D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh? I was under the impression that powers just worked, and generally weren't subject to DM intervention. I thought that was kind of the point of having codified powers rather than relying on improvisation for everything.

I mean, even a slime can be knocked prone, right?

Rule 0, the DM has infinite force in the last word. In any case there's no reason to suppose that the players cannot come to a consensus about how powers work in specific circumstances. Its generally considered 'disempowering' to be ridiculously nitpicky about it and since a lot of it is 'magic' there's often not a lot of solid logic for nixing power effects or whatnot, but I think it makes sense to make some extrapolations and possibly a limitation or two when it helps the people at the table. All RPG rules are there to increase fun, not be pedantic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you're going with the shared-narrative strong-DM model, from 2E and the like, then everyone must agree with (or at least tolerate) everything that exists in the game.

That's neither stated nor implied in 2e nor anywhere else. It's a construct that seems to serve no function beyond being a foundation for a OneTrueWay.

Maybe I'm playing the Cleric, but I don't want to play in a game where the Fighter has that power because it hurts my immersion too badly. I can't choose to imagine it differently from how the DM narrates it, or else I've violated (what I understand to be) the premise of the whole game.

You /can/ choose to imagine it differently. You don't understand the premise of the whole game. And, even if you are too dense and stubborn to realize or admit either of those things, you are also just plain being a jerk to the guy who /would/ like to play a fighter that's actually effective and comes off a bit like a martial character might in genre.

Or maybe I'm playing the Fighter, and I resent that I'm forced to choose between being effective at my game role and maintaining my role as player rather than narrator.

You aren't. The choices in 4e are reasonably balanced, so if you exclude some of them for whatever reason of personal taste, you don't unduly hurt your effectiveness.

This actually brings up an issue that I find important regarding 4E; the "creativity" thing. I have found 4E to have a real sweet spot in terms of being hugely creative with the set powers. Blagging the GM for what you can persuade them to let you get away with is all very well, but taking written powers and making them really leverage the specific situation is something I find genuinely creative. And the players I GM for seem to pull it off run after run after run. Different every time - as I said, situation, situation, situation...

Yes, I guess the process of exploring the depth of play offered by a game, would include some creativity.

I could use 4E-ish methods and mechanisms, absolutely. But why would I want to do that without leveraging the rules that the 4E designers have written down for me? I strongly disagree with making up "rulings" (= ad hoc system made up as we play) unless absolutely neccessary precisely because the players have no model of the game world that way.

'Rulings' are a good way for the DM to deal with failures of the system - be they intrinsic and mechanical or situational or of omission - the less a system fails, the less they're needed, but no system is perfect.

One point that I think gets overblown is that if you run a really bad system that fails frequently, you'll develop the GMing chops to fix system failures on the fly (or give up on GMing, if not on the hobby as a whole, of course), which'll help you run better games. Therefor bad rules are good.

There were two forms of such "creativity":

1) Using the clear and unambiguous effect of the spells in clever ways. This is very, very similar to the use of 4E powers I describe above, and just as laudable. The difference with 4E is that you don't need to be a spellcaster to do it.

2) Leveraging ambiguous, sloppily worded or vaguely defined spells to mean something that you can manage to persuade the GM it means in order to get a powerful effect. I put this in the same basket as the rest of the "blag the GM to get whatever you can get away with", except that it tends IME to be even easier and more extreme because "it's magic and magic can break the rules of reality, because it's magic..."

The second sort also further illustrates the problems with pretending that optionless martial characters make it up by improvising. The same folks who claim that hold martial improvised maneuvers to a genre-antithetical standard of RL realism, while letting magic get away with just about anything when it's time to use a spell 'creatively.'

The truth is though, I have played 4e for its entire run, and I've never yet had a player even USE CAGI, nobody ever bothered to take it (for whatever reason, I never asked).

I've seen a player take it and use it fairly enthusiastically. When it was used well, it was a really nice power. When used too recklessly, it got him dropped quickly. Either way, though, the player had a blast with it.

