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

[Locutus Zero]

Ok, but same as I asked Herschel... how does the dog make the leap in logic that this stance is that one where if I attack he'll get a chance to strike me quicker than if I don't?

Honestly, I don't know how I would recognize that, so I kind of assume it's just something I'm not getting about that real-world tactic.

MrMyth has a good point though. He knows what you have done to him and what conditions you've imposed, but the book doesn't say he knows you'll attack him if he attacks you.

 

[Kannik]

One could argue that the ad hominem attacks are largely toward those that find RPing in 4e hard. It's clearly our fault. We're doing it wrong or haven't given it a real shot. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm not a great RPer. I'm good in good RPing groups, but I can't pull a group along with me.

Unfortunately, ad hominem attacks are not in the employ of just one side or the other. They abound. 'You’re doing it wrong' is just as much of an (and a more blatant) ad hominem attack (and unhelpful to boot).

So those of us that really like 4e (and I do) but find it hard to get a good RPing session in are somehow not giving it a fair shot? I think that just because others have different experiences than you doesn't mean that we aren't doing our best with it.

No, I am not saying that at all. If I sounded dismissive, or that I have contempt for those who dislike 4e, then that was not my intent. What I’m trying to express is a) it’s something we all do (it’s a human being thing (and some cool neuroscience discoveries recently showing how it works at a brain-scan level)) and b) for some who try/tried 4e their confirmation bias led their initial game to be an unpleasant experience.

Mainly I put that out there to respond to the OP’s experience with the player who had a player express the ‘you can’t RP in 4e’ sentiment before they even began playing the game. I don’t know if that player ever tried 4e before – maybe they had and their experience was that RP was hindered – but if they hadn’t and went in with that notion without managing it then it is more likely that they would not have RPed and would end the session with that sentiment.

People can give 4e a fair shot and come away disliking it. People can give 4e a try unsure if they’ll like it, or even with misgivings, and realize they simply have uncertainty, and come away having given 4e a fair shot and liking it (or disliking it, as the case may be). In my own gaming group, when I ran my 4e test games, I had players who came who ranged a spectrum from ambivalent to wary to curious, and one player whom I didn’t expect to show up given his ranting about how 4e was an anathema to everything D&D. By the end, some of the curious players were not keen on 4e, some were, while some of the wary players ended up liking 4e. The one who thought 4e was an abomination played in a fashion that confirmed everything he said was horrible, and left with his opinion intact.

Returning to where we are in this thread, I am totally down for someone (as you are generously doing here) saying something akin to “our campaign seems to have less RP in 4e than it did in previous editions” and open for musings why and/or ideas to take back to the gaming table, or looking for what hindrances may have cropped up that when smoothed over the RP floods back naturally. I have had a different experience than some others with 4e as it has enhanced RP greatly compared to 3e; that we have had different experiences is fascinating to me, I have no judgment about the other group/person (or myself, for that matter), and love to explore it. Heck, everyone’s campaign likely has room for improvement in certain areas, so sharing our experiences and thoughts is a great way to grow.

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.

Indeed, 4e is not set up to be as gritty (as most would use the term, I would surmise) with regard to damage without some modifications (of which I wrote up some). Whether that’s a 'problem' or not depends on the style of campaign… and clearly if you want to run a game with that grittiness then it is something that'll need to be addressed.

Amusingly, I am running a 1e module in 4e right now (H3 to be exact). It’s epic level in scope, so it fits well within 4e’s epic reaches....

Again, I really like 4e. I found 3e to be overly complex past about 7th level. I found 2e to be largely okay and I found 1e to be fun but not a consistent experience (the rules were just too vague). I just think that 4e has it's own problems (as does every game) and we should try to identify what those problems are (though people will of course have different issues) and see if we can't find some good workarounds.

Bingo. I’m fully in step with you. There are niggles we can take with every game (including plenty of bits of 4e that I’m not fully keen on), and we call can create and show off our modifications, thoughts, solutions, etc. And all have fun doing so!

I've read quite a bit of fair and reasoned criticism, where people have expressed what they don’t like.

I've also read quite a few responses where a person assumes that, if you criticize aspect X of Z, it means that you dislike all of Z, and all who play Z. That simply doesn't make sense.

