4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Sunseeker]

You played a class that is explicitly about serving a deity, but you made her an angry atheist. I would have told you to play a barbarian.

Because that's what we love about D&D, the creativity, the imagination, the freedom to invent! All so we can be told what to do!

It's so nice to have finally solved the issue of eliminating creativity from D&D, it was always such a pesky little bugger.

I reject this. I believe that mechanics should be tied with what they are trying to represent. It doesn't mean you can't reflavor your powers, but it does mean your powers need to be more than +X to hit, +Y damage, +Z effect. If you're making a sneak attack, you're stabbing your opponent in the back, not taking advantage of an oppening to charge your weapon with ki energy to do +3d6 damage.

That's nice. That's not what 4e does so don't place your expectations upon something when that something clearly states your expectations are not to be expected. If you think that fluff should expound upon exactly how an action happens, that's great, but that's not how 4e works. 4e fluff exists as a specific interpretation of how a power works, not the only one ever.

This is why I reject the concept of writing spells, abilities, maneuvers as prose as a whole, because the inevitably include far too much of one designers idea of how something should be represented. I enjoy D&D for a framework, as far as fluff goes, WOTC sucks.

 

[TwoSix]

I believe that mechanics should be tied with what they are trying to represent. It doesn't mean you can't reflavor your powers, but it does mean your powers need to be more than +X to hit, +Y damage, +Z effect. If you're making a sneak attack, you're stabbing your opponent in the back, not taking advantage of an oppening to charge your weapon with ki energy to do +3d6 damage.

And I reject this. I believe that the narration of the power should be reflective of the mechanics, and should also reflect the character as a whole. (What FATE calls the high concept). If your character is a brave paladin, then you shouldn't reflavor as a power as a backstab. Unless you're in the process of shifting the character concept, of course.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except that you couldn't - not with any plausibility, at least. The Come and Get It power specifies that it Pulls enemies, and that only if it will bring them to melee range (adjacent). If it slid the enemies in all directions, you might have a point; but it doesn't. This "sneaky fighter" who surrounds him- or herself with enemies (ending any stealth they might have had going, since it's an attack) is looking like a ripe klutz right about now - unless s/he also happens to have invisibility and/or some pretty leet rogue-ly stealth powers to escape from the mess they just put themselves in...

In which case, which bit of that is supporting the "sneaky combatant" theme, exactly, if it isn't the stealth and invisibility powers, rather than the "let every enemy know you're here and bring them all within melee reach of you" power?

And just to reinforce that this is the key point. The goal is thematic coherency, and Justin's interpretation is ridiculous and implausible, far more so than the provided flavor text even in this case. Yet we can come up with many viable narrative ways to describe the action going on with this power, or we can even chose not to use it if we don't feel there is a credible explanation. (I know Balesir from previous discussions isn't really a fan of that option, but in fact it is by no means deprecated in any 4e published material).

The problem is that the alternative is narrow and dry, nothing but mechanics which are so generic that they can describe anything. That's fine, but you need more. Another alternative is simply "lets have no rules for any of this at all" which is a viable approach, but creates the sorts of problems that leave 3.x a shambles if it isn't applied to the whole system consistently.

ACTUALLY though, 4e provides a full range of options for the players and DM. There are tons of powers, many of which are very vanilla and when incorporated in a narrative will not expose substantial mechanical underpinnings to the narrative (see my post the other day about fighters). Beyond that 4e's 'page 42' system is a completely developed generalized system for doing anything you can describe. It is perhaps less elaborated on than in other systems (where it ties into plot coupons, character attributes, player goals, etc, though see APs for a weak version of this in 4e). Honestly, it is hard to see where a player who's main concerns are thematic and narrative will have a hard time finding tools to use to describe what he wants to do in mechanical terms in 4e. At that point any particular power is simply exactly what was proposed, a potential mechanical embodiment of the way you want to play your character. MOST players will simply pick some powers that fit with what they want to do and maybe refluff them now and then. When they don't seem narratively appropriate they'll do something else or refluff. The power player who only wants the dorky narratively implausible power use just because it is a little better right now to use THAT power? Ummmm, you got a table problem if that bothers you... No rules solve table problems, trust me, 35 years of DMing has taught me that much!

 

[Fox Lee]

You played a class that is explicitly about serving a deity, but you made her an angry atheist. I would have told you to play a barbarian.

