Philosophers beware…I’m butchering your concepts mentioned in the title.
I’ve decided, after a few more sessions of 4e, that the game emphasizes an a posteriori gestalt while 3.5 emphasized the a priori part. So what the hell does that mean? In 3.5, everyone pretty much knew ahead of time what it meant each time some action occurred in the game. For example, if your character was struck by a sword or hit by some spell, it was pretty much a constant in terms of what that meant. A blow that did six points of damage pretty much meant the same thing each time it happened. A spell’s effect was pretty much consistent as well (barring resistances, saves, and the like). The part, in terms of understanding what happened, was largely independent of the broader encounter. You could easily narrate (role-play?) each of these individual elements because your knowledge of the event is independent of the context of the larger encounter
In 4e, my impression is that this has largely been flipped. A sword blow that does six points of damage cannot be understood except in the context of the larger encounter. The explicit abstraction of hit points, introduction of healing surges and other game elements mean that sword blow will not mean the same thing from one encounter to another. It becomes more difficult to easily narrate each part because each is dependent on the larger context and subsequent actions. For example, that sword attack that did six points of damage might have actually hit and caused damage or maybe it didn’t…it kind of depends on what else happens in the encounter (e.g., a Second Wind that “heals” the damage suggests that it didn’t do actual physical damage, a character that goes down and receives a Cure Light Wounds to “heal” the damage suggests that it might have been actual physical damage). Similarly, ongoing effects cannot be “accurately” narrated until the experience has reached its conclusion. For example, when a character is struck by a Blazing Skeleton, they start taking ongoing fire damage. The initial strike does not give any indication of how bad the character is “damaged” by the attack. A character that makes their first saving throw is not nearly as impacted (i.e., fewer flames covering them?) than a character who fails their save round after round after round (i.e., lots of flames covering them or perhaps more intense flames?).
The narration of what happened has become dependent on the broader experience of the encounter. It isn’t until the encounter is finished that you can really determine the narration of what happened.
Is this a good thing? I suppose, as with most things related to 4e, that depends on your own personal preferences. If you prefer the micro-level approach of 3.5 where you can relatively easily narrate each individual action, you could very well find the more macro-level approach of 4e to be problematic and make it seem like 4e (at least in combat) is not conducive to role-playing. On the other hand, if you buy into the macro-level approach of 4e or didn’t typically micro-narrate in 3.5, you’re likely to be a bit confused by the claims that 4e has killed role-playing because you’ve focused your role-playing sights at a different spot.
Not sure if this has made much sense but, my impression at this point, is that 4e shifts the focus of role-playing from an a priori, micro-level to an a posteriori macro-level…is that enough pseudo-jargon for you?
