Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies

[grimslade]

In my day, PCs only got two actions: die clean or die ugly. They could describe how they were going to achieve their imminent demise but death was the only outcome. That was when I was in a storytelling mood. Heavy combat just had me flipping a d6 and announcing "You're dead." to the PC whose number came up. These were simpler times.

Overly descriptive powers can impact what a player tries at the table. Stunt mechanics are great. They provide resolution mechanics for creative play. So rather than say rules bind creativity, how about rules presentation can box in play? This is an edition neutral issue, even the free wheeling Advanced D&D had problems in this field, i.e. my fighter can't climb that wall, he's not a thief. Yes there are ways to rule on this and mechanics that can be brought to bear but someone new to the game looks at the rules and decides they can't attempt something because it is someone else's bag.

 

[pemerton]

4e, far more than any other edition, reversed the order of operations for resolving these stunts. Instead of looking at what your imaginary character wants to do in this imaginary world, THEN trying to address this with the rules, 4e looks at the rules and game effects FIRST, then narrates the outcome.

In generic RPG X, a stunt is handled in this way - look at fictional situation, from that infer mechanical resolution technique, use said technique, infer from mechanical result to new fictional situation.

According to page 42 of the 4e DMG, a stunt is handled in the same way - look at fictional situation, from that infer mechanical resolution technique, use said technique, infer from mechanial result to new fictional situation.

Your own presentation of the alleged contrast seems to me to mention only the first two steps in relation to generic RPG (look at fictional sitution, infer to resolution technique) and seems to mention only the last two steps in relation to 4e (apply resolution technique, infer from result of that to the fictional consequences of the action). Once you mention all four steps in both cases, the contrast disaappears.

There's no denying that 4e places some tight constraints on the relevant mechanical resolution techniques, in terms of DC setting and damage permitted. But it does not place tight constraints on other aspects of the techniques - for example, a wide range of skills or stats can be called upon for stunts.

There's also no denying that 4e encourages a high degree of metagame input at stage 2 - settling on the mechanical technique for resolving the stunt. But it is not entirely metagame. The fictional situation is still the starting point.

It is a significant change from most every other RPG ever made.

What other RPGs have you got in mind? I don't think it's radically different from HeroWars/Quest, for example, which both (i) places tight constraints on the relevant resolution techniques, and (ii) encourages a high degree of metagame input in settling on those techniques.

 

[LostSoul]

The difference in 4E is that you have so many options that don't require input from the fictional situation*. The starting point for player decision making isn't "What is my character doing" but instead "What power do I have that would work well here".

That being said, 4E has a very robust framework for resolution based on the fictional situation, one I really enjoy. The step to making it come alive is to change how players make decisions in the game.

* - For certain values of fictional situation.

 

[Andor]

To avoid a bad experience, the player either has to read the DM's mind or ask before committing to an action what the likely outcome would be.

This is always true, in any game, in any edition, for almost any action.

"Do I think I can punch the monster?"
"Yes, but the fiendish, dire, were-hedgehog looks kind of ouchy to punch."

"Can I use my Perform: Flatuence to impress the King?"
"As he is not a 12 year old boy, the answer is unclear."

"Can I cast fireball n these tunnels?"
"Well, the sewers smell terrible and your torches are burning funny colors and flaring a lot..."

 

[Scribble]

The difference in 4E is that you have so many options that don't require input from the fictional situation*. The starting point for player decision making isn't "What is my character doing" but instead "What power do I have that would work well here".

That being said, 4E has a very robust framework for resolution based on the fictional situation, one I really enjoy. The step to making it come alive is to change how players make decisions in the game.

* - For certain values of fictional situation.

I still disagree with this statement, as much as I disagree with someone saying the player of a wizard or cleric have been traditionally less "creative" then someone playing a fighter or a thief.

I've seen people in all games I've ever run who look at their character sheet (no matter how sparse) for what to do, and I've seen people who only glance at their character sheet (no matter how robust) when deciding what to do, and 4e is no different.

It's the person not the game. The difference I think people are seeing is that 4e gives even the people who traditionally do nothing but what their CS says more things to do.

I think somehow this gets translated to a lot of people as those people suddenly becoming less creative. The reality is these are the same people who in the past responded with: "I swing my sword... I uh... hrrm I swing my sword. Oh... Yeah I guess I swing my sword..."

The same people who in the past tried to do wacky things are the same people who in the 4e are saying "Now I know it doesn't say I can do this, but if I use x in y manner can I also have it do z?"

All the added options and powers are doing is giving the people who ordinarily only do what their CS says more things to only do.

(It also gives the creative player more stuff to try to bend and flex to their advantage.)

 

[Harlekin]

This is always true, in any game, in any edition, for almost any action.

"Do I think I can punch the monster?"
"Yes, but the fiendish, dire, were-hedgehog looks kind of ouchy to punch."

"Can I use my Perform: Flatuence to impress the King?"
"As he is not a 12 year old boy, the answer is unclear."

"Can I cast fireball n these tunnels?"
"Well, the sewers smell terrible and your torches are burning funny colors and flaring a lot..."

No. In 3ed or 4ed, I can tell you what my PCs odds are of jumping over a 20' pit without needing any DM input. I can give you a rough idea what happens if I try to push an Ogre over a cliff. I even have a decent idea whether my approach of sweet-talking the guard can work.

