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

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

I think you guys are using different definitions of narrative. There might be more than 2 definitions in place, with those of us kibitzing from the sidelines.

I have a difficult time grasping a scope of "narrative" that makes the quoted sentence intelligible.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I do think that the DM needs to be:

Agree with both points.

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.

Very, very much agreed.


RC

 

[Imaro]

I think you guys are using different definitions of narrative. There might be more than 2 definitions in place, with those of us kibitzing from the sidelines.

I have a difficult time grasping a scope of "narrative" that makes the quoted sentence intelligible.

Here is a definition of "narrative" from wikipedia...

A narrative is a story that is created in a constructive format that describes a sequence of fictional or non-fictional events.

Using this definition, I am saying when playing 4e by RAW... there will never be a story created by players and DM where a wizard (PC or NPC) is able to use his powers on another creature without that creature knowing it has been hypnotized, charmed, etc. even if there is no logical reason for it to know and whether it has the intelligence to even recognize magic or what has been done to it on a conceptual level. I hope that makes it clearer... though I'm not sure if it does.

 

[hutchback]

Here is a definition of "narrative" from wikipedia...

A narrative is a story that is created in a constructive format that describes a sequence of fictional or non-fictional events.

Using this definition, I am saying when playing 4e by RAW... there will never be a story created by players and DM where a wizard (PC or NPC) is able to use his powers on another creature without that creature knowing it has been hypnotized, charmed, etc. I hope that makes it clearer... though I'm not sure.

I am willing to concede on this scenario. You are correct according to 4e RAW what you just described cannot happen.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I'm starting to think this as well... it seems to be that the prevailing logic is that as long as I, as DM, can ignore the fact that the creature has this knowledge when determining it's actions... then there's no reason to call this knowledge being granted to each and every creature each and every time a power is used on them a problem.

I in turn am arguing that... the fact that one has to ignore knowledge the rules have been designed to provide, in-game, to creatures in order to keep imersion going is a problem... not an unsolvable problem but still a problem for some/many people.

 

[Locutus Zero]

I just take it as most charm-type powers in the DnD universe(s) are such that a person knows they are being charmed (or that they were just charmed). Some powers specifically say the target does not know, which sounds to me like a specific bonus only granted to a few powers. So that isn't immersion-breaking to me, it's the way those powers work, in-game.

If you want an NPC wizard to do a charm or hypnotism-type power without the PCs knowing, simply have the power say the target doesn't know about it. If your PC wants to do something like that, take the appropriate power (the ones I've seen have all been utility).

 

[TwoSix]

Using this definition, I am saying when playing 4e by RAW... there will never be a story created by players and DM where a wizard (PC or NPC) is able to use his powers on another creature without that creature knowing it has been hypnotized, charmed, etc. even if there is no logical reason for it to know and whether it has the intelligence to even recognize magic or what has been done to it on a conceptual level. I hope that makes it clearer... though I'm not sure if it does.

That's silly. All the power has to do is say "the target of the power is not aware of the spell's effect". Heck, bake it into the description of the charm keyword if you need to. Exception trumps general rule (per RAW).

Also, what should be the general method of rule interpretation comes into play here. You say narrative concerns can't mitigate knowledge of effects (as per RAW). I'm saying the RAW doesn't force that knowledge on the fiction, but merely on the DM. My general method is "If there are two ways of interpreting a rule, and one doesn't work, use the other one."

And if your concern is the newbs....well, don't worry, they'll figure it out.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Here is a definition of "narrative" from wikipedia...

A narrative is a story that is created in a constructive format that describes a sequence of fictional or non-fictional events.

Using this definition, I am saying when playing 4e by RAW... there will never be a story created by players and DM where a wizard (PC or NPC) is able to use his powers on another creature without that creature knowing it has been hypnotized, charmed, etc. even if there is no logical reason for it to know and whether it has the intelligence to even recognize magic or what has been done to it on a conceptual level. I hope that makes it clearer... though I'm not sure if it does.

Ok, then I understand "narrative" here to mean "all possible narratives". There is, of course, a limit on "all possible" as soon as you have any kinds of rules. In Basic Redbox, I can't have a story where a wizard uses a sword, by RAW. In any version of D&D, I can't reproduce Harvey with much fidelity. Until 4E, I can't reproduce the feel of certain Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, by RAW.

You can't do those things, by RAW, because no one considered them important enough to trump other considerations. I've never cared that much about secret charming, but I did care about a wizard using a sword in 1981. (It doesn't have to make sense--it's a preference.)

But you realize that if you go back to 4E and change that rules on powers, that whatever you change it to will also have narrative limits under your definition. It can't help but. Enforcing gravity limits the narrative.

 

[Greg K]

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

And, over the years, the latter has described more than a few PCs played in my games.

 

[Imaro]

I just take it as most charm-type powers in the DnD universe(s) are such that a person knows they are being charmed (or that they were just charmed). Some powers specifically say the target does not know, which sounds to me like a specific bonus only granted to a few powers. So that isn't immersion-breaking to me, it's the way those powers work, in-game.

If you want an NPC wizard to do a charm or hypnotism-type power without the PCs knowing, simply have the power say the target doesn't know about it. If your PC wants to do something like that, take the appropriate power (the ones I've seen have all been utility).

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?