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

[MrBeens]

We were in a similar situation where combats were far too easy because there was just one per day and everyone would go hog wild with their Daily powers. To combat this I would recommend instituting a house rule that an extended rest cannot be taken until after three milestones have been reached. That way you can have only one encounter in the session that is more moderate and won't take up 3/4 of your time, so you can spend the rest of the time on social encounters. And because of the houserule it won't be a cakewalk from Daily spamming.

Also there is nothing in the rules that assumes 1 session = 1 extended rest. this is a way a lot of groups run, but it does cause these sorts of problems.
An extended rest should occur when the DM says it does, even if that is over multiples sessions/in game days.

 

[hutchback]

Who said anything about the DM's tactical skills...

I did.

I don't think you can separate the two. The metagame knowledge is only an issue if it's tactical ramifications are the basis of the DM's decision making. So yes the Meta is that the ooze "knows" the rogue is poised to make an immediate reaction but it only effects in game RP if the DM chooses to act based on that information, which imho makes for a poor DM.

If you are not implying that this knowledge requires the monster to react in a way that is beneficial to itself, then I am not sure what your issue with the rule is?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As I think about it, the biggest problem is that it's hard to run a "gritty" game in 4e. The PCs are so powerful and special. Try to adapt an old 1e or 2e module to 4e. It's really hard...

I almost brought this up yesterday, but since no one had mentioned it, I wasn't sure if it was a driver. But yeah, 4E does not do gritty well, at all. It does gritty even less well than RAW Champions with no optional rules invoked, which is really saying something. One otherwise enamored with 4E could certainly make some house rules to make it grittier. You'd start with making surges very hard to get back, and then adapt from there. (You couldn't just stop there, because the non-grit is pervasive in 4E.)

However, that doesn't mean its hard to run an old 1E or 2E module in 4E. It's easy. Some of us will even get something we wanted from 1E all along--less grit! But no, 4E doesn't do 1E very well. You'd really be better off using 1E for that result.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Agreed. Because a problem occurs in one edition, it does not follow that it did not occur in other editions (in similar, or in different, ways).

I am not at all certain where the optimal balance is between the "role-playing" and the "game" part is in "role-playing game"....even for my own purposes. But, IMHO, it lies somewhere east of 2e and west of 4e. That's a large territory to explore.



Of course not!

I would think of it more like a pendulum, which has swung too far east with 4e, and will swing somewhat west with 5e (if I am lucky). And while that swing is too far east for me, the trip is hardly in vain. A robust 5e will have learned from 4e, even as it swings to the west......

Again, if I am lucky.


RC

You know what I like: that we can speak of the immersion matter without haing an edition war all over again.

Although 4e is currently my edition of choice, i also hope, that the pendulum swings back to the west again!

I can really imagine an ingenious 5e that will follow... but now I am stuck with 4e and I won´t be sorry about that.

One other thing that breaks immersion right now: english rulebooks. (In 3.5 it was not that much of an issue actually, because of the "lack" of keywords, i guess.)

The problem of translating those keywords seems to be an indicator for the immersion breaks... words that allow easy translation are no issue at all, but if you have words that translate very badly, you notice, that it is a somewhat artificial word which does refer to a game mechanic, that usually has not a lot to do with what happens in the fiction...

 

[Imaro]

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.

Where did I say a creature would always act in the same way? I am asking how any and all creatures are auto-magically aware of this maneuver and it's resulting effect.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

I'm not arguing it can't. I'm arguing it shouldn't, because it's too dumb. I guess I'm arguing for a fictional constraint, if only to make RC happy.

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.

Sure you did, in Post 111.

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.

Otherwise, I agree with your point.

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?

Because I'm not arguing what the rule is. The rule is straightforward. "The monsters knows effects on it." That's pretty simple. The way I as a DM interpret that rule to create the fictional gamespace is a far more interesting point of discussion.

Personally, I find using an interpretation that lets oozes blunder into mark punishments and ripostes because, let's face it, they're oozes, to be an improvement from one that presupposes oozes have been reading Fencing Weekly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I almost brought this up yesterday, but since no one had mentioned it, I wasn't sure if it was a driver. But yeah, 4E does not do gritty well, at all. It does gritty even less well than RAW Champions with no optional rules invoked, which is really saying something. One otherwise enamored with 4E could certainly make some house rules to make it grittier. You'd start with making surges very hard to get back, and then adapt from there. (You couldn't just stop there, because the non-grit is pervasive in 4E.)

However, that doesn't mean its hard to run an old 1E or 2E module in 4E. It's easy. Some of us will even get something we wanted from 1E all along--less grit! But no, 4E doesn't do 1E very well. You'd really be better off using 1E for that result.

Hmmh, i am not sure I agree here:

level 1 4e can become really gritty... once you start denying extended rests...

 

[MrMyth]

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?

Two monsters are in a position where they can each shift to flank a PC.

If the enemies are mindless undead, even though the DM has this knowledge, he probably won't have them take this manuever.

If the enemies are regular combatants, he might have one shift and take an attack, and the other than takes his turn, shifts into flanking, and attacks with combat advantage.

If the enemies are skilled mercenaries, he might have one shift and ready an attack for flanking, and the other then shift, and then both attack with combat advantage.

All of the opponents have the same information - where the PCs and monsters are relative to each - but they may do different things with that knowledge based on what is appropriate for them as NPCs.

The same is true of knowledge about what conditions are affecting them. If an enemy is marked by a paladin, and can tell that magic will burn it if it attacks someone else, a cowardly thug might keeping swinging at the paladin. A reckless bandit might go after his favorite target anyway. A smart foe might try to hinder the paladin so that the mark can't be easily maintained.

There is no in-game restriction saying "Mindless undead can't use brilliant tactical manuevers" or the like. But most DMs will tend to run it that way, letting the nature of an enemy define its level of tactical combat skill. That's no different here than anywhere else.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My experience with tactical play is that if the GM runs wide-open, full tactical play, using every metagame piece of knowledge at his disposal, and always moving every monster as a counter trying to win--the players will do the same.

If the GM roleplays the monster, which does include things like trolls beating on the guy in front of him, even if that isn't the most tactically sound, the players will also do the same thing.

IMHO, there are two causes for this, with the second one being more subtle and thus sometimes poorly appreciated:

1. The players take cues from the GM. If the GM is getting into character with the NPCs, players will feel this and reciprocate. This applies to combat as much as any other time.

2. Roleplaying during combat--and this includes avoiding analysis paralysis and other metagaming bottlenecks by acting in character--can't happen very well when the players are focused on wringing every last mechanical advantage from the situation and their abilities.

Push the players? Sure. They need to feel the danger to their characters. But don't push everything maximum effect, all the time. If you play 4E as a tactical skimish game--you get a tactical skirmish game. This was true of all prior versions of D&D as well, though the temptation was not as strong, since they weren't as good at that aspect as 4E.

You can go to Home Depot tomorrow, buy 20 different colors of paint, and turn your bedroom into a neon nightmare. Just because those colors are in the store, it doesn't follow that you have to use Home Depot that way.

 

[hutchback]

Where did I say a creature would always act in the same way? I am asking how any and all creatures are auto-magically aware of this maneuver and it's resulting effect.

So to clarify you are not saying you think this rule inhibits a DM's decision making or that it necessitates strict tactical adherence in the form of a specific reaction.

You just think it is unrealistic that a "dumb" monster knows the same things that a "smart" monster does. Is this correct?

Do you think this ruins immersion or one's ability to RP?