4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Manbearcat]

He's a bit of a dick, but so what? 4e's not the first edition where people thought it was more fun to be funny than take playtime seriously.

Alright, so apparently the questions were rhetorical and some players just suck. News at 11!

Indeed. Which is why I'm baffled why I keep seeing this come up as some sort of commentary that seems to attempt to be a statement about a problem with the ruleset. What problem, I haven't uncovered yet but it keeps coming up in those two incarnations.

 

[S'mon]

Robert/Sir Varis/"Brave Sir Robin" as a Paladin. But then the only way I can think of of running with Robert as an asset would be something like Smallville where the sample PCs include both Clark Kent and Zod.

Ah, right - was not a problem for me within the framework of this discussion on players deliberately subverting the thematic frame of their class and powers.

 

[Sunseeker]

Indeed. Which is why I'm baffled why I keep seeing this come up as some sort of commentary that seems to attempt to be a statement about a problem with the ruleset. What problem, I haven't uncovered yet but it keeps coming up in those two incarnations.

I think it's just the larger break between players who want rules for everything and players who don't. Some people don't have the stones to stand up to a player who's playing in a manner they don't like. I don't believe there is a problem beyond that right there.

 

[Imaro]

Indeed. Which is why I'm baffled why I keep seeing this come up as some sort of commentary that seems to attempt to be a statement about a problem with the ruleset. What problem, I haven't uncovered yet but it keeps coming up in those two incarnations.

Ah, right - was not a problem for me within the framework of this discussion on players deliberately subverting the thematic frame of their class and powers.

I think it's just the larger break between players who want rules for everything and players who don't. Some people don't have the stones to stand up to a player who's playing in a manner they don't like. I don't believe there is a problem beyond that right there.

I am interested in discussing this because I have seen 2 schools of thought as far as 4e fans are concerned...

The larger group (as far as my experiences go) claims that 4e is, because of it's effects based design, virtually divorced from class or even powers meaning anything...

The smaller group as represented by posters like pemerton, manbearcat, s'mon, etc. claims that 4e's classes and powers have baked in thematic qualities and thus very much have a specific meaning.

Now, IMO, I don't think both of these claims can be right so I am curious in getting down to whether the game actually pushes and forces a player to play and adopt these thematic elements... which would seem to be the case if the mechanics reinforced them, or whether this is being enforced by table rules, DM and player agreement etc... which would seem to support the 4e is generic camp. I hope that sheds more light on the subject.

 

[Sunseeker]

Now, IMO, I don't think both of these claims can be right so I am curious in getting down to whether the game actually pushes and forces a player to play and adopt these thematic elements... which would seem to be the case if the mechanics reinforced them, or whether this is being enforced by table rules, DM and player agreement etc... which would seem to support the 4e is generic camp. I hope that sheds more light on the subject.

I believe that it's simply an issue of familiarity with the game. The class themes that are built into the classes through the names of powers and their types of damage are there to present players with an idea of what this class is like. As 4e grew, many of these themes diversified, and as people become more familiar with it, they realized that names are just names, and power-keywords are just words. My players are welcome to rename their powers to be more fitting to their playstyle, and even change power keywords(yes I realize there's room for abuse here, but I'm willing to risk that). Especially if the list of powers that fit a players concept are limited(perhaps because introduction of a similar concept is new to the edition).

 

[Imaro]

I believe that it's simply an issue of familiarity with the game. The class themes that are built into the classes through the names of powers and their types of damage are there to present players with an idea of what this class is like. As 4e grew, many of these themes diversified, and as people become more familiar with it, they realized that names are just names, and power-keywords are just words. My players are welcome to rename their powers to be more fitting to their playstyle, and even change power keywords(yes I realize there's room for abuse here, but I'm willing to risk that). Especially if the list of powers that fit a players concept are limited(perhaps because introduction of a similar concept is new to the edition).

See I don't think it has anything to do with familiarity... I am actually speaking to the stance that the 4e rules and guidance support... I will repost what I put in the other thread as an example...
Here are some examples, quoted from the corebooks of what I (and I think innerdude) are speaking of...
PH 1, page 55
A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard's magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.
PH 2, page 4 A power's flavor text is only a starting point. You can modify that flavor however you like, as long as you don't change the power's game effects. Maybe you would rather think of the barbarian power macetail's rage as channeling the World Serpent, a primal spirit that appears in some shaman powers. You might say, 'The earth shakes beneath my feet as the World Serpent stirs, knocking my foe to the ground!'

EDIT: So that being said, couldn't I say that valiant strike is actually the ability of my paladin to use the crowd and confusion of combat to misdirect and confuse foes so that they are opening themselves up and he is getting sneaky hits in on them? This in turn doesn't support a valiant character archetype... and in fact could support the sneaky cowardly archetype I suggested before or am I missing something here?

 

[Neonchameleon]

And I honestly think you are underestimating the number of players who get enjoyment out of having the most powerful build or being the last one standing and will select powers, feats, themes, and backgrounds based on this.

