4e / GSL 101 roleplaying descriptions justifying martial dailies

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Alex319

Unless of course this "guess the fluff" dynamic is what you want.

Maybe.

If players knew what fluff triggered their powers*, I think that I want this fluff in this situation to matter. The reason why is so that no one (player or DM) will know exactly how a situation is going to play out until you engage with it. I think it opens up a space for a lot of imaginative input from everyone involved.

The game dynamic that I would like to see isn't about the players thinking, "How can I get the DM to use Lead the Attack to resolve my attack this round"; instead, it's more like "What does my character do here, given these tricks that he knows well and the current situation?"

* - This is a social level thing; for example, if you expected "slice off his armour" to be Lead the Attack, hopefully you'd ask why it didn't. Then I (as DM) would explain my reasons behind it ("Lead the Attack is not about imposing an AC penalty; you direct your allies to target an enemy and thus grant them a bonus, using your Int"), and we'd work something out. ("I picture my PC's personal version of Lead the Attack being about slicing off armour." "No problem. It might not work if the target doesn't have armour, and I don't know if it will grant bonuses to attacks that ignore armour anyways, like those vs. Will.")

I don't see this as a problem with mature players.

[Andor]

Originally Posted by cangrejoide

Now why is it so hard to come up with an explanation for fighter dailies when you can do what you just did so easily?

Because magic is arbitrary. We don't know how it works, so you can say anything without violating immersion. We are pretty well sure how punching people in the face works. If you claim to know a special pressure point that knocks people out, but it only works once per day, even if a volunteer is just standing there and letting you hit him, your claim sounds like garbage.

For that matter the title of this thread is 101 descriptions. If it's so easy why is it on page 6 and not up to 101? Why did you mock his lack of imagination, rather than demonstrating your own?

[Ariosto]

Such lists of "powers" can drive batty people who think it suffices to say that there's a car and one can do with it whatever one can do with a car. Or a sword, settee, stairway, slick of oil, sack of jacks, cards in packs, tasty snacks, baseball bat, cat in a hat ...

[Ariosto]

Mallus, O/B/AD&D combat is a relatively simple abstraction. In particular, players are not encouraged to consider themselves as possessing a pile of "entitlements" purchased with time-consuming builds and rules-reading. It's easy to get into more detail as desired. "No, Mike, you can't use Magic Missile to cut the rope. However, you can try to do it with a thrown dagger; call it AC 2 for size and range, and if you hit then we'll roll a save versus normal blow."

It's not a matter of messing with a complex and tightly integrated system; there's no need to ignore or contradict rules that are not present in the first place. In the old days (and indeed in most RPGs of my experience), "rules lawyering" was a vice; in D&D today, it is the way to play. Manipulating mechanics (formerly the referee's realm) is the actual process, rather than role-playing.

[blargney the second]

For what it's worth, here's how I fluff my minotaur fighter's Come & Get It:
1) He uses an ancient minotaur call to battle. His enemies' eyes alight with bloodlust and they charge into his whirling frenzy.
2) He's finally figured out how to master the art of throwing his magic weapon past his enemies such that it arcs out in a circle like a boomerang. They take a step towards him, thinking him defenseless, when the hammer comes back and pushes them towards him.

So far my group seems to enjoy it a lot.
-blarg

[Pbartender]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

It's easy to get into more detail as desired. "No, Mike, you can't use Magic Missile to cut the rope. However, you can try to do it with a thrown dagger; call it AC 2 for size and range, and if you hit then we'll roll a save versus normal blow."

It's not a matter of messing with a complex and tightly integrated system; there's no need to ignore or contradict rules that are not present in the first place.

There's no need to do that with 4E, either...

"No, Mike, you can't use Magic Missile to cut the rope. However, you can try to do it with a thrown dagger; call it AC 18 for size and range, and if you hit then we'll roll for damage... We'll say it takes 4 hit points to cut it."

[Ariosto]

Yes, I bet (without looking it up) that MM still defined the target as a "creature". I knew that the 4E DMG offers guidelines for object properties.

The point is what's different: the mass of martial powers, including the "dailies" that are the thread's subject, and the extensive combat rules with which they interact.

What was done in the dagger-throwing case is commonly done for all sorts of situations arising in old D&D. The notion that no consideration applies unless there's a specific rule for it is what led to 3E and 4E ... and the problem at hand, which is inherent in the solution to the formerly perceived problem of too few rules.

