D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[pemerton]

[MENTION=42582]The comment on the failings of process sim games outside of S&S is germane here too. To run a credible high fantasy you can't simply let the dice run the game. That sort of world has higher powers, it actually has built-in rules of dramatic behavior, or else the genre is being undermined. I see no problem as a DM with making that happen (though obviously constructing a set of rules which builds in that sort of thing is probably the best answer it can be done using D&D).

Interesting point. I've never really seen D&D run quite the way you describe.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Interesting point. I've never really seen D&D run quite the way you describe.

Was it in the other 4e thread where we hit on this? I know you mentioned something about Valiant Strike there. I think by itself that isn't quite enough, but at least 4e does allow for goals to be a valid reason for something to work a certain way. Since 4e tends to leave more plot-related sorts of elements (curses and other 'story' type things) more to the DM and free-form unstructured play it seems more amenable to that sort of thing in that way too. That also bears on the lack of requirements and prerequisites that is generally present in 4e. You don't have to by the rules mechanically do certain things or make certain choices. A dwarf warrior can decide to become an Archspell or something crazy and there's not a lot of "you must ignore these rules to do this". I CAN always make a few mechanical tweaks anyway to make it more rewarding, which in a way is kind of cool. "If you are REALLY dedicated to being an Archspell sir dwarf, why we'll figure out how to make your battleaxe count as an implement. Here, go talk to these Eladrin (slight hack of some feat text somewhere)."

There were some ways you could do this in previous Editions too of course, but the whole structure of the game wasn't helping you in general. It just wasn't made for high concept fantasy.

 

[S'mon]

I don't have to resort to metagaming for Valiant Strike. Clearly his god smiles on the valour of the outnumbered paladin, empowering him according to the weight of his foes!
Wouldn't work in modernist swords & sorcery maybe; works fine in standard 4e.

 

[Imaro]

I don't have to resort to metagaming for Valiant Strike. Clearly his god smiles on the valour of the outnumbered paladin, empowering him according to the weight of his foes!
Wouldn't work in modernist swords & sorcery maybe; works fine in standard 4e.

Do you think this has more of a metagame tone if the Paladin isn't a follower of a deity or ideal that meshes well with the performance of "valiant" actions? Or beter yet, what if (especially without alignment restrictions) the paladin is not played as a "valiant" character outside of using that power? I'm really just looking to hear your perspective since I honestly don't know how I would look at these types of situations...

 

[S'mon]

Do you think this has more of a metagame tone if the Paladin isn't a follower of a deity or ideal that meshes well with the performance of "valiant" actions? Or beter yet, what if (especially without alignment restrictions) the paladin is not played as a "valiant" character outside of using that power? I'm really just looking to hear your perspective since I honestly don't know how I would look at these types of situations...

If the player is deliberately underming the thematic loading of the Power (to get slightly Pemertonian) then... that would be bad. The game tells you very clearly what kind of character you're playing via class, build, powers etc. If you want to reskin it you need clear GM agreement to your proposal and an eye for potential problems.

That said, I don't think 'atheist Paladin' is a problem. The commie pinkos at the BBC once made a WW2 episode of Dr Who I saw, where the sea-vampires ignored the Anglican priest's cross and ate him - but were repelled by the Soviet army captain's hammer and sickle badge, because he was effectively channeling his own Faith in the Revolution. I'm fine with that approach - a PC Paladin channeling his own belief in Virtue to Valiant Strike - it would still be necessary that he believe in Valour as an ideal, though.

 

[Balesir]

Don't forget 4e's famous "refluffing", too. I can envisage a brooding, emo-type paladin:

"I hate violence. I hate warfare and the pain and suffering it engenders - not least in me (wry smile). But, when I am in the midst of enemies, something just snaps. As they all try to hurt me, my rationality just melts, and I find myself laying about me in a frenzy. Sometimes, I don't even remember it afterwards - I just see all those horribly maimed bodies..."

 

[S'mon]

Don't forget 4e's famous "refluffing", too. I can envisage a brooding, emo-type paladin:

"I hate violence. I hate warfare and the pain and suffering it engenders - not least in me (wry smile). But, when I am in the midst of enemies, something just snaps. As they all try to hurt me, my rationality just melts, and I find myself laying about me in a frenzy. Sometimes, I don't even remember it afterwards - I just see all those horribly maimed bodies..."