22% of players as Power Gamers, with a further 22% of players being Thinkers. But you miss something. In a balanced game there is no "most powerful build". (In 4e there are three contenders for 'most powerful class' - and all three are relatively vanilla; the Fighter ('Melee Badass'), the PHB Ranger ('Killing as fast as possible anywhere'), and the Wizard ('Master of the Arcane Arts'). Arguably the Lazy Warlord is in this category ('I hit him ... with the Barbarian'). That said, last one standing will be a Warden (unless everyone else runs away).

If the out and out powergamers are playing classes like that and only doing a little more than anyone else, I'm not worried. They are neither twisting the campaign by the sort of character you need to be to be an Ur Priest/Nar Demonbinder/Mystic Theurge, nor is their power level having an especially bad effect on the campaign.

Also both Thinkers and Power Gamers are, because the gap is mild, free to break away and say "I want to be the best burglar there's ever been" and be confident that they won't let the side down through a non-combat focus or play something that theoretically has only a minor thematic link with what they want to be (like wizard) - instead the two classes that work best are Thief and Executioner Assassin.

IMHO there is no perfect skill system. 4e's system, though maybe not the only possible good solution, and with a few minor imperfections (fighter skill list) is probably about as strong as any skill system in a feasible RPG of the sort that have skill systems as will ever be. I recall participating in the long and involved debates on the WotC forums that raged for years on the subject. We explored MANY options, and I failed to be convinced of the clear superiority of any of them.

I think one of my favourites is a roll-and-keep dice pool. But that's incompatable with orthodox D&D.

When I design a character, I only have a very vague idea of what it is before I start in on the mechanics. The roleplay aspects of the character form more solidly as the mechanics do. I don't decide to create an aristocrat and just randomly throw on the street urchin background for +2 intimidate or whatever. I decide whether I'm an aristocrat or an urchin by looking at the mechanics, and deciding what I would find fun to play(both via rules and roleplaying).

This. A good powergamer will flesh out their character by making the choices needed to power game. (Although that might be in the Thinker category). And a fleshed out character for whatever reason should be preferable to a character who's just a skeleton. If you make the benefit from power gaming small but noticeable you will encourage the power gamers to come up with interesting characters while not locking the non-power gamers out of the game.

 

[Balesir]

EDIT: So that being said, couldn't I say that valiant strike is actually the ability of my paladin to use the crowd and confusion of combat to misdirect and confuse foes so that they are opening themselves up and he is getting sneaky hits in on them? This in turn doesn't support a valiant character archetype... and in fact could support the sneaky cowardly archetype I suggested before or am I missing something here?

As I just implied in my answer on the other thread to a post very similar to this one, I think you are missing something. I'll try to explain.

In 4e, the fluff doesn't really matter. I could argue the same is true of pretty much any system, but 4e is very up-front about this.

But that does not mean that there isn't "theme" bound up (or, at least, potentially bound up) in the actual effects of the powers and the selections of those powers that are available to specific classes.

Part of that "theme" is hinted at by the "role" assigned to each class, but even that is only a very rough and approximate guideline. In the end, it's down to each individual class - you have to get to grips with what each class has available to it to understand its "thematic content" in full. And, even then, each class covers quite a spread, so there is variance within as well as between classes.

So, "Valiant Strike" seems aptly named for its thematic direction, but if it had been called, say, "Mix It Up!", which would be semi-descriptive and so not beyond the pale, it would still carry some thematic elements of "dude with cojones" because, to use it effectively, you just have to be stuck right into the middle of that swirling melee.

 

[Dragoslav]

I am interested in discussing this because I have seen 2 schools of thought as far as 4e fans are concerned...

The larger group (as far as my experiences go) claims that 4e is, because of it's effects based design, virtually divorced from class or even powers meaning anything...

The smaller group as represented by posters like pemerton, manbearcat, s'mon, etc. claims that 4e's classes and powers have baked in thematic qualities and thus very much have a specific meaning.

Now, IMO, I don't think both of these claims can be right so I am curious in getting down to whether the game actually pushes and forces a player to play and adopt these thematic elements... which would seem to be the case if the mechanics reinforced them, or whether this is being enforced by table rules, DM and player agreement etc... which would seem to support the 4e is generic camp. I hope that sheds more light on the subject.

If I may try to synthesize these camps in a concise way:

The classes, as with everything else, have a "default fluff." The specific mechanics of the class's powers reinforce the "theme/fluff" of the class by encouraging certain styles of play. You can change the fluff of a power, but if you reflavor it too much, then it may conflict with the default fluff of the class.

So you couldn't reflavor power X to a counterintuitive degree (e.g. Valiant Strike as some sort of cowardly maneuver) without having to reflavor the class as well (e.g. DM says "Cowardly people can't be paladins in this world; your PC can't be a paladin").

 

[Balesir]

So you couldn't reflavor power X to a counterintuitive degree (e.g. Valiant Strike as some sort of cowardly maneuver) without having to reflavor the class as well (e.g. DM says "Cowardly people can't be paladins in this world; your PC can't be a paladin").

I actually don't think this is true - nor do I think it should be.

It would be quite possible in 4e to have a cowardly (well, more cowardly than a driven madman, at any rate!) paladin who uses missile weapons and "kite marking" and such like - presumably they would be some other alignment than Lawful Good, but even that is not set in stone. What you would not get, however, is such a paladin with the power Valiant Strike - because it would be close to useless for them.