Tell all you like, but I wanted to play a heavily-armoured divine tank warrior, not a hide-clad primal striker, so your orders are inadequate as well as pompous. Moreover, if flavour is a rule as you seem to think, you shouldn't have advised me to play a barbarian instead, because my character is a wealthy formally educated noble with no primal or animalistic connections whatsoever. By your own logic, that advice would be unacceptable.

The mechanics were an excellent representation of what I wanted to play, the concept worked well, and the rules supported it. If I had agreed to play in a campaign with stricter rules about how you can and can't interpret class flavour, then you would have grounds to say no - but that's just changing the goal posts, and no more relevant than the fact that I actually play in a setting without gods, and therefore in context my paladin was considerably more setting-appropriate than the default one. Without such an arbitrary rules change, with just the game as it stands, refusing a perfectly solid character concept because your own tunnel vision didn't let you see past the default flavour would certainly be a major GM fail.

I reject this. I believe that mechanics should be tied with what they are trying to represent. It doesn't mean you can't reflavor your powers, but it does mean your powers need to be more than +X to hit, +Y damage, +Z effect. If you're making a sneak attack, you're stabbing your opponent in the back, not taking advantage of an oppening to charge your weapon with ki energy to do +3d6 damage.

You say you reject it, but then you give an example which is a perfectly valid way to re-invent sneak attack, and is not just +X to hit, +Y damage, +Z effect. By doing that, you have tied the mechanics to what they are supposed to represent. The only reason that I'm apparently not allowed to do thing B instead of thing A is because you said so - there is nothing in the rules to indicate that you are correct, and in fact the very first books say you're not.

Unless I'm misreading you - are you trying to say that +X to hit, +Y damage, +Z effect can only represent one single flavour of attack in the entire game? But in that case, you're totally barking up the wrong tree. 4e is not a game of specific, fiddly, unique mechanics for each different effect - the mechanics are broad and robust, designed to represent multiple diverse ideas even if the numbers and effects are completely identical. Personally I would not have it any other way.

I can't help but wonder, is this really all about names? There is literally only one way in which my paladin goes againt the default prescription, and that's following an ideal instead of a deity - the rest is unconventional, but not contrary to the example. If I called my paladin some other name, like a crusader or an avatar or something, is there no longer a problem? What if the rogue renames himself to a Shinobi and changes "Sneak Attack" to "Snake Form Assassin Strike"? All of these are permitted in 4e, and why not? It's not as if anybody in the game uses the attack names - hell, I think most classes go without ever being mentioned by name, except maybe as the generic use of the term (knight = some noble dude in full plate, mage = arcane spell guy, barbarian = I'm a snobby racist, etc.). Names in 4e are entirely metagame terms, every bit as malleable as power flavour text and class descriptions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We've been around this mulberry bush before and I doubt the outcome will be any different this time around. But this is probably the most direct I've seen you be in describing your creative process, so I'm going to take the opportunity to analyze it. To break it down into discrete steps:

(1) Ignore the flavor text that exists.
(2) Write new flavor text.
(3) Explore the themes created by the new flavor text.
(4) Claim that those themes are inherently and indelibly in the mechanics.

OK. Stepping back to try to explain what is going on.

The mechanics indicate how at a medium zoom the character behaves - and channel them to good tactics for that character. This can be a fair range, but not as large as you seem to think it is.

Because, of course, I could just as easily rewrite the flavor text of Come and Get It so that its mechanical effect is created by sneaking around the battlefield, throwing mud in people's eyes, tripping them, calling out false battle orders in the mimicked voice of their commander, and so forth.

You could. If you were ignoring the mechanics entirely and coming up with flavour text that does not fit the mechanics. If your flavour text does not fit the mechanics then you've bad flavour text. And why does your suggested flavour text not fit the mechanics? Because nowhere in CAGI do you move out of your five foot square. Your fighter is not sneaking but standing in one place.

Now if you want to make your fighter a flamboyant performer who sometimes mimics the voice of the enemy commander to give false orders there is nothing preventing you doing that. And there is absolutely nothing in the fighter archetype preventing them being brutal and dishonourable. The archetype is simply "Melee badass".

And then I could talk about the "fact" that Come and Get It -- via its mechanics -- plays a strong role in establishing and reinforcing the story of that fighter who is sneaky and dishonorable and opportunistic and cowardly.

