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

[Crazy Jerome]

You were the one who claimed it created no narrative limitations... I was just showing you that yes... it does.

Under your definition of narrative as "all possible," yes it does. I was trying to understand your definition, in the context of the discussion. Now that I do, I don't see how your original claim was anything more than a tautology: Things that are inherently limiting create ... limits. I was under the impression that you were using some kind of definition that demonstrated a difference in kind, with 4E versus earlier versions. This is a difference in degree only.

 

[Imaro]

Under your definition of narrative as "all possible," yes it does. I was trying to understand your definition, in the context of the discussion. Now that I do, I don't see how your original claim was anything more than a tautology: Things that are inherently limiting create ... limits.

Please, explain to me in what way you were using the word?

 

[Dannager]

I said powers... not spells.

as the wizard casts them on you

Anything that the wizard casts on you is a spell.

 

[Imaro]

Anything that the wizard casts on you is a spell.

Ah I see pedantry will win the game... ok...

Please don't jump into the middle of a discussion without context... while spells were being used as a specific example... the broader discussion was about powers in general. Thus why I used the word powers since they encompass spells as well as other things in the game.

Edit: In other words the wizard/spell thing was a specific example addressing what was a tangent to the main point of powers and immersion... this is also why you're "Hey there's one power that doesn't do this!!!" example doesn't address the issue since it is bigger than that.

 

[Dannager]

Ah I see pedantry will win the game... ok...

Please don't jump into the middle of a discussion without context... while spells were being used as a specific example... the broader discussion was about powers in general. Thus why I used the word powers since they encompass spells as well as other things in the game.

Edit: In other words the wizard/spell thing was a specific example addressing what was a tangent to the main point of powers and immersion... this is also why you're "Hey there's one power that doesn't do this!!!" example doesn't address the issue since it is bigger than that.

Look, your argument is that the targets of powers knowing what the effects of those powers are breaks immersion (even though they don't actually know the power's full effects, only what the power's current effects on them are - they don't know, for instance, what an aftereffect might be, or what happens to them on a failed save, or what that power does to other creatures, etc.), and you specifically bring up the idea of dominating/charm effects to support this. You point out that it doesn't make sense to you that they know what's going on if it's magic, and I pointed out that - since it's magic! - the idea of applying conventional ideas of "sense" in the first place comes up short - we've already created (out of whole cloth!) an entirely new set of "rules of reality" for how magic works, so there's nothing stopping us from saying that those rules also auto-magically impart certain knowledge to those under the effects of certain magical spells. And if it's not magic, it probably makes a great deal of sense that the creature knows what's happening to it; they can see non-magical effects with their own two eyes most of the time, whether it's a change in stance by the enemy, the fact that their arm is currently on fire, or the fact that the fighter is eyeing them to make sure they don't try anything stupid.

The fact that targets are aware of the effects they are under is a slight abstraction; no, in-world they probably don't know that they're taking ongoing 10 fire damage in those terms, but they know they're on fire. But everything in D&D combat, ever, is an abstraction to some degree. This one isn't worth worrying over, and it's certainly not going to do any harm to your inviolate immersion unless you make a point of fixating on it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Please, explain to me in what way you were using the word?

Note that it wasn't me that said there were no limits, but I was sniping from the sidelines during the discussion. So I don't mind being in the crossfire.

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 was using "narrative" the way that I presume hutchback is using here. Note that your example doesn't address his concern, which is why I jumped in.

Broady, my definition of narrative in an RPG is: "What happens in the shared imaginative space, which could be written up after the fact as a story." I'd elaborate on that to say that each participant in an RPG has a private imaginative space that is imperfectly shared, and this complicates that definition, but that opens up a can of worms, and it isn't critical to my point (I think).

Under you definition, if I can risk extrapolating there, the shared imaginative space is expressed by the fictional reality being simulated as it intersects with the game model, as navigated by the DM and players. You kept coming back to it being a problem that something like an ooze would even know or care that it had been charmed.

Under my definition, the shared imaginative space is expressed by the fictional reality being "simulated" (not the best word) as it intersects with the game model, metagaming constructs, OOC conversations, as navigated by the DM and the players.

Under both, there is also room for DM fiat, all kinds of effects from creature characterization, and other such things. Since those are shared, I don't see them as too critical here, either. I'm just noting them to be fair to both concepts, as not as narrow as I have portrayed them above.

I think RC was picking up on the distinction back several posts. Under your model, hutchback having an ooze disregard the charm effect knowledge is either outside the rules or outside the narrative. Under my model, hutchback having a creature disregard the charm effect knowledge is inside both the rules and narrative. The shared imaginative space, and what happens, is all that matters. If a metagaming instrument changes the relatively crude result of fiction/model interaction, this is not overcoming a limit of the narrative but simply taking one choice instead of another.

Or to put it in shorter form, though problematic: If OOC we decide that the TPK didn't happen, and we retro to before the thief pulled the lever that set off the doomsday device, the only narrative "limit" is that we can't have it both ways.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This may sound like an aside, but it isn't:

Models are not the thing modeled. However, the closer the model is to accurately representing the thing modeled, the more people will confuse the model for the thing. This is true of all RPGs.

