D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[Psion]

Simply put, it's not what I game for.

 

[BryonD]

We have a problem of communication here.

I guess we do. You said that the only gamism was what the player brought to it. WotC has flat out stated that 4e is more gamist. That was the point I corrected. Your essay on narrativism, whether I agree with it or not, has no bearing on me correctly pointing out that WotC disagrees with you about gamism. If you said gamism without meaning it, then that would be a problem of communication.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, grapple that immobilises is still way nerfed compared to 3E grapple, which immobilises, removes Dex bonus to AC AND shuts down your attacks.

Yes. But it stops movement.

 

[hong]

I guess we do. You said that the only gamism was what the player brought to it. WotC has flat out stated that 4e is more gamist. That was the point I corrected. Your essay on narrativism,

Narrative, m'dear. Not narrativism.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I guess we do. You said that the only gamism was what the player brought to it.

No, I said that there was a problem with what you brought to the game, not players in general, and it wasn't just about gamism, whatever that is.

WotC has flat out stated that 4e is more gamist. That was the point I corrected. Your essay on narrativism, whether I agree with it or not, has no bearing on me correctly pointing out that WotC disagrees with you about gamism.

OK, I think that you should probably back up your position with a reference here.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the two? That is to say, do we actually know that there's a difference between the once per encounter trip "power", and a standard knocking someone down with STR (or DEX) vs. Reflex? If the enemy ends up prone either way, what's the advantage to the first as opposed to the latter?

In a wider sense, if 4E allows for the latter (players can do practically anything with a simple ROLL vs. Defense), but the powers allow for more effective versions of the same... that's good thing. It allows anybody to try anything, but let's those are are suppose to be good at it, occassionally be VERY good at it.

I honestly don't know the difference, because no trip power or feat has been revealed. All we have are examples from playtests where opponents have been knocked down and a statement by a DDXP DM (I believe) that trip has become a per encounter power.

 

[ascendance]

4e seems to want to solve the problem of Accidental Suck by making sure that everyone has basic competency in anything everyone is expected to do. 4e doesn't really care if your character is afraid of heights -- he's going to be able to climb a mountain pretty freakin' well, regardless. 4e doesn't say "you can't play a character who is afraid of heights." It wouldn't. That'd be silly. Instead, it says "Even if your character is afraid of heights, he can still climb the mountain well. It's up to you to figure out why this happens in-character. In the metagame, this happens because no one wants to haul your 300 lb fighter in full plate around on a chain harnass for half the campaign, and you don't really want to be that burden, either."

I think you can always opt out of the challenge, and play up the Intentional Suck. Then you become part of the problem, and everyone else has to narrate around you.

I mean, creativity or not, there will always be situations where your contribution to the effort will be, "I use Diplomacy to hire the native guides, and convince people to sell us a map." And after that point, you just might not be able to think of anything useful to contribute.

 

[Pbartender]

4e seems to want to solve the problem of Accidental Suck by making sure that everyone has basic competency in anything everyone is expected to do. 4e doesn't really care if your character is afraid of heights -- he's going to be able to climb a mountain pretty freakin' well, regardless. 4e doesn't say "you can't play a character who is afraid of heights." It wouldn't. That'd be silly. Instead, it says "Even if your character is afraid of heights, he can still climb the mountain well. It's up to you to figure out why this happens in-character..."

Of course, there's nothing wrong with that last statement... It happens all the time in real life. Just because someone is afraid to do something, doesn't mean that they couldn't do it, should they overcome their fear and set their mind to it.

In fact, that's the very character building sort of decision that such a personality quirk entails... The party must climb a cliff, but the party fighter is afraid of heights. A few minutes of roleplaying ensues in which the rest of the party tries to convince, cajole, trick, intimidate or ridicule the fighter into climbing up the cliff. The fighter resists at first, but the grudgingly lets the others convince his character. In the end, he climbs the cliff using his second-rate skills, but perhaps chooses to do it in the slowest, safest possible way.

Now you've gone from Intentional Suck to Intentional Inconvenience, which is far less annoying and irritating to the other players in the group. Plus, you've interjected an interesting and character-building roleplaying scene into the game, without bringing the advancement of the plot to a screeching halt.

Remember, bravery is not the absence of fear, but the ability to do what needs to be done despite the fear.