Powers and other elements are now effectively prescriptive; too much of the whole point of purchasing the rule books rests on that foundation. They could have been designed from a situation-modeling perspective, as most RPGs of similar complexity have been. Instead, the choice was for complex abstraction.

If it works for us, it works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. I would rather get on with playing with something that suits me than grapple with something that does not. I'm not going to go off with a line about how "You must love RuneQuest!" I'm not going to go through contortions to try to depict it as "just like 4E", or any such nonsense. Nor would I buy such tripe about Rolemaster or Barbarians of Lemuria.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Mallus, O/B/AD&D combat is a relatively simple abstraction.

Yes. I know. What I'm questioning how immersive that simple abstraction was. Why isn't that somewhat distant, dissociated combat narrative just as jarring as the sort required to fit certain 4e combat mechanics to the scene?

In particular, players are not encouraged to consider themselves as possessing a pile of "entitlements" purchased with time-consuming builds and rules-reading.

One could say players were not encouraged to think too much about what specific actions occurred during the combat round. A bunch of events took place, damage was done. Does that really put the situation first? And how is that different from saying "don't think too much about how Come and Get It" works?

And please no more use of the word 'entitlements'. It's ludicrous in this context. Should we refer to abilities scores as 'entitlements'? How about spells -- or are they 'arcane welfare'?

[Ariosto]

Why isn't that somewhat distant, dissociated combat narrative just as jarring as the sort required to fit certain 4e combat mechanics to the scene?

Because it's NOT required! It does not fit how the game has been played in my experience.

I can see how one might think of playing it that way, if one were nursed on the teat of Wizards or White Wolf designs -- but that was obviously not the case of anyone in the 1970s!

[Ariosto]

Should we refer to abilities scores as 'entitlements'? How about spells -- or are they 'arcane welfare'?

That depends upon the game design and how it is meant to be used. Entitlement (and its other face: prohibition for want of game-mechanical prerequisites) crept in with house rules concerning the thief class, and later with treatment of non-weapon proficiencies. That was not by design; it was an initiative by players of the temperament to which later games were designed to cater.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Because it's NOT required! It does not fit how the game has been played in my experience.

Then how do you describe what happens during a minute-long AD&D combat round? More importantly, how does it relate, or not relate, to the players stated actions? How much of the DM's descriptions amount to after-the-fact narration?

This seems like a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry to me.

I can see how one might think of playing it that way, if one were weaned on the teat of Wizards or White Wolf designs -- but that was obviously not the case of anyone in the 1970s!

I wouldn't know about gaming in the 1970s. I started playing AD&D/LLB Traveller/Champions in the 1980s. For the record, I've never played a White Wolf game.

I'm honestly curious about all this. Let's not descend into assumptions of partisanship, yes?

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

That depends upon the game design and how it is meant to be used.

One would imagine that character abilities are used to define some of what your character can do in the game-space. For example, fight with a sword or cast a spell.

Entitlement (and its other face: prohibition for want of game-mechanical prerequisites) crept in with house rules concerning the thief class, and later with treatment of non-weapon proficiencies.

So at some point defining your characters abilities becomes entitlements? Care to offer some rhyme or reason here?

[Andor]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Then how do you describe what happens during a minute-long AD&D combat round? More importantly, how does it relate, or not relate, to the players stated actions? How much of the DM's descriptions amount to after-the-fact narration?

The one-minute combat round was often debated. Usually we either ignored it or house ruled it to be shorter. Since D&D has never pretended to a blow-by-blow combat system it did not effect the abstraction one way or the other. D&D combat has always been described as "You circle and trade blows for a round seeking an opening. Roll to hit." First openings came up every minute. Then they came up every 10 seconds. Then every 6. At no point does it reflect the fractions of a second that resolve real combat, or the fact that in a real fight you might spend 20 seconds doing nothing much.

The key point is that "I attack" is abstract, but clear. You're not dictating the actions of others, you're not accomplishing the impossible, and you're not performing some merely physical action that mysteriously can only be done once per day.

Frankly I don't even see how you draw a parallel between the abstraction of earlier editions and the bizarreness of 4e.

[Andor]

Originally Posted by Mallus

So at some point defining your characters abilities becomes entitlements? Care to offer some rhyme or reason here?

If I have the level 7 encounter power "Come and Get It" I am entitled to once per fight force every foe within 18 feet to close with me, regardless of whether or not it makes the slightest bit of sense for them to do so. Regardless, in fact, of if they are physically capable of doing so.