No disagreement from me here at all. Just as I would hope that by me saying there are those who may (mostly inadvertently, as these things work) not have given 4e an honest go one wouldn’t suppose that I was saying EVERYONE who dislikes 4e didn’t give it a fair go. Or that I like 4e means I disliked 3e, or the fact that I generally like 4e means that I have no suggestions or thoughts on what to add or improve (if I didn’t I wouldn’t be selling product on RPGnow ), or anything of the such....

If Mr Mearls wants to contact me to help make 5e, I've got ideas for him... maybe we would end up working together RC in doing so (and others!).

peace,

Kannik

 

[Imaro]

Honestly, I don't know how I would recognize that, so I kind of assume it's just something I'm not getting about that real-world tactic.

MrMyth has a good point though. He knows what you have done to him and what conditions you've imposed, but the book doesn't say he knows you'll attack him if he attacks you.

The creature knows all effects of a power used on it... since the effect takes place on a hit as soon as you hit the creature with the first attack for Riposte Strike it knows the effects of the power whether they are conditions put on him or not.

Honestly, I am tired of this tangent and I really thought this would be something I would mention as immersion breaking for me and leave it at that, I didn't expect page after page of arguments against it by 4e proponents... perhaps a few posts explainign why it did or didn't break immersion for them but that was really all I expected.

 

[Dannager]

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...

Well, yes, I would argue that your fixation on the concept of immersion is causing you problems. The game of D&D is not designed nor intended to be a perfectly immersive game. It is designed and intended to provide a certain level of immersion, but beyond that it acknowledges that it's still a game first and foremost.

To use an example by way of hyperbole, it's like complaining that your enjoyment of Monopoly is being harmed because you can't get over how they manage to fit three hotels onto a parcel of land three houses used to occupy.

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.

That's a shame, someone brought a fantastic Boston cream pie that night.

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...

You wouldn't be far off. I make the immersion in my game, because that's what DMs are for. I don't expect the rules to do it for me. So no, I don't really care what my system of choice does for me in terms of immersion, because that's not what it's there for. The system is there to make the game fun and manageable to run.

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...

I don't think I assumed what you think I assumed. In fact, I think that you assumed that I assumed something. Oh ho!

Back to the subject (instead of judgements on people),

Imagined assumptions of playstyle are now equivalent to moral judgment. I must have missed that meeting.

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.

I did, before I posted anything in response to you. In fact, I've been following (and posting in) this thread since page one.

Stop assuming that I haven't read it, you dirty assumer, you!

If you did this you would see that even in your examples above (which have been presented by other posters before you)

No one had mentioned Instant Friends before I did. And when people made arguments similar to mine, you did not respond to them.

you're still leaving out large swaths of opponents that just don't make sense that they know the effects they are under...

By all means, give us examples and we'll either concede that your example is a good one or we'll explain to you how it isn't a good one.

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.

Right, and I acknowledged that. I'm suggesting that you might be approaching this from an angle that makes the problem appear much larger than it actually is (due to a flawed understand of the idea that a target is aware of the effects of a power it is subject to, for instance), or that you might consider turning up your Suspension-of-Disbelief-o'-Meter.

 

[Locutus Zero]

The creature knows all effects of a power used on it... since the effect takes place on a hit as soon as you hit the creature with the first attack for Riposte Strike it knows the effects of the power whether they are conditions put on him or not.

Honestly, I am tired of this tangent and I really thought this would be something I would mention as immersion breaking for me and leave it at that, I didn't expect page after page of arguments against it by 4e proponents... perhaps a few posts explainign why it did or didn't break immersion for them but that was really all I expected.

I don't have anything to do with the rest of what you guys are arguing about, I'm just talking about how I view creature knowledge of powers. I propose that your belief that creatures shouldn't know what the rules say they should is incorrect.

For instance, you seem to misunderstand the rules about what a creature knows. The rules say "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed.". It knows you hit it, it knows you cast a spell, it knows you marked it, it knows you slowed it, it doesn't know what you will do in response to its actions. I understood the distinction, but failed to see how it applied to Riposte Strike until someone pointed it out.

 

[Herschel]

Right, I get that... but how does it know that if it attacks the pointy thing will hurt it again quicker than if it doesn't attack?

