D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Imaro]

It's funny, because after reading that rule (monsters are aware of power effects), I never assumed the information had to be used to by the monster. I simply saw it as a DM empowerment tool to ensure that there weren't arguments at the table where players would try to "surprise" the DM with power effects, and feel entitled to keep that information a secret.

I always assumed the DM would filter that information through the NPC's personality and intelligence.

And I would argue RAW you are wrong for assuming that. 4e terminology is very precise and they state that the creature, not the DM and/or player was aware of any effect placed on it. That is clearly character as opposed to player knowledge. Or are you arguing creature is used in 4e to refer to players and DM?

 

[billd91]

What do you play in D&D? I don't know about you, but, every game of D&D I've ever played, we play adventurers. What do adventurers do? They go out and adventure. What happens in adventures? They face combat and conflict (in various quantities).

If you are playing D&D and you're not an adventurer, one really has to wonder why you are playing D&D.

Indeed. But that's not all D&D has to be about. Nor do all situations have to be handled with combat or direct conflict. Or am I playing too wrong for you?

 

[Imaro]

Umm, the monster doesn't know anything. It doesn't really exist. The DM knows and can choose to have the monster act in a manner which he feels is consistent with the group's expectations. The closer the DM hits those expectations, the happier the group will be.

Hussar can we please dispense with the semantic games... I never claimed monsters in D&D were real. What is real however is the generally accepted principle that there is in-game and meta-game knowledge. Now everyone knows the DM is fre to run his game however he wants but that doesn't change what the actual rules of the game are which is that every creature is aware of any effect it is the subject of.

 

[TwoSix]

And I would argue RAW you are wrong for assuming that. 4e terminology is very precise and they state that the creature, not the DM and/or player was aware of any effect placed on it. That is clearly character as opposed to player knowledge. Or are you arguing creature is used in 4e to refer to players and DM?

"Awareness" of the effect and the capacity or inclination of the NPC to act on that awareness are two different things.

And how can the monster be knowledgeable of the effect but not the DM? I mean, what? That's drifting into "F-ing monsters, how do they work?" territory.

Also, I never argue RAW. Primarily because I don't know it well enough. Secondly, because I think the designers intended to move away from overly legalistic language in everything except power description.

 

[hutchback]

And I would argue RAW you are wrong for assuming that. 4e terminology is very precise and they state that the creature, not the DM and/or player was aware of any effect placed on it. That is clearly character as opposed to player knowledge. Or are you arguing creature is used in 4e to refer to players and DM?

But according to RAW does Riposte Strike place an effect on the creature? I don't think so. The creature is not marked, slowed, dazed, etc. It just sets up an immediate reaction for the PC.

Regardless, I believe the onus is on the DM. I play my monsters as monsters, ignoring marks and zones if it makes sense for them to do so. A wizard with a vendetta against a PC may ignore a fighter's mark to attack the PC. An ooze would blindly lash out against any target that presents itself. I've even had monsters attack other monsters because it made sense in the story for them to do so.

I am not aware of any rule that requires you to have all monsters utilize the full extent of the DM's tactical skills.

 

[Imaro]

"Awareness" of the effect and the capacity or inclination of the NPC to act on that awareness are two different things.

Wait so now your argument is that the creature is aware of an effect... but because it doesn't specify that it can react to the said knowledge it has... it shouldn't be able too? Not buying it. Unless said creature's actions are somehow restricted in-game then the monster can take actions based on the knowledge it has in-game. I guess I'm not getting why it wouldn't react to knowledge it has?

And how can the monster be knowledgeable of the effect but not the DM? I mean, what? That's drifting into "F-ing monsters, how do they work?" territory.

I Never argued this, because it is impossible... however it is possible for the DM to be knowledgeable of things and said monster not have in-game knowledge about it, and thus not be able to act on said knowledge. So no, it's not drifting into any territory except meta vs. in-game knowledge which has always exsisted.

"Also, I never argue RAW. Primarily because I don't know it well enough. Secondly, because I think the designers intended to move away from overly legalistic language in everything except power description.

