how the universe works? Good. Now, back to the dungeon..."), and for players to find creative and mutually-interesting things to do within the rules sets. Rules that do not promote creative exploration on the part of the players (and don't promote fun activities) are bad rules; rules so ambiguously worded as to make exploration impossible need to promote a heck of a lot of fun to therefore avoid classification as bad rules.

I believe that rules do have a spirit; namely, the specific fun that the designer (or GM, in the case of houserules) wished to promote (or unfun to avoid) when the rule was written. But a rule can have a great spirit and poor execution; if a rule fails to fulfill its spirit, it is a bad rule. I think that the Credible Threat rule is a bad rule because the kind of thinking that leads to the problem the rule is trying to avert is itself undeterred by the rule. If a player disagrees with you about how the trigger-on-hit abilities should work, it's very likely that they will disagree on what constitutes a credible threat.

 

[The Little Raven]

No; We have creatures that can be easily subdued, bound, and put into sacks who are valid targets for powers.

Except the explicit statement in the DMG which says "No."

And the common sense of a DM to have already come to that conclusion.

The word 'metagame' does not mean 'a player action I disagree with'; metagaming means many things, including playing the game with reference to information not available to your character.

Metagaming is using out-of-game information to inform one's in-game decisions. The bag of rats crap is exactly that.

We clear on how the universe works?

There's your problem. The rules are not about how the universe works. The rules are about how the game works.

If a player disagrees with you about how the trigger-on-hit abilities should work, it's very likely that they will disagree on what constitutes a credible threat.

If a player disagrees with me that a rat he tied up and put into a bag is a credible threat for using a power that has a secondary effect, then I don't value his opinion, because it's patently ridiculous. Just like I would say the same to someone who wants to find a cockroach or a spider to step on in order to do the same thing.

 

[robertliguori]

Except the explicit statement in the DMG which says "No."

And the common sense of a DM to have already come to that conclusion.

The explicit text of the DMG prohibits sacks of rats; there is nothing in there about individually-wrapped rats. The DMG defines illegal targets for powers as non-credible threats; rats are presented as credible threats in Keep on the Shadowfell, therefore there is no explicit statement in the DMG prohibiting keeping a rat tied up, and untying it and fighting it if you need to trigger a trivial encounter.

You know what would be a good rule? "Encounters with an XP value / projected level of less than Party Level - X (adjusted for the following conditions) are insufficent to qualify as encounters. A party that ambushes twenty individually-patrolling minions posted as sentries has not reached ten milestones. Moreover, as the disparity of force means that the conclusion is never in doubt, the party gains no XP for the individual slayings."

Metagaming is using out-of-game information to inform one's in-game decisions. The bag of rats crap is exactly that.

You know, there was an incisive and devilishly sexy poster who commented on this position previously in the thread. I'll quote him:

...metagaming means many things, including playing the game with reference to information not available to your character. Like, for instance, the fact that exploitable-but-unfun tactics aren't fun for the gaming group.

Unless characters are aware of the fact that they are characters in a game world, "Hey, when I kill rats I cursed in combat, I get a boon from my fiendish patron. It works when I'm attacked by a bunch of rats and only one is left; let's see what happens if I start out only fighting one rat." is the opposite of metagaming. It is, in fact, looking at the information presented both in the books to the players and in the world to the characters and reaching a logical conclusion.

There's your problem. The rules are not about how the universe works. The rules are about how the game works.

Oh, right. Concordance. Good luck with that, by the way. I mean, since you keep posting that you agree with me, I assume that that Hand must be bugging you big-time. What else would possess you to repeatedly assert two statements identical but for a negation sequentially as though it was scoring some kind of rhetorical point? Is our level of shared vocabulary really so lacking that you are unable to understand the words I'm using to explain my definition of other words, which is that "rules of the game" and "mechanics of the universe" are logically identical, and my repeated requests for you to put forth the definitions you seem to be using? Tell me, have you ever avoided a fine with the response "Why, no, officer, I wasn't speeding. I was merely driving faster than the posted speed limit for this section of road."?

If a player disagrees with me that a rat he tied up and put into a bag is a credible threat for using a power that has a secondary effect, then I don't value his opinion, because it's patently ridiculous. Just like I would say the same to someone who wants to find a cockroach or a spider to step on in order to do the same thing.

Another protip: Try quoting the entire post in your response. It makes it much harder to accidentally lose salient details, like, for instance, the fact that you can pull the rat trick by untying the rat and fighting it.

Scenario one: You are faced by a horde of minions. You use your ability on a minion.
Expected outcome: It works. You continue to use your ability on the horde of minions. It continues to work for minions 2 through N-1. You use your ability on the last minion. It works.

Scenario two: You are faced by a single minion. The status of the game world is identical to the time you used your ability on the 16th of 16 minions a bit ago. You use your ability on a minion.
Expected outcome: It works.

 

[Lurker37]

Oh, OK. The Meaningful Threat rule has noticeable effects in the gameworld; characters are physically incapable of using maneuvers on non-meaningful threats. Characters can observe maneuvers and their results. Therefore, trying to generate a creature that triggers the meaningful threat rule while being less of a threat than it not being there (say, triggering a vampiric healing strike) is a valid, justified in-game action, and involves no metagaming at all; ergo, short of the GM providing helpful red circles around the feet of designated mobs, there's no reason to assume from the world as presented that you can't store meaningful threats in your pack.

Logic. It's like doubles, but better.

