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

[Imaro]

Not at all. The rule of creature knowledge is one of a number of factors that influence how a DM interprets a monster's behavior. Narative is another.

The problem is 4e eliminates the possibility of the creature not knowing the effect that a power will have on it... and thus in fact does limit the narrative that can take place... without disregarding the rules.

 

[korjik]

The problem is 4e eliminates the possibility of the creature not knowing the effect that a power will have on it... and thus in fact does limit the narrative that can take place... without disregarding the rules.

The ruleset dosent determine the monsters actions. The DM does. The rules are irrelevant to that.

One of the points of a DM is to ajudicate situations where the players are trying something outside of a strict reading of the rules. If that isnt allowed you are far better off playing a computer RPG, cause it can roll the dice faster.

Also, the monster knowing what a power does is also the decision of the DM. My goblins do no know magic, so when the wiz casts sleep, they do not know what happened to them. The DM does. The goblins are not going to know that a power stuns, or knocks back, or trips, unless I determine that they do. The rule set dosent run my monsters.

 

[Imaro]

The ruleset dosent determine the monsters actions. The DM does. The rules are irrelevant to that.

One of the points of a DM is to ajudicate situations where the players are trying something outside of a strict reading of the rules. If that isnt allowed you are far better off playing a computer RPG, cause it can roll the dice faster.

Also, the monster knowing what a power does is also the decision of the DM. My goblins do no know magic, so when the wiz casts sleep, they do not know what happened to them. The DM does. The goblins are not going to know that a power stuns, or knocks back, or trips, unless I determine that they do. The rule set dosent run my monsters.

Not sure what the point of this is since I conceded a DM can do whatever he wants in his game... that, however has no bearing on what is written in the rulebooks when discussing the actual game and it's design... as opposed to your particular game.

 

[hutchback]

The problem is 4e eliminates the possibility of the creature not knowing the effect that a power will have on it... and thus in fact does limit the narrative that can take place... without disregarding the rules.

I totally disagree. The only way that your statement would be true is if the knowledge the monster gained dictated a specific type of reaction.

There is no realistic expectation that the risk of danger would inhibit a creature's desire to act in a way that provokes that risk.

In real life people and animals take obvious risks all the time. People know that smoking causes cancer, yet they smoke. My dog knows he'll be squirted with a water bottle, which he hates, if he tries to get on the counter, yet he does.

Desires and goals overwhelm what we know to be true in decision making processes all the time.

I cannot see why you feel this rule overides that in a game setting. It does not state all creature are aware of effects placed on them, therefore they much react in a way most likely to mitigate the effect. Now THAT would be unrealistic.

 

[Imaro]

I totally disagree. The only way that your statement would be true is if the knowledge the monster gained dictated a specific type of reaction.

There is no realistic expectation that the risk of danger would inhibit a creature's desire to act in a way that provokes that risk.

In real life people and animals take obvious risks all the time. People know that smoking causes cancer, yet they smoke. My dog knows he'll be squirted with a water bottle, which he hates, if he tries to get on the counter, yet he does.

Desires and goals overwhelm what we know to be true in decision making processes all the time.

I cannot see why you feel this rule overides that in a game setting. It does not state all creature are aware of effects placed on them, therefore they much react in a way most likely to mitigate the effect. Now THAT would be unrealistic.

You realize you are not really disagreeing with my statement... you've set up you're own statement that you are disagreeing with. If you disagree with my statement give me a scenario by the book where a creature will not be aware of the effect of a power being used on it??

EDIT: In fact now I'm wondering how you would even have the classic scenario where a spellcaster uses his powers to manipulate someone without their knowledge in 4e... I mean besides using rituals...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not sure what the point of this is since I conceded a DM can do whatever he wants in his game... that, however has no bearing on what is written in the rulebooks when discussing the actual game and it's design... as opposed to your particular game.

Agree. However, see below.

I totally disagree. The only way that your statement would be true is if the knowledge the monster gained dictated a specific type of reaction.

Disagree.

The rules are clear, as Imaro says, that the creature -- any creature -- has this knowledge. What the creature then does with this knowledge need not be considered for Imaro's point to be valid.

However, that is a danger of exception-based design....unless ever possible exception is codified. I, personally, wouldn't want to have to wade through the rulebooks of such a system. IMHO, and IME, that's one of the reasons we have a GM....to adjudicate when non-codified exceptions should be made.

HOWEVER (and it is a big HOWEVER), it is more than a little problematic, IMHO, that anyone should claim that the GM should adjudicate when non-codified exceptions should be made only when those exceptions do not affect the PCs. I have no interest in such game play.

YMMV, obviously, and obviously some people's M does V. However, the DM maintains that right and responsibility in 4e, per RAW, and that is as important a part of the RAW as the part that says a creature is aware of an effect. The big problem here isn't the exception-based design, but the vocal minority who claim that the GM should not adjudicate when it affects their characters in a negative way.

Again, IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[hutchback]

I am not arguing whether or not the creature has knowledge of the effect. I am arguing that that knowledge does not supercede or limit the narrative

Imaro explicitly states "and thus in fact does limit the narrative that can take place"

Please give me an example of how that is true.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think, at this point, the two of you are just talking past each other.

I could, of course, be wrong, but it certainly seems that way to me.

 

[Imaro]

I am not arguing whether or not the creature has knowledge of the effect. I am arguing that that knowledge does not supercede or limit the narrative

Imaro explicitly states "and thus in fact does limit the narrative that can take place"

Please give me an example of how that is true.

I just did in the edit... by that rule the narrative of a wizard who uses his powers (not rituals) on someone without their knowledge is impossible... is this right or wrong.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

HOWEVER (and it is a big HOWEVER), it is more than a little problematic, IMHO, that anyone should claim that the GM should adjudicate when non-codified exceptions should be made only when those exceptions do not affect the PCs. I have no interest in such game play.

YMMV, obviously, and obviously some people's M does V. However, the DM maintains that right and responsibility in 4e, per RAW, and that is as important a part of the RAW as the part that says a creature is aware of an effect. The big problem here isn't the exception-based design, but the vocal minority who claim that the GM should not adjudicate when it affects their characters in a negative way.

Well, since I have no interest in such game play, either, I'm certainly not in the group that claims that the DM should not so adjudicate...

I do think that the DM needs to be:

1. Consistent. To the extent that you squash PC abilities for other concerns, you need to squash monster abilities in a comparable way (keeping in mind that "comparable" is not a straight mechanical question, either, since the PCs are front and center all the time.) This is one of the big reasons why my gaming style on such rulings is that I want consistency more than any particular ruling, and why I let the players vote for how we go if there is disagreement. Then I enforce the decision, hard. That vote gives me, in some ways, more power than the Viking Hat ever did.

2. 4E has narrative conceits (if not Forge Narrative mechanics) that are metagaming. I think you really don't get very good 4E play if you refuse to engage those conceits, anymore than you get, say, good basketball sitting down. You can find exceptions (e.g. wheelchair basketball) for various niche reasons, but for most people, no.

There is a certain sussing out what a game does, and how it wants to do it. Once you have it, you can buck the game or you can go with the flow. Or, of course, decide it isn't for you. But I think bucking the game and then not being very happy with the outcome doesn't say much about what that game is capable of producing.