This is why I have never believed that the reasons people state for their preferences are the real underlying reasons, and why I continue to maintain that the constant bashing on 4e for the SURFACE reasons has produced such a dissatisfying result, because the real issues were never aired and addressed.

That's possibly one of the worst things about the edition war and the Next playtest process. The real issues were writ large between the lines, but never owned up to.

In the example I gave, the player was operating under the old model where the DM states the one true narrative of the game world, and everyone else tries to follow along with what's happening.

In case it wasn't obvious enough that all you're doing is pushing a OneTrueWay that D&D was never restricted to.

I admitted that this model is a poor fit for 4E, and is one of the major sources of conflict.

It's a poor fit for any RPG or shared storytelling experience, because it's nothing but a pretext for unnecessary conflict.

Rule 0, the DM has infinite force in the last word. In any case there's no reason to suppose that the players cannot come to a consensus about how powers work in specific circumstances.

I've had exactly that 'consensus' experience. When one player boggled that my Brawling Fighter was able to keep a bulette from tunneling away, I described him wedging up one of its armored plates so that it would hurt if it tried - like a Freman using a maker-hook on a Dune sandworm, a reference that immediately got him back into the narrative and enjoying it. There's usually a way - but, even when there isn't, the polite thing to do is let the other guy have is fun. It involves compromise, but that's why games at least make an attempt at balance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You /can/ choose to imagine it differently. You don't understand the premise of the whole game. And, even if you are too dense and stubborn to realize or admit either of those things, you are also just plain being a jerk to the guy who /would/ like to play a fighter that's actually effective and comes off a bit like a martial character might in genre.

One traditional style of play is that there is a shared narrative, which is described by the DM, and which all players choose to buy into. Contradicting that narrative, then, is a violation of social contract.

Players should conduct themselves in a manner to contribute to the fun of all. Nobody is forced to play at a table if they're not having fun, and nobody is forced to put up with you if you're ruining it for everyone else.

If you're disrupting the play experience of the group, then you are the jerk. The same as if you're playing a Kender, or the Lawful-Stupid Paladin who betrays the party to the authorities over some imagined breach of conduct. If you want to play in the group, then the DM and the other players have some measure of veto rights over your character.

In case it wasn't obvious enough that all you're doing is pushing a OneTrueWay that D&D was never restricted to.

It's a poor fit for any RPG or shared storytelling experience, because it's nothing but a pretext for unnecessary conflict.

Either you're trolling or you're just being dense. I'm not advocating that there is only one way to play the game. I'm advocating that in the way I enjoy playing the game - which is a common way of playing, that deserves to be supported - there is one true narrative taking place within the story (as contrasted with another way of playing, where each person has their own narrative).

That everyone is imagining the same narrative is an important part of the shared experience, in this model.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One traditional style of play is that there is a shared narrative, which is described by the DM, and which all players choose to buy into. Contradicting that narrative, then, is a violation of social contract.

Openly violating could be. For instance, if the DM was OK with the narrative created by C&GI, whining about the shattering of your verisimiltude and insisting it be changed would violate that, while keeping it to yourself and imagining "the so-called 'fighter' must have some hidden magical power to do that," wouldn't.

Players should conduct themselves in a manner to contribute to the fun of all. Nobody is forced to play at a table if they're not having fun, and nobody is forced to put up with you if you're ruining it for everyone else.

If you're disrupting the play experience of the group, then you are the jerk.

Exactly, and bitching at someone for doing something cool and fun with their character is disrupting the play experience, for everyone.

Either you're trolling or you're just being dense. I'm not advocating that there is only one way to play the game.

That is /exactly/ what you're doing. There was not this one true way in 2e, there is not any such thing now. Maybe it's how you were introduced to 2e, but you're as likely to find that 1TW 'violated' playing at a 2e table as any other.

