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

[TwoSix]

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.

Because you're failing to distinguish between the monster as fiction device and the monster as game construct.

The monster as game construct knows the effect. The DM takes into account the effects on the monster, the monster's abilities, and other mechanical considerations, as well as fictional constraints on the monster (like "I'm a mindless ooze").

The DM than has the monster take an action which will provide the most payoff, where the payoff rewards can vary between satisfying the desire for challenging combat and providing fictional accuracy (and hopefully provide both!).

 

[Imaro]

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?

First, as has been stated, a DM can do whatever he wants, so the knowledge doesn't require the monster to do anything... and my point was really about how any and every creature get this auto-magical update on powers used against them...

That said... if the creature is aware of an effect, why is it bad DM'ing to act on this information (outside of your own particular preferences)... the game has stated in no uncertain terms the monster is aware of the effect... why wouldn't it act with that knowledge taken into consideration?

 

[hutchback]

That said... if the creature is aware of an effect, why is it bad DM'ing to act on this information (outside of your own particular preferences)... the game has stated in no uncertain terms the monster is aware of the effect... why wouldn't it act with that knowledge taken into consideration?

There is no rationale for my comment outside of my personal preferences, which is why I prefaced it with (imho).

Why wouldn't it react with that knowledge taken into consideration? Because other factors are overiding that consideration. Such as pain, rage, fear, hunger, hubris, hope that help is one the way, a tendency to try and defy the odds, its own stupidity or an absence of any other logical options. Depending on the monster one could posit any number of reasons.

 

[TwoSix]

That said... if the creature is aware of an effect, why is it bad DM'ing to act on this information (outside of your own particular preferences)... the game has stated in no uncertain terms the monster is aware of the effect... why wouldn't it act with that knowledge taken into consideration?

It's not bad DMing...it's simply tactically minded DMing over fictional creation DMing. Of course, if you can come up with a good narration for how the ooze acts ooze-like while still making consideration of the riposte, more power to you!

 

[Imaro]

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?

I think it can definitely be a factor that leads to a loss of immersion, especially when an unnecessary rule like this is canon (see my previous posts for how I think it should have been worded and implemented, which oddly enough seems to be the default way most are choosing to play it.).

I mean ultimately there is no behavior pattern for an ooze only tidbits of broad lore and so a DM will have to decide how an ooze, troll, cougar, etc. behaves in his world knowing this information. What 4e does is add a meta game element to that consideration of behavior where even if it seems totally ridiculous fiction wise... the creature will understand and know perfectly the effect of the maneuver that the Rogue just made.

 

[Imaro]

There is no rationale for my comment outside of my personal preferences, which is why I prefaced it with (imho).

Why wouldn't it react with that knowledge taken into consideration? Because other factors are overiding that consideration. Such as pain, rage, fear, hunger, hubris, hope that help is one the way, a tendency to try and defy the odds, its own stupidity or an absence of any other logical options. Depending on the monster one could posit any number of reasons.

In other words the DM must disregard a particular conceit of 4e (the awareness the creature has of the effect of any power used on it) in order to avoid an immersion breaking siutuation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Me too.

It sometimes seems that, no matter how many times you agree that you like Idea X, but are critical of its execution, or that you like part of the new direction WotC is taking, some folks will assume that any rational discussion of the effects of particular rules makes you a "hater". Whatever that means.

The Mearls blogs have piqued my curiosity about whatever comes next. I am looking forward to seeing how the designers apply the lessons of 4e -- both what worked as they had hoped, and what did not -- to a faster playing, more simulationist game.

I am also following with interest the RC/4e blending thread here on EN World.


RC

 

[TwoSix]

I think it can definitely be a factor that leads to a loss of immersion, especially when an unnecessary rule like this is canon (see my previous posts for how I think it should have been worded and implemented, which oddly enough seems to be the default way most are choosing to play it.).

So your point is the rule should have been worded to make clear that people should play the way people anyway? Isn't that a trifle nitpicky?

 

[Imaro]

So your point is the rule should have been worded to make clear that people should play the way people anyway? Isn't that a trifle nitpicky?

In answer to this... First, I wouldn't presume that because some (presumably experienced) people on an internet thread say they decided to disregard the rules in order to perserve immersion... that everyone who plays D&D does this. Otherwise why are there numerous threads with 4e players arguing fiction vs. game rules when it comes to such things as powers or other rules?

Second... this was just another example among others of how, for me, 4e sacrifices immersion (if you play by the rules) for gamist conceits.

In other words no, I don't think it is nitpicky, especially for the, arguably, primary gateway rpg for new players to be clear about it's playstyle and expectations. YMMV of course.

 

[hutchback]

In other words the DM must disregard a particular conceit of 4e (the awareness the creature has of the effect of any power used on it) in order to avoid an immersion breaking siutuation.

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.