Sneaky, dishonourable, and opportunistic, possibly. But the version of 'Cowardly' that includes 'Convincing armed enemies to surround and probably attack you' is not one I am familliar with. You can claim three of the four on a hypothetical fighter. But you only get the fourth by ignoring the mechanical effects of the power. Something you can not do in a reskin.

(Toss in Battle Awareness to represent the character's paranoia, Shift the Battlefield as another "mud in the eye" tactic,

And you can have a brutal but brave warrior who doesn't believe in fighting fair, but encourages the enemy to focus on that fighter, especially by marking. For a sneaky fighter, I recommend Pass Forward.

Get Over Here as the character grabbing allies and throwing them at opponents so they don't have to fight them

If your fighter is doing this, then you have a problem player. And it needs handling in exactly the same way as it would if you had a rogue stealing from the party. Plus if you start doing this your allies will say they aren't for the duration of that power.

and Last Ditch Evasion without any changes at all.)

I really wouldn't recommend this one...

Which, ultimately, reveals that your "fact" isn't a fact at all. When you use the mechanics to model a dogged and unflappable warrior and I use the same process you describe to model the Joker,

Except you don't. If your conception of the Joker is a combat monster then we are talking about two different characters entirely. If your conception of the Joker is someone who is best off closing to melee range rather than trying to use a gun, we aren't even on the same page. (It's not that the Joker can't fight in melee, it's that it isn't his first choice when violence starts.)

What you have there isn't the Joker. It's not someone who sits back and manipulates other people into doing the work wherever possible. It's the All Star Batman and Robin Batman - a brutal and manipulative fighter who leads from the front, misdirecting the enemy, confusing them, and positively revelling in hurting them directly when they can fight back. But who wants the enemy's eyes on him even as he beats them to a pulp. And if you think that one of the more brutal incarnations of Batman shouldn't be modelled as a fighter, I suggest you give up on any edition of D&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You played a class that is explicitly about serving a deity, but you made her an angry atheist. I would have told you to play a barbarian.

And I'd have wondered why you bothered. And why you thought that a hide wearing beserker was anything other than a highly inappropriate match for a martial scientist who wears heavy armour.

I reject this. I believe that mechanics should be tied with what they are trying to represent.

4e mechanics are tied to what they are trying to represent. What they (at least for martial and semi-martial characters) are trying to represent is how someone moves, and how someone behaves when the rubber meets the road. They are trying to do this by making sure that behaving the way you think your character ought to is never an objectively bad choice, and you have the shifts, slides, pulls, pushes, damage, and multi-attacks that feel right for the character you want to play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You played a class that is explicitly about serving a deity, but you made her an angry atheist. I would have told you to play a barbarian.

Then again:

I reject this. I believe that mechanics should be tied with what they are trying to represent. It doesn't mean you can't reflavor your powers, but it does mean your powers need to be more than +X to hit, +Y damage, +Z effect. If you're making a sneak attack, you're stabbing your opponent in the back, not taking advantage of an oppening to charge your weapon with ki energy to do +3d6 damage.

So, you fall into that unfathomable "the fluff in the books is somehow privileged and shouldn't be changed" camp, eh?

All I can say is IMHO there is nothing special about some fluff or some concept just because someone at WotC was paid to develop it. I'm UTTERLY certain that the founders of the RP hobby and inventors of D&D would heartily concur with that. What more can be said? The published rules and books are just tools to use to have fun with. If the guy wants to imagine his angry character using paladin mechanics and it works who are you to tell him that he has to use barbarian mechanics that don't do the job as well just because in your opinion the character sounds more like a barbarian? (and personally I don't understand why "warrior from a primitive tribe" has to be tied to anger issues). Play how you like to play, but remember, there are MANY other ideas of how to use the game to have fun than just yours or the ones the authors thought of. They are all equally worthy of consideration.

 

[Derren]

This is simply incorrect. The AD&D Fighter was proficient in what? Four different weapons at first level? Of which in core 2e they could specialise in a grand total of one. And the secret to their power in 2e was Weapon Specialisation. The highly mobile skirmisher simply didn't exist as opportunity attacks in AD&D were absolute murder. And the claim that "none of these fighting styles were more effective than others" is incredibly dubious at best and falls apart the second you take two weapon fighting into account. So a much more accurate statement would be "When you look at editions before 4e, a fighter could pick any of the mechanically supported ways of fighting".