I'm advocating that in the way I enjoy playing the game - which is a common way of playing, that deserves to be supported - there is one true narrative taking place within the story (as contrasted with another way of playing, where each person has their own narrative).

Yet you're presenting it as antithetical to other ways of playing, or even whole swaths of possible RPG systems. No 'style,' no vision that's only one-of-many-ways-to-play, needs that kind of exclusionary attitude. Only a OneTrueWay is so universally antagonistic to all other ways.

That everyone is imagining the same narrative is an important part of the shared experience, in this model.

Imagination happens in your head, like perception, it's an individual experience. The DM describes a setting or a character, each player fills in details in his imagination - they may not all match exactly with eachother or with the DM's vision, but if they all fit the DM's description, it's not a problem. By the same token, it doesn't matter how you imagine the ultimate causation behind an ability, so long as it fits what the ability does in the context of the game. You can imagine that the C&GI fighter has a wild talent if it makes you feel better. It doesn't contradict what's happening in game for anyone else. Demanding the power fail or be banned entirely, OTOH, does.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Openly violating could be. For instance, if the DM was OK with the narrative created by C&GI, whining about the shattering of your verisimiltude and insisting it be changed would violate that, while keeping it to yourself and imagining "the so-called 'fighter' must have some hidden magical power to do that," wouldn't.

Exactly. If the DM was okay with it, and narrated it that way, then I'd leave the game; I would not be having fun in that environment. Although that example is purely hypothetical, anyway, since the strong-DM model is poorly suited to 4E in the first place.

Yet you're presenting it as antithetical to other ways of playing, or even whole swaths of possible RPG systems. No 'style,' no vision that's only one-of-many-ways-to-play, needs that kind of exclusionary attitude. Only a OneTrueWay is so universally antagonistic to all other ways.

Few rulesets work well with wildly varying playstyles. There are plenty of games out there which support the one model I actually care about, and plenty more that don't.

Believe it or not, the ideas presented in this thread are as radical to adherents of my school as my ideas apparently are to you. I could talk to players I know in real life, who don't travel the message-boards, and they would be shocked at the assertion that there isn't one true narrative, or that meta-gaming should be tolerated. Your views are not nearly as main-stream as you might believe them to be.

It was kind of a surprise to me that 2E and 3E worked so well for my style, and 4E didn't. I'm over it now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Exactly. If the DM was okay with it, and narrated it that way, then I'd leave the game; I would not be having fun in that environment.

That would be ideal, in isolation. Though, in the context of many groups (groups of friends, for instance), it could also be a form of particularly unsubtle manipulation.

Few rulesets work well with wildly varying playstyles.

IMX, a system can work fine with a variety of styles or 'creative agendas' or what-have-you - it's the adherents of those styles who can be reasonable about letting eachother have their fun, or not.

Believe it or not, the ideas presented in this thread are as radical to adherents of my school as my ideas apparently are to you.

It's not the ideas that are radical. It's the implied incompatibility with all other ideas.

It was kind of a surprise to me that 2E and 3E worked so well for my style, and 4E didn't. I'm over it now.

Then why even read a thread entitled 'The Best Thing from 4e?'

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then why even read a thread entitled 'The Best Thing from 4e?'

Because there are a lot of good things about 4E, and I wanted to hear about them? I wanted to know if there was anything that I missed, since I stopped playing, which might possibly be adapted into a game that is otherwise better for my style.

And then someone brought up a term - Illusionism - which I wanted to learn more about. Apparently it was important that 4E didn't require it, but I needed to know what it actually entailed in order to understand if and how I should avoid it.

 

[pemerton]

From bull-rushing, to tripping, to disarming, to hindering, to tumbling and attacking, to lunging and pinning oneself onto the beast with ones weapons, dodging, shield rushing, feinting, swinging and attacking, distracting, intimidating, sacrifice accuracy for damage and vice versa...etc

I don't really see how this stuff is missing from 4e.

