Why I'm done with 4e

[Garthanos]

The rule that minions take no damage on a miss is also (IMO) a Gamist consideration.

I and probably a couple others have house ruled that to allow minions to be bloodied (at least sometimes) when damaged but not targeted ... but that is neither here nor there just me adjusting the system so its parts all work a little more consistantly. Which shores up their simulation value for me. Yeah everyday joes get demoralized and frazzled or feel like there luck has run out too.

Game features can definitely serve more than one master ...err role.

 

[JohnSnow]

[Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​

Are rules intended to model cinematic reality (that is, the way reality unfolds in most heroic narratives) narrativist or simulationist?

I think that's a largely semantic debate. The minion rules exist so that you can duplicate the climactic fight scenes in heroic action adventure movies within the framework where there is still both:

a) a real risk of failure, and:
b) a real chance for victory.

Similarly, per-encounter and per-day powers are intended to model the "occasional" use of those powers (cinematic/narrativist desire) without bogging down in excessive bookkeeping (a gamist ideal). Moreover, the rules are there to "simulate" the reality of a particular kind of world, so they are also, in that sense, simulationist.

Perhaps this distinction is, after all, antiquated.

 

[BryonD]

Are rules intended to model cinematic reality (that is, the way reality unfolds in most heroic narratives) narrativist or simulationist?

I think that's a largely semantic debate. The minion rules exist so that you can duplicate the climactic fight scenes in heroic action adventure movies within the framework where there is still both:

a) a real risk of failure, and:
b) a real chance for victory.

Similarly, per-encounter and per-day powers are intended to model the "occasional" use of those powers (cinematic/narrativist desire) without bogging down in excessive bookkeeping (a gamist ideal). Moreover, the rules are there to "simulate" the reality of a particular kind of world, so they are also, in that sense, simulationist.

Perhaps this distinction is, after all, antiquated.

I agree. In the end the terms are so thrown around they lose their meaning, if they ever had one in the first place. That doesn't mean you will never catch me using some of them again. Sometimes a weak word is still the best word there is.

But inability to perfectly define distinctions does not mean the distinctions do not exist.

I don't like 1-1-1 diagonals.
Chip off that tiny piece of the tip of the iceberg and all that happens is the iceberg floats a tiny bit higher, exposing that much more tip. You never get rid of the tip as long as there is an iceberg.

 

[keterys]

I love 1-1-1 diagonals. Then again, I loved them in 3e before they changed the game to make them 1-2-1 too Less so since cones were a bit crazy back then, but eh.

At this point, I'm not sure there's hardly any gameplay concession I will make in the name of realism, though. I'm just crazy like that.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I love 1-1-1 diagonals. Then again, I loved them in 3e before they changed the game to make them 1-2-1 too

Huh?

 

[Ourph]

Are rules intended to model cinematic reality (that is, the way reality unfolds in most heroic narratives) narrativist or simulationist?

Simulationist (but that doesn't mean they can't be used toward Narrativist ends if that's what the group wants to do with them).

 

[keterys]

Huh?

During the early months of 3e they had some stumbling about, where diagonals weren't defined as extra distance. Then in Dragon Skip was all confused and went 'No, wait, it's 1.5 per diagonal!'... so then polearms briefly lost the ability to hit 2 squares out on diagonals... or 1 square out, for that matter... because the rules simply didn't know what to do with diagonals being more than 1.

Cones, as I recall, were misshapen crazy constructs where you added a square of width for each square of length you did, creating cones that were longer on the diagonal than wide or just looked more than a little crazy.

 

[BryonD]

At this point, I'm not sure there's hardly any gameplay concession I will make in the name of realism, though. I'm just crazy like that.

No one should ever ask you to make any game play concession you don't want to, in the name of anything. (Obviously you need to get along with you group, but that is a different conversation)

 

[BryonD]

During the early months of 3e they had some stumbling about, where diagonals weren't defined as extra distance.

There may have been some confusion regarding grids. I have no idea.
My 3E PH says "1 inch on the tabletop equates to 5 feet". It makes no reference to grids so there is no "diagonal" to discuss. 1 inch equals 5 feet in all 360 degrees.

If there was some brief confusion about how to best apply the rule to a square grid, that would not change that a mini on the board should not go farther just because he is moving 45 degrees off. Two identical characters start moving on a gridless board in any two directions. They both move 30 feet. At the end of their move they both move 6 inches by 3.0 raw. If you then go back and overlay a 1 inch grid on them, such that at least one of them turned out to have moved diagonally, you will find that mini moved across the diagonals of four 1 inch squares.

What there absolutely was NOT in 3.0 was anything to suggest that one of these characters would move further along the table than another.

 

[keterys]

Yes, this was only something that mattered for play on a grid. Which is, of course, something that should be defined for a game intended to be played on a grid

I'm not sure where my 3.0 PH is anymore, but the DMG p67 (rules for using miniatures and grids) notes that 1-inch squares are 5 feet and listed reaches in squares (1, 2, 3, etc).

Area effects conformed (roughly, with some cones being a bit odd) to the inch layout, but creature reaches did not. Which is why in grid play there was a period of time in which polearms' reach went from

xxxxx
x...x
x.@.x
x...x
xxxxx

to
.xxx.
x...x
x.@.x
x...x
.xxx.

Which was kinda amusing at the time (with monsters and PCs casually ignoring reach weapons by coming in on diagonals and such). It mattered a bit more for those of us who played and DMed Living Greyhawk where rules were expected to be followed and an equal play experience given to all. (whee...)