Forum

[pukunui]

Originally Posted by pemerton

The game rules limit what the player can do while playing the game. But they also let the player decide (in accordance with those rules) what the gameworld is like (eg that all one's PC's opponents simultaneously come towards him/her). The rules increase the player's control over the state of the gameworld.

OK. I get what you're saying here and I don't have an issue with that aspect of narrative control. Giving PCs the power to push, pull, slide, set on fire, etc their opponents is not what I'm complaining about. What I'm complaining about is the artificiality of saying that I can only do those things once an encounter or once a day. That and the fact that I have to keep coming up with justifications as to why I can only do those things so infrequently.

"OK, I use x fighter encounter power. I can't use that one again because now the enemies have all seen what I've done and their guard is up so it won't work again ... but wait! Here comes a new enemy! He didn't see me use that power! But for some reason I can't try to use it again on him either! Damn! I must be too tired to be able to try it again or else my luck just isn't with me and this enemy is just too smart - never mind that it's an owlbear - for me to be able to pull it off again. However ... if I run away and hide and do nothing for 5 minutes then not only will I feel strong enough to try my cool cinematic encounter power again but it might even work on those same enemies that I used it on before because they'll have forgotten what I did only 5 minutes ago! Woohoo!"
(Yes, this assumes a lot but hopefully you get my point ...)

Whereas in a system like RQ, AD&D or 3E a martial PC can attempt an action as often as desired, but the player of the PC has no capacity to determine that the circumstances in the gameworld are such that the action succeeds.

I disagree. There should always be a DC, whether it's one that's been predetermined by the rules or one determined by the DM on the fly, and the player (if I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone use "PC" when they mean "player", I'd be filthy stinking rich) should be able to know if they've succeeded or failed once they've rolled the dice.

Pukuni, I hope I'm right in remembering that you've followed a lot of LostSoul's threads on how to use page 42 to handle this sort of thing. I'm going to start GMing 4e fairly soon, and will certainly be relying on a lot of LostSoul's ideas for guidance and inspiration.

Yes, I have been ... but I've also given up on DMing 4e. If/when I DM again, it'll be with a different game system - most likely a modified version of the SWSE system.

Originally Posted by lutecius

Even if you call it control, it's still less control than at will attacks in other editions. But I get the narrative shift... and I hate it. It breaks my sense of immersion. When the game begins, I like elements external to the PCs to be under the DM's control or left to chance.

Anyway, I am pretty sure this so called narrative control is more a consequence or justification of purely gamist considerations (balance, preventing players from abusing possibly broken powers), than intentional design.

I think we've discussed this before but I find this "specific muscle strain" explanation terribly contrived.

This.

Originally Posted by Storminator

You should use my method.

I never try to explain (or even comprehend...) why my character isn't doing things he isn't doing. Every time my turn comes up, there is something I can do -- focus on that. I never narrate a reason I can't use Covering Attack again this fight; I just Tide of Iron and yell "get behind me!"

It's the player version of "Always say yes."

PS

I think that's what I'm going to have to do too but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Originally Posted by justanobody

Yeah, there sure is. You can replace a bad DM for free, but replacing bad game design costs everyone money.

So when the rules of the game straightjacket you into something there is a bigger problem than when the DM does it.

If the powers system was more open to choice and the DM limited you to only one at-will, replace the DM.

If the system is hellbent on balance and adding an extra at-will or converting one encounter power to an at-will breaks the cohesion of the mechanics, then there is even more work that needs to be done.

This too.

Again this coincides with problems I have had with feats all along as well as the powers in the "requirements" for some of the crap. You must use a hammer for this power/feat.

*snip*

Where is my option/rules for that rather being railroaded into needing a hammer/axe for Crushing Blow?

I don't have a problem with tying specific feats/powers to specific weapons or damage types or whatever. However, it does limit your choice, in some cases quite severely depending on the class build you've chosen.