Go back and read my description of riposte strike. The sharp pointy thing is right there, not drawn back.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

And the more the model jars with what is being modelled, the more immersion will be damaged. One might almost define immersion as "willingly confusing (in the sense of making indistinct the lines between) the model for the thing".

...

So, AFAICT Imaro is not only right, but he is obviously so. As Crazy Jerome has pointed out, though, this is nothing unusual -- you could make a version of the same point accurately about any rpg. So, why is it important to deny the accuracy here?

Tying this back to immersion is a good catch!

Part of the reason we are having the argument is semantics, again. And maybe that seems dismissive, but I don't mean it that way. I'm actually really appreciating the combination of real disagreement, with forceful points made, and an apparent willingness from everyone to get to the nuggets underneath, instead of "winning". It's rare online.

So the denial is because there are at least two different ways to semantically handle what Imaro expressed. One of them is obviously correct. It's the other one we are really arguing about. We can't argue about it profitably without some common basis. It took some back and forth for me to even understand the way Imaro meant it, because in mind the second way was assumed.

I'm willing to concede that models that diverge will often have jarring effects. I'm not so sure that the jars happen on a smooth curve, however. Isn't that what the "uncanny valley" effect basically repudiates?

A real dollar bill isn't jarring. We are used to it, and it is the "real" thing. As long as we are talking about a particular model, where currency is exchanged for goods. Tangle the image up to much in, say, an electronic commerce discussion, or even banking discussion, and it can be jarring. It "models" ownership of $1.00. Monopoly money also isn't jarring. It's clearly fake, both a rough simulation of the real currency and also a scorekeeping device. Take monopoly money out of your wallet, and it is jarring. Replace your monolopy money with real currency while playing, and it is also jarring. And this isn't even a particularly telling example. The correspondences are close enough that we can navigate the jars fairly easy. (Full Disclosure: My grandmother taught me how to make change at age 4, using monopoly money. I don't think I was unduly damaged by this. ) It should be noted that Monopoly money was deliberately made discordant for game play purposes (not merely counterfeit concerns).

I'm not sure how much of immersion can be objectively discussed as human reaction to models, on average. Obviously some, or we wouldn't be able to talk about the uncanny value. But some of it is clearly subjective and highly personal. Ridiculously large swords and giant eyes break immersion for me, to the point that I would find it impossible to immerse in an RPG session built around certain popular fiction. Overt appeal to Joseph Campbell's views on mythology in an RPG session takes me clean out of any possible immersion. Whereas, something like "Armor as AC" doesn't bother me one whit. It just doesn't.

 

[Imaro]

Go back and read my description of riposte strike. The sharp pointy thing is right there, not drawn back.

Let me try this another way... I'm assuming, when fighting, the rogue is always in a fighting stance of some sort or another... what differentiates this attack stance (to a dog) from others that all drive the sharp pointy thing into the dog so that it knows without a doubt that it will be attacked again if it attacks... has it studied rogue fighting stances so that it can differentiate them?

 

[Dannager]

The creature knows all effects of a power used on it... since the effect takes place on a hit as soon as you hit the creature with the first attack for Riposte Strike it knows the effects of the power whether they are conditions put on him or not.

The Rules Compendium has the following to state on target awareness:

"A conscious creature affected by a power knows what a power has done to it, regardless of type."

That's all. They only know what the power has done to them. They don't know what the power provides to the attacker in terms of benefits. They don't know what the power has invisibly done to the area around them. They don't know that the Swordmage can Transposing Lunge him now that he's marked. They only know what has happened to them.

And everything that MrMyth said about this still applies.

 

[Imaro]

I don't have anything to do with the rest of what you guys are arguing about, I'm just talking about how I view creature knowledge of powers. I propose that your belief that creatures shouldn't know what the rules say they should is incorrect.

For instance, you seem to misunderstand the rules about what a creature knows. The rules say "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed.". It knows you hit it, it knows you cast a spell, it knows you marked it, it knows you slowed it, it doesn't know what you will do in response to its actions. I understood the distinction, but failed to see how it applied to Riposte Strike until someone pointed it out.

I am not at home with my books right now but I believe you are wrong, when I get a chance I will word for word quote what is in the PHB 1 about powers, effects and what the creature who is affected by a power knows.