I see... so if we aren't talking RAW... what are we talking about in discussing the game... your, my or the thousands of other player's interpretations and house rules... how do you even have a meaningful discussion about the rules of the game in that way?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you are playing D&D and you're not an adventurer, one really has to wonder why you are playing D&D.

Some people are born to be adventurers, others have adventure thrust upon them.

Not everyone on an adventure is perforce a master of combat. See Frodo & Sam. See Avram Belinski. See Peter Martin. See many, many others in literature, TV and film.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But according to RAW does Riposte Strike place an effect on the creature? I don't think so. The creature is not marked, slowed, dazed, etc. It just sets up an immediate reaction for the PC.

Regardless, I believe the onus is on the DM. I play my monsters as monsters, ignoring marks and zones if it makes sense for them to do so. A wizard with a vendetta against a PC may ignore a fighter's mark to attack the PC. An ooze would blindly lash out against any target that presents itself. I've even had monsters attack other monsters because it made sense in the story for them to do so.

I am not aware of any rule that requires you to have all monsters utilize the full extent of the DM's tactical skills.

Personally, I think that you are both right.

Imaro is correct, AFAICT, about what the RAW says. However, I don't think that the designers intended the RAW to come before the fictional milieu. There are enough indications in the rulebooks, again AFAICT, that the reverse is true.

The DM is free to say you can't knock an ooze prone, and the DM is free to make the ooze react as s/he believes it should.....including ignoring things like Come and Get It or Vicious Taunt.

BUT.....I would caution against nerfing the monsters based on verismilitude without also doing the same to PC abilities, or vice versa.

I am really beginning to look forward to 5e, to see how the lessons learned from 4e are incorporated into a lighter, faster-playing game. Though I would still wait 1-3 years before making an announcement, and continue with the direction WotC is currently taking 4e (i.e., more inspiration, trying to make more interesting adventures).


RC

 

[Imaro]

But according to RAW does Riposte Strike place an effect on the creature? I don't think so. The creature is not marked, slowed, dazed, etc. It just sets up an immediate reaction for the PC.

Slowed, dazed, marked, etc. are conditions... which may or may not be inflicted due to a power's effect but are not in and of themselves effects.

Regardless, I believe the onus is on the DM. I play my monsters as monsters, ignoring marks and zones if it makes sense for them to do so. A wizard with a vendetta against a PC may ignore a fighter's mark to attack the PC. An ooze would blindly lash out against any target that presents itself. I've even had monsters attack other monsters because it made sense in the story for them to do so.

Yep, I totally agree... however 4e doesn't state this, it instead states in it's rules that all creatures are aware of any effect they are subject to instead of stating it is up to the DM to determine whether a creature would or would not be aware of a particular effect that has been placed on it. You see if it was worded as such then the DM knows the meta-game knowledge but it is not automatically transfered to the creature as in-game knowledge. As it stands now 4e doesn't work like that, it blends the two for gamist considerations... of course you are free to play any way you want.

I am not aware of any rule that requires you to have all monsters utilize the full extent of the DM's tactical skills.

Who said anything about the DM's tactical skills... that's a whole different argument than what I am discussing... I'm discussing meta-game knowledge (how a power works and it's effects) being automagically known by any and every creature affected by it.

 

[MrBeens]

Slowed, dazed, marked, etc. are conditions... which may or may not be inflicted due to a power's effect but are not in and of themselves effects.



Yep, I totally agree... however 4e doesn't state this, it instead states in it's rules that all creatures are aware of any effect they are subject to instead of stating it is up to the DM to determine whether a creature would or would not be aware of a particular effect that has been placed on it. You see if it was worded as such then the DM knows the meta-game knowledge but it is not automatically transfered to the creature as in-game knowledge. As it stands now 4e doesn't work like that, it blends the two for gamist considerations... of course you are free to play any way you want.



Who said anything about the DM's tactical skills... that's a whole different argument than what I am discussing... I'm discussing meta-game knowledge how a power works and it's effects being automagically known by any and every creature affected by it.

Just because a thing is aware of an effect they are not going to always act in the same way - riposte strike means you are aware that if you attack you are going to get hit back. So. I am a big stupid troll, I just got hit anyway, so I'm hitting you back, then you hit me back, then I hit you.