Even if we restrict "editions before 4e" to 3.X the statement makes no sense. Almost every feat is a tool of specialisation. A fighter can be built to specialise in whatever they like. But a sword and board specialist with the feats Weapon Focus: Longsword, Weapon Specialisation: Long Sword, Power Attack, and Cleave is much more effective with sword and board than he is with a bow - whereas the fighter with Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Weapon Focus: Longbow is penalised for ending up in melee.



4e did not "start to hard code fighting styles for every class where you are actively penalised by not fighting the way the game designers envisioned your class to fight".

You try taking a dashing and agile swashbuckler wielding rapier and dagger and wearing a doublet as a fighter into an AD&D session. It's a complete Darwin Award. Your AC is going to suck hard and you're going to go down fast, whatever your dex. In 3e it's going to be a challenge to make such a character playable as a fighter until you can get a prestige class - your AC is going to suck and two weapon fighting is a feat intensive chain. In 4e, you need the Unarmoured Agility feat to make up for no armour (you still are a point or two below expected AC but this isn't so terrible), your at wills are dual strike and footwork lure (already making you a seriously effective skirmisher), IIRC you take funnelling flurry as your L1 encounter power, and you've basically given up a point or two of AC and a feat and you're good.

Alternatively let's say you've been watching too much 90s TV and in particular Hercules and Xena. Your character idea is based on Kevin Sorbo's Hercules. Sword and fist. Occasionally grapling, often just punching people out. I really wouldn't recommend this combat style for AD&D. It just isn't going to work. In 3.X you're better off - you can at the very least invest in Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, and the TWF tree - it's decidedly sub-optimal, but viable. In 4e this works readily as a brawler fighter from first level.

4e fighters have more flexibility to fight the way you want them to than in any other edition as long as you stick to Melee Badass. AD&D is far more punishing for breaking out of expected combat roles than either 3e or 4e - and 4e has a vast amount of flexibility. It's simply that the techniques for getting at this flexibility are different from the feat-centric 3e methods.

Complete and utter nonsense.
4 Weapon profiencies. Whatever the player wants. No restriction of "you play a fighter, your role is taking hits so its sword and shield". Be it that fighting style, archery or mobile skirmishing, a fighter could do it if the player wants to play that way. 2 weapon fighting underpowered? I made different experiences. Sure if you go hardcore minmaxing you would be better with 2 handed weapons but that is imo negligible as it applies only to a rather specific playstyle. Fighter specialization? Again this is decided by the player, not the class. And at least in 3E the fighter had enough feats to specialize in several weapons.

That the 4E fighter has more flexibility is complete and utterly untrue. Already at creation you choose your specialization which steers onto the path of a specific weapon combination (And the options you had were already limited by the class. Guardian or Great Weapon).
And every other class is even more rigid in 4E. Rangers are 2 weapons or archery and it is nearly impossible, at least without loads of splatbooks, to even fill all your slots with powers not requiring one or the other. And while in older edition "basic attacks" were all you need which could be done with every weapon in 4E they were very sub par to power usage, powers which were linked to class and weapon type.

What do we have now? Several classes (Paladins and Avenger) for practically the same concept only so you can cover different weapon types. A fighter after the 3E model could together with multiclassing eclipse both those classes with some levels of cleric, some role playing and a free decision how the character fights.
General classes with options is all a role player needs. Want to be valiant? Be valiant. You do not need a special class for that. But then WotC can't sell their books full with minimally different classes so that won't happen.

In the end classes only representing fighting styles wouldn't be so bad. The problem in 4E is that classes not only represent the fighting style but also define the character outside of combat.
A holy warrior for a church? Take this sword and wade into melee (VALIANT!!!!). An archer without strong ties to nature? No chance.

 

[Sunseeker]

General classes with options is all a role player needs. Want to be valiant? Be valiant. You do not need a special class for that. But then WotC can't sell their books full with minimally different classes so that won't happen.

By that logic, we don't even need rules, all players need is their imagination. Why are you even buying RPGs if all people need are the fighter-type and the magic-user?

 

[Derren]

By that logic, we don't even need rules, all players need is their imagination. Why are you even buying RPGs if all people need are the fighter-type and the magic-user?

I really like to hear your reasoning for getting from "Customizable classes and role playing make specialized classes which force you to behave in a certain way and do not allow deviation obsolete" to "We do not need rules".