Do YOU nod to "realism"?

[talok55]

When you are in a game where you are effectively encouraged and allowed to utilize any power whether it be PC or Monster when designing a monster it kind of makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about. By the rules of the game any monster can wipe marks.

So either I missed the eratta that says "monsters can now ignore marks", or you are specifically giving monsters PC powers or powers from the few monsters that can avoid marks. That is falling into houserule territory. Sure, you can do that, but that isn't using RAW. You are having to alter the monsters to make wiping marks a common thing. That is the only way that removing marks is common. You have to specifically alter the game to make it that way.

 

[Balesir]

I only made a big hash of a player anticipating the tactics of the monsters and avoiding them by doing what would normally be considered a subpar tactic. That's what I find clever. In the vast majority of circumstances, it doesn't matter too much which square a PC is in. As a DM, if I wanted to unload on that PC, I typically can and there's not much the players can do to stop it (with the exception of any marked monsters or monsters that someone has put some level of control over). But if a player can position his PC (and/or other PCs in the case of a Leader who can move fellow PCs) in such a way as to limit my options as a DM, I consider that player to be doing something clever.

It looks like we are far closer that might have been assumed; this is exactly the sort of 'clever and creative' play that I love seeing when I play (DM, generally) 4E. And I see it all the time. It's not the "going beyond the rules" that I see many folks rave over, but I find it very much preferable to have clever stuff going on inside the rules first, and then the occasional "outside the rules" moment to add spice.

To quote the great Terry Pratchett, "I'll be a lot happier about thinking 'outside the box' when I'm convinced there's any thinking going on inside the box!"

 

[Hussar]

KarinsDad - again, I think you're applying a double standard.

If doing X is clever, it's always clever, whether or not the rules support it. If moving to an advantageous position is clever, it's not suddenly not clever just because the rules give specific mechanics governing that movement.

Like you said, it's clever to push someone off a cliff in AD&D, but not in 4e. Thus, the fact that you see less "clever" play in 4e is simply the result of more comprehensive mechanics, not any lack in the players. What was once considered clever has become "4e 101".

So, again, the fact that you see less "clever" play actually has more to do with the fact that you are setting the bar continuously higher than anything else.

Or, to put it another way, of course you only see players using the powers on their sheets. That sheet gives them so many more options than it ever did in any other edition other than casters possibly. A 10th level PC in 4e has about a dozen viable options right there on his character sheet in any given round.

It's not that people think less outside the box, it's that the box has gotten a hell of a lot bigger.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad - again, I think you're applying a double standard.

If doing X is clever, it's always clever, whether or not the rules support it.

This argument is illogical.

When you were 3 years old, adding 2 plus 2 was clever.

Is that still clever for you?

Clever is relative based on the scenario and options available at the time. Clever is doing something that you rarely do and something that is exceptional, not doing something that you do all of the time (like your players repeatedly using forced movement to push a foe into a hazard).

It's not that people think less outside the box, it's that the box has gotten a hell of a lot bigger.

Given the proper tools and a wider selection of them, people can be a lot more effective. That doesn't mean that they use those options in a clever way. In fact, the opposite occurs. Necessity is the mother of all invention. When the necessity is no longer there, the invention, inspiration, and ingenuity peters out. When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. When you have an entire toolkit, you no longer have to use the hammer in innovative ways.

I've come to the conclusion based on your examples that you appear to be confusing clever with awesome. In one of the first 4E encounters that I ever played in, I managed to save a fellow PC by using Thunderwave to push 3 foes towards a pit. These 3 foes were previously stomping the crap out of my fellow player's PC and he was in single digit hit points quickly and about to drop. It was an awesome event because my Wizard hit all 3 monsters, knocked 2 into the pit, and knocked the 3rd monster prone. But mostly it was awesome because I saved the PC of someone else at the table. There was a lot of cheering. It was a cool moment in the game and some players still remember it 3 years later.

But, it wasn't especially clever. The entire purpose of Thunderwave is to push foes either merely away, or into disadvantageous positions. There wasn't a damn thing clever about it at all.

Just probably like your players, my forced movement was awesome at the time to the people playing. Players laughed and cheered over it. But also like your players, the concept of pushing foes into a hazard wasn't clever. Not even a little bit. Even playing the game for practically the first time, it was 4E 101 and obvious.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, y'know what? Playing silly buggers semantics games gets tired really fast.