Yeah, that'd be fine*, Sounds a lot like Jaryn, the emo Fallen Paladin of Bane (ex Pelor) at the end of Dungeon 155's Heathen. My players really enjoyed killing that guy.

*With GM consent. In Jaryn's he was still drawing from a divine power source, just not the same one.

 

[Imaro]

If the player is deliberately underming the thematic loading of the Power (to get slightly Pemertonian) then... that would be bad. The game tells you very clearly what kind of character you're playing via class, build, powers etc. If you want to reskin it you need clear GM agreement to your proposal and an eye for potential problems.

That said, I don't think 'atheist Paladin' is a problem. The commie pinkos at the BBC once made a WW2 episode of Dr Who I saw, where the sea-vampires ignored the Anglican priest's cross and ate him - but were repelled by the Soviet army captain's hammer and sickle badge, because he was effectively channeling his own Faith in the Revolution. I'm fine with that approach - a PC Paladin channeling his own belief in Virtue to Valiant Strike - it would still be necessary that he believe in Valour as an ideal, though.

But nothing inherent in 4e prevents you from taking that power and playing a cowardly, self-serving paladin. Isn't what you're suggesting above just the Paladin/lawful good restriction argument of previous editions, writ large in 4e? I mean basically you as the DM are telling me that I have to behave a certain way as a paladin in order to select or use certain powers... even though it's not in the rules... What if I just want to be more effective and think a power is, well... more powerful?

EDIT: Isn't this also a form of deprotagonization? I have to check with the DM to make sure my character is allowed certain powers, even though the rules say I can??

 

[Manbearcat]

But nothing inherent in 4e prevents you from taking that power and playing a cowardly, self-serving paladin. Isn't what you're suggesting above just the Paladin/lawful good restriction argument of previous editions, writ large in 4e? I mean basically you as the DM are telling me that I have to behave a certain way as a paladin in order to select or use certain powers... even though it's not in the rules... What if I just want to be more effective and think a power is, well... more powerful?

EDIT: Isn't this also a form of deprotagonization? I have to check with the DM to make sure my character is allowed certain powers, even though the rules say I can??

I need some clarification on this one because I'm left wondering how consistent this critique is.

4e had its feet put over the coals for "dissociated" mechanics, fluff not matching mechanics, mechanics not being granular enough or congruent enough in its processing from causal logic. Here we have a case of clear association, fluff matching mechanics; the power says I'm valiant and gives me a bonus to hit in accords with my valiance in the face of overwhelming numbers. Now we look at this power, we make this clear and present association...and the critique is that its too binding due to its inherent thematic association?

I mean, looking past the fact that valiant (acting with braveness or boldness) is morally neutral enough to skin several different ways (you can be bold and brave and be wicked), is that critique particularly fair? Its just a default association. The rest is left up to the table.

Regarding "deprotagonization", I'm not sure it could be any more "protagonizing". You are brave. This fluff says so and here are mechanics to abstract it. This is your resource to deploy at your discretion and it will always be thus. No measure of DM fiat or player protest can change its deployment or what it says about you. If you do not want to be brave, bold, valiant...don't pick this power?

 

[Imaro]

I need some clarification on this one because I'm left wondering how consistent this critique is.

4e had its feet put over the coals for "dissociated" mechanics, fluff not matching mechanics, mechanics not being granular enough or congruent enough in its processing from causal logic. Here we have a case of clear association, fluff matching mechanics; the power says I'm valiant and gives me a bonus to hit in accords with my valiance in the face of overwhelming numbers. Now we look at this power, we make this clear and present association...and the critique is that its too binding due to its inherent thematic association?

I mean, looking past the fact that valiant (acting with braveness or boldness) is morally neutral enough to skin several different ways (you can be bold and brave and be wicked), is that critique particularly fair? Its just a default association. The rest is left up to the table.

Regarding "deprotagonization", I'm not sure it could be any more "protagonizing". You are brave. This fluff says so and here are mechanics to abstract it. This is your resource to deploy at your discretion and it will always be thus. No measure of DM fiat or player protest can change its deployment or what it says about you. If you do not want to be brave, bold, valiant...don't pick this power?

I don't think you understand what is being discussed, or what is being questioned in the post of mine you quoted. I'm talking specifically about the association that S'mon is forcing on character behavior in order to take the power...