Not needing a DM to size up these odds allows me to roleplay my PC with fewer metagame interruptions and to make better choices.

 

[LostSoul]

I still disagree with this statement, as much as I disagree with someone saying the player of a wizard or cleric have been traditionally less "creative" then someone playing a fighter or a thief.

I've seen people in all games I've ever run who look at their character sheet (no matter how sparse) for what to do, and I've seen people who only glance at their character sheet (no matter how robust) when deciding what to do, and 4e is no different.

It's the person not the game. The difference I think people are seeing is that 4e gives even the people who traditionally do nothing but what their CS says more things to do.

I think somehow this gets translated to a lot of people as those people suddenly becoming less creative. The reality is these are the same people who in the past responded with: "I swing my sword... I uh... hrrm I swing my sword. Oh... Yeah I guess I swing my sword..."

The same people who in the past tried to do wacky things are the same people who in the 4e are saying "Now I know it doesn't say I can do this, but if I use x in y manner can I also have it do z?"

All the added options and powers are doing is giving the people who ordinarily only do what their CS says more things to only do.

(It also gives the creative player more stuff to try to bend and flex to their advantage.)

My point wasn't about creativity, it was about how the system expects you to make decisions.

In 4E you look at the battle grid, the terrain and distance involved, the level + role + keywords + powers of the NPCs you are fighting, and the powers you and the other PCs have available. How do those interact? It's easy to get creative in that situation.

These elements are all part of the fictional situation, but one aspect of the fictional situation that 4E doesn't expect to inform your decision making is "What is your character doing?" e.g. 4E expects you to decide if you are going to use Spinning Sweep; it doesn't expect you to decide if you want to "spin beneath your enemy's guard with a long, powerful cut, and then sweep your leg through his an instant later to knock him head over heels."

 

[Hussar]

My point wasn't about creativity, it was about how the system expects you to make decisions.

In 4E you look at the battle grid, the terrain and distance involved, the level + role + keywords + powers of the NPCs you are fighting, and the powers you and the other PCs have available. How do those interact? It's easy to get creative in that situation.

These elements are all part of the fictional situation, but one aspect of the fictional situation that 4E doesn't expect to inform your decision making is "What is your character doing?" e.g. 4E expects you to decide if you are going to use Spinning Sweep; it doesn't expect you to decide if you want to "spin beneath your enemy's guard with a long, powerful cut, and then sweep your leg through his an instant later to knock him head over heels."

The problem is, D&D as written anyway, has never been that specific. Although, to be fair, I do think some groups play it this way. 4e expects you to be able to contextualize your powers within the fiction of the game. Yes, I totally agree with that. And, I can see how it can be problematic (our neighbourhood psion mind thrusted a sand golem in the last session - how did that work? I have no idea. And don't get me started on bards.) because sometimes there really is a gap there.

In the past, because you didn't really have these options spelled out for you, you would never get these situations. No one would mind blast a golem, because you know it doesn't work. You don't leg sweep the flying creature, because the flavor of the mechanics is hard wired into the mechanics themselves - just how can you trip an ooze anyway?

4e is just as creative as any other version of the game, but, it does force players to be creative in different places.

 

[Andor]

No. In 3ed or 4ed, I can tell you what my PCs odds are of jumping over a 20' pit without needing any DM input. I can give you a rough idea what happens if I try to push an Ogre over a cliff. I even have a decent idea whether my approach of sweet-talking the guard can work.

Not needing a DM to size up these odds allows me to roleplay my PC with fewer metagame interruptions and to make better choices.

I must have communicated poorly. I did not mean one always has to ask the GM how he intends to resolves the effects of my actions on a metagame or system level. "If I shoot the ogre do I roll a d20 or do we play a hand of poker?"

I meant one should always ask the GM for any additional in game information that might be perfectly obvious to your character but not to you. IE: Yes you know your characters odds of making a 20' running broadjump, in broad daylight on level ground. Before doing it in a dungeon however I would always ask to make sure there were no loose rocks, sloping ground or low hanging vines that are going to screw me up.

 

[Hussar]

I must have communicated poorly. I did not mean one always has to ask the GM how he intends to resolves the effects of my actions on a metagame or system level. "If I shoot the ogre do I roll a d20 or do we play a hand of poker?"

I meant one should always ask the GM for any additional in game information that might be perfectly obvious to your character but not to you. IE: Yes you know your characters odds of making a 20' running broadjump, in broad daylight on level ground. Before doing it in a dungeon however I would always ask to make sure there were no loose rocks, sloping ground or low hanging vines that are going to screw me up.

Ahh, see, now we're getting into a playstyle issue. I would guess, although I could be mistaken, that in Harlekin's game, loose rocks, sloping ground or low hanging vines would be stated up front before the player actually had to ask. Same goes with your other examples Andor - gas in a sewer and the like. The DM usually (or almost always) lets the player know of any mitigating factors before being prompted by the player.

Unless there are very specific reasons why the PC shouldn't know of course (a hidden trap at the edge of the pit for example).

I admit, my playstyle is far closer to Harlekin's. I do not enjoy the playstyle that forces me the player to constantly go down the shopping list of questions just to tease out the details of the situation. If the DM says there's a 15 foot pit, I know that's a DC 15 jump check with a running start and act on that knowledge. If I roll a 15 and fall into the pit because there were "loose stones" at the edge of the pit, I'm going to get cranky. I loathe pixel bitching and IMO, that's precisely what this is.