Without using magic. Apparently.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Andor

If I have the level 7 encounter power "Come and Get It" I am entitled to once per fight force every foe within 18 feet to close with me...

Entitled is a loaded term. Like I said, you can just as easily say a 1e mage is 'entitled' to cast Sleep once per day (if he knows and memorizes it).

Regardless, in fact, of if they are physically capable of doing so.

A 4e DM's can use common sense. In fact, 4e assumes they will.

Without using magic. Apparently.

It's not magic, it's metafiction. I've explained this before.

[Ariosto]

A Traveller getting shot at does not consider whether to use Lead Monsoon, Crescendo of Doom, or Drunken Butterfly's Devastating Peony Blossom Stance. There is no formula for calculating how many rolls with what target numbers are needed to get through the hail of bullets using Administration and Stewardship skills (but kudos to players who come up with a workable plan for that!).

Nor is such a heap of hooey built into AD&D (or even Champions, in which it might at least fit the genre).

Complicating elaborations in old-style games are as a rule directed toward starting with an appraisal of the imagined situation and then translating it into game terms. Damage by weapon, multiple attacks, weapon length, speed factors, weapon type versus armor type, combatant height, movement per segment, encumbrance, surprise, spell casting time, rate of fire, hit locations, parrying, morale factors, effects of inebriation ... the list of optional elaborations in old D&D books goes on and on in that vein.

Those are tools in the DM's kit, and it is quite proper for the referee to reach for any others deemed appropriate. It is likewise proper to set them aside when they are not necessary.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Andor

Usually we either ignored it or house ruled it to be shorter.

The groups I played in usually ignored it.

D&D combat has always been described as "You circle and trade blows for a round seeking an opening. Roll to hit."

Right. D&D combat has always featured a rather loose relationship between the combat mechanics and the combat narration. Earlier editions are characterized by a paucity of detail (1e doesn't tell you much of what happened during a combat round, only if damage is done), 4e is characterized by greater detail, but no explanatory mechanism (it's tell you what happened specifically, but not why).

The key point is that "I attack" is abstract, but clear.

So is "I lure them over here at hit them with my sword (ie CaGI).

...you're not accomplishing the impossible...

Luring people into hitting range is not impossible.

Frankly I don't even see how you draw a parallel between the abstraction of earlier editions and the bizarreness of 4e.

In both systems there is a disconnect between the combat mechanics and what occurs in-scene. This disconnect needs to be bridged by narration from the DM and/or players. They need to fill in the gaps, so to speak, in order for the events to make sense from the character's perspective.

It's simply, really.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

A Traveller getting shot at does not consider whether to use Lead Monsoon, Crescendo of Doom, or Drunken Butterfly's Devastating Peony Blossom Stance.

And a 4e character's ability scores aren't in hexadecimal. What's your point? Other than Traveller and D&D 4e take different approaches to representing characters and there abilities?

There is no formula for calculating how many rolls with what target numbers are needed to get through the hail of bullets using Administration and Stewardship skills (but kudos to players who come up with a workable plan for that!).

There should be That sounds pretty amusing, in a Terry Pratchett sort of way.

Nor is such a heap of hooey built into AD&D (or even Champions, in which it might at least fit the genre).

No, AD&D has it's own specific brand of hooey.

... and it is quite proper for the referee to reach for any others deemed appropriate. It is likewise proper to set them aside when they are not necessary.

In that regard nothing has changed.

[Dausuul]

Originally Posted by blargney the second

For what it's worth, here's how I fluff my minotaur fighter's Come & Get It:
1) He uses an ancient minotaur call to battle. His enemies' eyes alight with bloodlust and they charge into his whirling frenzy.
2) He's finally figured out how to master the art of throwing his magic weapon past his enemies such that it arcs out in a circle like a boomerang. They take a step towards him, thinking him defenseless, when the hammer comes back and pushes them towards him.

So far my group seems to enjoy it a lot.
-blarg

What would you do if the targets were spell-hurling wizards who have no reason ever to get into melee? (And that's not a hypothetical corner case; I had exactly this situation come up in my game a couple sessions ago.)

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Dausuul

What would you do if the targets were spell-hurling wizards who have no reason ever to get into melee?

I'd make something up on the spot (it wouldn't be the first time I had to do that while DM'ing). Frankly, I'm good at it .