I also don't really see how it's especially present in AD&D - for instance, what are the rules on swapping accuracy for damage (especially in 1st ed AD&D, where the notion of "accuracy" has no work to do - it's already subsumed into the abstract 1 minute round)? And in 3E, to swap accuracy for damage requires a feat, doesn't it?

Pinning oneself onto the beast with one's weapon is a staple of the epic fighter in my campaign - riding a white dragon to the ground, and surfing slaads on the waves of chaos.

CaGi - was this a one-trick, yes or no?

We were discussing one encounter power initially - it is not my fault so many people decided to climb onto the wagon and wanted to explore my discussion at paragon level

CaGI is a 7th level power. Any PC with CaGI has at least two other encounter attack powers, two daily powers (1st, 5th) and two utilities (2nd, 6th) and that's before items, feats (which might inclue a skill power), etc.

The fighter in my 4e game is built around encounter close-burst powers: CaGI/Warrior's Urging, at low levels the 3rd level one (Sweeping Blow), various other ones that push or prone at mid-Paragon, and since 27th level Cruel Reaper.

One of his at-wills is Footwork Lure: more forced movement, which with Polearm Momentum, Deadly Draw and Rushing Cleats also allows him to knock enemies prone.

There is no script. The character shifts between polearm and mordenkrad, sometimes is solo-ing out the front, sometimes is flanking with the paladin, sometimes locks down a single foe, sometimes takes on many.

I agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]: if actual play experiences are same-y, to me that suggests a lack of imagination on the part of either the player or the GM. But maybe me and my group are extreme outliers - I haven't undertaken the research!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Exactly. If the DM was okay with it, and narrated it that way, then I'd leave the game; I would not be having fun in that environment. Although that example is purely hypothetical, anyway, since the strong-DM model is poorly suited to 4E in the first place.

Few rulesets work well with wildly varying playstyles. There are plenty of games out there which support the one model I actually care about, and plenty more that don't.

Believe it or not, the ideas presented in this thread are as radical to adherents of my school as my ideas apparently are to you. I could talk to players I know in real life, who don't travel the message-boards, and they would be shocked at the assertion that there isn't one true narrative, or that meta-gaming should be tolerated. Your views are not nearly as main-stream as you might believe them to be.

It was kind of a surprise to me that 2E and 3E worked so well for my style, and 4E didn't. I'm over it now.

I gotta admit, you're sounding more and more rigid and incapable of adaptation in play style at even the most basic levels.

Our views are 'mainstream' enough that the vast majority of games designed today incorporate some version of these concepts explicitly in the design of the game. There may be many casual players from past years who haven't really absorbed all of the current trends in RPGs, but IME they almost invariably simply need to be exposed to them to understand and utilize them. It can take time and unlearning 'rules' that they thought were absolute for 3 decades which were really just table conventions. Not all players make that transition. Those who can are treated to a whole new and interesting way of playing. Maybe they still like the old way too, or elements of it, that's all individual preference.

I mean you are very welcome to your preferences, but you have at times said some things that more than verged on stating that your preferences were superior. The overall impression is one of a player who has a very narrow view of RPGs, doesn't accept that playstyles much outside his own are even RPGs at all (you called them 'Story Games' and put them in a separate category) and pretty much outright stated that what I played "wasn't challenging" and I "didn't earn success" playing that way. My guess is you're not trying to come across as a stuck-up snob, and I won't take it that way, but it is a pretty easy interpretation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because there are a lot of good things about 4E, and I wanted to hear about them? I wanted to know if there was anything that I missed, since I stopped playing, which might possibly be adapted into a game that is otherwise better for my style.

Haven't noticed you contributing nor even acknowledging anything of that nature.

And then someone brought up a term - Illusionism - which I wanted to learn more about. Apparently it was important that 4E didn't require it, but I needed to know what it actually entailed in order to understand if and how I should avoid it.

It's been a lot of pages since either of those things have come up.