Dear Lord, is this still going?

Trying to generate a meaningful threat? OK - let's define a meaningful threat:

1) To be a threat, the opponent must have a credible - let's say better than even - chance to cause you harm before you can kill it.

2) To be a meaningful threat, the harm the opponent can be expected to inflict must not be something the PC can shrug off. If the PC is willing to take the hit(s), then while it may be a threat, it is not a meaningful one. In other words, the opponent must be something the PC takes seriously.

So venomous cobra that's asleep: not a threat.
venomous cobra that's ready to strike: threat, but only meaningful if you cannot easily counter its venom.

Minion in a sack:

Single minion by itself: Not a threat. (Or, at DM's discretion, no longer a minion. I'm serious - go look at the definition of minion.)

Level-appropriate minion who is working with other minions (and possibly other non-minion types) as part of an encounter: threat.

Level-appropriate minion dumped in front of an encounter that's also hostile to it: not a threat.

Critter in cage/sack/etc.

Nasty critter that's wild and aggressive: threat. Meaningful if it is likely to inflict nontrivial damage.
Critter that's been caged/bagged for a while: You'll need to convince the DM that:
1)It's still in top fighting form.
2)It's capable of inflicting damage on you.
3)It still wants to fight instead of scampering off, and that furthermore your feeding and watering of it hasn't softened its attitude towards you. (You haven't been feeding it? It's probably in no condition to fight, and may be dead.)
4) That, despite the fact that your character has been carrying this thing around, and keeping it fed and watered, and that they are about to deliberately set it loose, they actually regard it as a credible threat.

Then you'll need to release it in such a way that the DM is convinced it has a fighting chance, which would probably mean taking a full round to let it loose.

Frankly, I really don't see you selling point 4.

And if your PC does not regard the creature as a threat to them, there's no reason the DM should. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Your best bet would be a cursed item that summoned hostile creatures, which the DM for some reason did not immediately veto as an XP factory. Assuming you somehow snuck that part by them, you just need to hope that the DM doesn't throw anything too nasty at you.

 

[Vigilance]

Everyone says 4e is too videogamey... well here's a video game concept for you, drawn straight from a Final Fantasy game.

In one of the FF games, creatures would "oversoul" once you'd killed a lot of them, essentially transforming and gaining a LOT of combat ability.

I recommend any GM whose players try this crap give a 1 in 20 chance for each rat to spontaneously gain 10 HD and turn on the players.

I mean, it makes as much sense as this bunk. God I hate rules lawyers.

 

[Fifth Element]

The explicit text of the DMG prohibits sacks of rats; there is nothing in there about individually-wrapped rats.

Oh good. "It's not specifically disallowed, so it must be allowed." Really? A sack of rats is out, but several individual rats is in? Ridiculous.

The DMG defines illegal targets for powers as non-credible threats; rats are presented as credible threats in Keep on the Shadowfell,

No, in KotS a swarm of rats is presented as a credible threat. A swarm of rats with 36 hit points. Individual rats are not a meaningful threat, despite the fact that the DMG does not expressly state that individual rats are not a meaningful threat.

 

[Fifth Element]

Another protip: Try quoting the entire post in your response.

And here's one for you. Try cutting out the condescension. Many posters would be more apt to comprehend your myriad assertions if you were only to stop talking down to them.

 

[Blackeagle]

The explicit text of the DMG prohibits sacks of rats; there is nothing in there about individually-wrapped rats. The DMG defines illegal targets for powers as non-credible threats; rats are presented as credible threats in Keep on the Shadowfell, therefore there is no explicit statement in the DMG prohibiting keeping a rat tied up, and untying it and fighting it if you need to trigger a trivial encounter.

A rat swarm and a giant rat are presented as a credible threats in KotS, not a normal-sized individual rat.

You know what would be a good rule?

I'm perfectly fine with the DM applying his common sense.

Is our level of shared vocabulary really so lacking that you are unable to understand the words I'm using to explain my definition of other words, which is that "rules of the game" and "mechanics of the universe" are logically identical, and my repeated requests for you to put forth the definitions you seem to be using?

I think that the problem here is that it seems self evident to Mourn (and dare I say, most of us) that the two are not logically identical, therefore we're having a hard time wrapping our heads around your contention that they are.

I use computational and mathematical models in my work. The definition of a model is, "a simplified representation of reality". Because they are simplified, the model is never exactly the same as reality. There will always be cases where the model is inconsistent with the real world. When using a model, you have to be aware of when and how it might be inconsistent with the real world and make sure that those inconsistencies won't affect your results (or at least acknowledge that effect when you report those results).

A set of role-playing game rules is a model. In this case, since D&D is a fantasy game, it is a representation of an imaginary reality, rather than the real world. While this reality exists only in the minds of the players and the DM, the RPG rules still share the other characteristics of a model, including simplification. Because it is a simplification, it can never be entirely consistent with the imaginary world that it is modeling. Therefore, the rules of the game are not the physics of the game world. There will be cases where the game rules are inconsistent with the imaginary world that the players and the DM are creating, like the Bag of Rats. Much like the scientist who has to recognize and deal with inconsistencies between the model and real life, the DM has to recognize and deal with inconsistencies between the rules and the imaginary world that he and the players are creating. This is one of the major purposes of Rule 0.

 

[SSquirrel]

Actual text in qeustion:"Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."

This implies to me that the player is removing one and killing it, not just swatting at the whole bag. So thanks for playing.