General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
OK, that works for you, but um...what about me? To me it feels magic. That will not be changed by anything anyone says.
That's fair. But correct me if I'm wrong, but words to the effect of "the only way you can imagine this..." have been written in your posts in the past, regarding martial exploits and hit points/healing.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
That's fair. But correct me if I'm wrong, but words to the effect of "the only way you can imagine this..." have been written in your posts in the past, regarding martial exploits and hit points/healing.
Did I say that anywhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypersmurf
You're assuming the fighter is the cause of the discrepancy. Why not assume that the decision the fighter makes is whether or not to hit someone on the head, and the decision the player makes is whether or not the target might be stunned? That way, we can narrate anything as the cause of the discrepancy. The hammer glanced, or the hammer hit square. The target had his teeth clenched and wasn't disoriented, or the target's jaw snapped shut and he's rattled. The blow was caught short, or the blow struck at optimum distance.
The fighter isn't saying "I'll use my Stunning Hammer Blow", the fighter is saying "I'll hit him on the head". The player is saying "I'll spend my daily use of Stunning Hammer Blow to mean that this hit will stun the target".
All the fighter knows is that sometimes, if you're lucky, smacking someone on the head with a hammer will stun them.
From his point of view, it's no different to a feat that says "On a successful hit, roll 1d6; on a 6, the target is stunned". Sometimes, if the player rolls a 6, the target is stunned; sometimes, if the player doesn't roll a 6, the target isn't stunned. The fighter doesn't get to decide whether or not the target is stunned; sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.
In 4E, sometimes the player decides to use a power that stuns - like rolling a 6. Sometimes, the player doesn't decide to use a power that stuns - like not rolling a 6. From the fighter's perspective, it's exactly the same - sometimes, people get stunned, and sometimes, they don't.
-Hyp.
The fighter is a fictional entity and persona created by the player. Therefore if the player [me for for the sake of 5th Element] doesn't see it that way, then the veil is shattered.
Its just the way the powers system works. I either see X-men or everyone is a spellcaster.
X-men don't belong in my D&D games. We should break out the old Marvel RPG for that.
That's why I asked you to correct me if wrong. I seem to recall you saying it, though I may be wrong. Not sure if I have the energy to go looking.
I am not able to use the search function and don't know if I could find all of my own posts. It would take a few days for google to sync up before I could search my posts here.
I guess it is a race to check my posts then over this week.
The fighter is a fictional entity and persona created by the player. Therefore if the player [me for for the sake of 5th Element] doesn't see it that way, then the veil is shattered.
Do your characters never have an opinion on anything that differs from yours?
Now to be fair, JustaNobody's playstyle isn't invalid. I believe the term that gets tossed about is "Avatar" play where your character is an extention of yourself into the game world. There's nothing wrong with this.
However, the realization has to be made that this is hardly the ONLY playstyle out there as well.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Now to be fair, JustaNobody's playstyle isn't invalid. I believe the term that gets tossed about is "Avatar" play where your character is an extention of yourself into the game world. There's nothing wrong with this.
To add to this: it is obvious - and has been since before the books were released - that 4e is not a game that is designed for players who want to maximise the transparency of game and metagame.
Now I personally find it hard to imagine that those players were really satisfied with 3E either, but maybe it was just close enough to the line that they could tolerate it.
By "transparency", I'm meaning a system in which the action resolution mechanics (and perhaps also the character build mechanics) are the "physics" of the gameworld - so if you know what's happening in the gameworld you know how to mechanically interpret it, and vice versa. Runequest fits this description, as does Classic Traveller. Rolemaster does at the action resolution stage but not the character build stage. Any more "modern" or "indie" RPG probably does not (eg HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth) - in these games the mechanics are often distributing narrative control among players and GM rather than simply modelling the gameworld. 4e is more like this second sort of game than any previous version of D&D.
But D&D has always been a bit of a mix between transparency and non-transparency (eg very few people take the hit point rules as a completely literal model with no need for ad hoc narrative glossing) - hence the second part of my post above.
By "transparency", I'm meaning a system in which the action resolution mechanics (and perhaps also the character build mechanics) are the "physics" of the gameworld - so if you know what's happening in the gameworld you know how to mechanically interpret it, and vice versa. Runequest fits this description, as does Classic Traveller. Rolemaster does at the action resolution stage but not the character build stage. Any more "modern" or "indie" RPG probably does not (eg HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth) - in these games the mechanics are often distributing narrative control among players and GM rather than simply modelling the gameworld. 4e is more like this second sort of game than any previous version of D&D.
But D&D has always been a bit of a mix between transparency and non-transparency (eg very few people take the hit point rules as a completely literal model with no need for ad hoc narrative glossing) - hence the second part of my post above.
Oh. Thanks for clarifying!
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
Hell, I am still confused at what it being said....All those other game references take everything out of context when you are talking about D&D only and don't play every game on the market.
All those other game references take everything out of context when you are talking about D&D only and don't play every game on the market.
The reason I refer to those other games - and some of them, like RuneQuest and Traveller have been around for 30 or so years, nearly as long as D&D - is that it is (in my view) very hard to understand the design motivations behind 4e without recognising that it is highly influenced by what has been going on in game design more generally over the past 10 or so years.
The reason I refer to those other games - and some of them, like RuneQuest and Traveller have been around for 30 or so years, nearly as long as D&D - is that it is (in my view) very hard to understand the design motivations behind 4e without recognizing that it is highly influenced by what has been going on in game design more generally over the past 10 or so years.
Still not helping me figure out what I am being accused of doing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pemerton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Now to be fair, JustaNobody's playstyle isn't invalid. I believe the term that gets tossed about is "Avatar" play where your character is an extention of yourself into the game world. There's nothing wrong with this.
To add to this: it is obvious - and has been since before the books were released - that 4e is not a game that is designed for players who want to maximise the transparency of game and metagame.
Now I personally find it hard to imagine that those players were really satisfied with 3E either, but maybe it was just close enough to the line that they could tolerate it.
The reason I refer to those other games - and some of them, like RuneQuest and Traveller have been around for 30 or so years, nearly as long as D&D - is that it is (in my view) very hard to understand the design motivations behind 4e without recognising that it is highly influenced by what has been going on in game design more generally over the past 10 or so years.
I agree.
Game Design doesn't happen in a vacuum, and it didn't only exist in D&D.
Most game designers (especially those currently at WotC) have a lot of game experience and have seen, played and possibly even developed more then just D&D. And this is influencing them, and that is a good thing.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