 

[Locutus Zero]

How do they know what is happening to them if they have never studied magic or been charmed before in their life... Or as I stated above... how does a dog (with animal intelligence) know it has been "charmed" as well along with exactly what that means?

He knows he is being controlled by you, in the same sense that he knows the fighter hit him with a sword. He might not know what a sword is, but he knows what damage is. He might not understand magic, but he knows he is being made to do something he doesn't want to do, and can sense that you are doing it. The intelligence simply determines how well he understands all this and what he does with the information.

 

[Imaro]

Look, your argument is that the targets of powers knowing what the effects of those powers are breaks immersion (even though they don't actually know the power's full effects, only what the power's current effects on them are - they don't know, for instance, what an aftereffect might be, or what happens to them on a failed save, or what that power does to other creatures, etc.), and you specifically bring up the idea of dominating/charm effects to support this. You point out that it doesn't make sense to you that they know what's going on if it's magic, and I pointed out that - since it's magic! - the idea of applying conventional ideas of "sense" in the first place comes up short - we've already created (out of whole cloth!) an entirely new set of "rules of reality" for how magic works, so there's nothing stopping us from saying that those rules also auto-magically impart certain knowledge to those under the effects of certain magical spells. And if it's not magic, it probably makes a great deal of sense that the creature knows what's happening to it; they can see non-magical effects with their own two eyes most of the time, whether it's a change in stance by the enemy, the fact that their arm is currently on fire, or the fact that the fighter is eyeing them to make sure they don't try anything stupid.

The fact that targets are aware of the effects they are under is a slight abstraction; no, in-world they probably don't know that they're taking ongoing 10 fire damage in those terms, but they know they're on fire. But everything in D&D combat, ever, is an abstraction to some degree. This one isn't worth worrying over, and it's certainly not going to do any harm to your inviolate immersion unless you make a point of fixating on it.

Oh, so it's not the game... it's that my immersion is broken and it's only my fixation on it that's causing me problems... I'm glad someone bestowed on you the title of "He who decides what does and does not hurt immersion... FOR EVERYONE!!!".... sorry must've missed that meeting. Of course I could turn around and say you don't really have immersion, you'll accept anything even if it doesn't make sense and that's why 4e suits you so well... but then that would be assuming (like you did above) and I wouldn't want to do that to a fellow poster whose view point I am trying to understand...


Back to the subject (instead of judgements on people), First, go back and actually read what I have posted if you really want to have a discussion because a couple of your assumptions about how this discussion has progressed are just wrong. If you did this you would see that even in your examples above (which have been presented by other posters before you) you're still leaving out large swaths of opponents that just don't make sense that they know the effects they are under... from those who wouldn't be able to percieve what you are doing to those whose mindset or intelligence wouldn't even let them conceptualize what had been done to them... so maybe, just maybe for me and possibly others it does hurt immersion to realize that certain creatures are aware and know what effects certain powers have on them.

 

[Imaro]

Note that it wasn't me that said there were no limits, but I was sniping from the sidelines during the discussion. So I don't mind being in the crossfire.



I was using "narrative" the way that I presume hutchback is using here. Note that your example doesn't address his concern, which is why I jumped in.

Broady, my definition of narrative in an RPG is: "What happens in the shared imaginative space, which could be written up after the fact as a story." I'd elaborate on that to say that each participant in an RPG has a private imaginative space that is imperfectly shared, and this complicates that definition, but that opens up a can of worms, and it isn't critical to my point (I think).

Under you definition, if I can risk extrapolating there, the shared imaginative space is expressed by the fictional reality being simulated as it intersects with the game model, as navigated by the DM and players. You kept coming back to it being a problem that something like an ooze would even know or care that it had been charmed.

Under my definition, the shared imaginative space is expressed by the fictional reality being "simulated" (not the best word) as it intersects with the game model, metagaming constructs, OOC conversations, as navigated by the DM and the players.

Under both, there is also room for DM fiat, all kinds of effects from creature characterization, and other such things. Since those are shared, I don't see them as too critical here, either. I'm just noting them to be fair to both concepts, as not as narrow as I have portrayed them above.

I think RC was picking up on the distinction back several posts. Under your model, hutchback having an ooze disregard the charm effect knowledge is either outside the rules or outside the narrative. Under my model, hutchback having a creature disregard the charm effect knowledge is inside both the rules and narrative. The shared imaginative space, and what happens, is all that matters. If a metagaming instrument changes the relatively crude result of fiction/model interaction, this is not overcoming a limit of the narrative but simply taking one choice instead of another.

Or to put it in shorter form, though problematic: If OOC we decide that the TPK didn't happen, and we retro to before the thief pulled the lever that set off the doomsday device, the only narrative "limit" is that we can't have it both ways.

Seriously, thanks... because now I have a clearer understanding of what was being asked.