Ok, fine. You don't think that it's clever to use tools that you have. That clever only happens when you hammer in a screw because you don't have a driver. Fine. To me, that's not clever, that's just overcoming the failings of a system. If the system was properly designed in the first place, I would have that screwdriver.

But, since I have a tool kit, I can no longer be clever. :/ Kinda screwed either way aren't I? If I use a very narrow rule set, then I can be clever all the time, but, only if my DM lets me. If I use a comprehensive ruleset, I'm never clever, but, I get to be awesome all the time

Well, fair enough I suppose. I'll take awesome all the time over occasionally clever any day of the week.

 

[pemerton]

One time, the PCs in my game were fighting a group of foes in a courtyard, being attacked by an enemy spellcaster who had cover behind an upstairs window. The wizard PC in my game teleported up there and used Thunderwave to blast out the wall and push the spellcaster through (what had been) the window, so that the PCs below could finish her off. I don't particularly care whether this is classified as clever or awesome, but it was the sort of thing I would like to see more of in my game, and 4e produces more of it than any earlier ruleset (D&D or otherwise), mostly because the adjudication of that sort of stuff is so straightforward.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah, y'know what? Playing silly buggers semantics games gets tired really fast.

...

You don't think that it's clever to use tools that you have.

Wrong, that's not what I think.

It's isn't clever to use the tools that you have in repetitive and normal ways (as per your examples).

It's clever to use the tools in innovative ways.

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand the difference and call it semantics. Clever is clever, but awesome may or may not be clever and in 4E, typically isn't.

Your examples were extremely typical for the game system, hence, not clever.

In the "Cool stunts that you have seen" thread, there are 19 replies in 5.5 days. That's not many. I suspect that the real reason for this is that people just don't see that many cool stunts in 4E since 99% of most players actions are spamming powers (the idea in this thread that got us down this rabbit hole) or spamming skills (type of encounter depending). Nothing wrong with spamming powers, that's what they are there for. But with so many options, that's the easiest solution the vast majority of the time.

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I can remember about a dozen unique and clever things that I or a fellow player pulled off in the 30 years that I played d&d pre-4E. The fact that I can remember any of them is actually pretty amazing.

In the 4E days within the last 3 years, I cannot think of a single one. That doesn't mean that they never happened, it's just that they tend to be more rare (and less memorable because many cool awesome things happen without being especially clever) because the game system is designed to give each player more options. The case of "I can do A or B, but both of them suck, I wonder what C I can come up with" rarely occurs because the player has options of "A through D" at first level and "A through M" at epic levels. Thinking beyond these many options is a bit harder because the options handle most things that need to be accomplished in some fashion or other.

A DM can introduce challenges which are hard to overcome via spamming powers or spamming skills, but then the DM runs the risk that nobody at his table comes up with a good idea and the PCs are stuck.

 

[KarinsDad]

One time, the PCs in my game were fighting a group of foes in a courtyard, being attacked by an enemy spellcaster who had cover behind an upstairs window. The wizard PC in my game teleported up there and used Thunderwave to blast out the wall and push the spellcaster through (what had been) the window, so that the PCs below could finish her off. I don't particularly care whether this is classified as clever or awesome, but it was the sort of thing I would like to see more of in my game, and 4e produces more of it than any earlier ruleset (D&D or otherwise), mostly because the adjudication of that sort of stuff is so straightforward.

Agreed. More awesome in 4E because there are more options per player and hence more opportunities for something cool to occur.

This, of course, leads to the downside of 4E which is that there are more options (and hence, conditions and effects to keep track of) than in earlier rulesets.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

-Avoiding your common set-up.

While I won't get into a huge debate about philosophy and/or overstate the idea. How many times have you used the power? How long has it been around?

All these topics attempt to justify certain styles and ideas over others. Some people are also bias towards them.

Most of the powers in games I've come across make sense for what they are. The game itself is good as long as you don't again, god mod.

Then there's the different/originality issue. Can you see a movie about Robert De-Niro not handle a weapon and/or play the diplomat.

I myself haven't seen all the movies he's in so I wouldn't know for sure. But you do know what I mean.