The Videogame comparison

[phloog]

This I eagerly disagree with. Most players (particularly those of the powergamer/hack'n'slash molds) don't bother describing what they do within the context of the game. (SNIP). And I certainly don't think the only possible descriptions would be convoluted. Keep in mind that within the context of the game the rules aren't meant to be literal. HP for example isn't the amount of blood in your body. It represent your ability to absorb, deflect, or roll with a blow - as well as morale. (SNIP)
So narrate it yourself....

We disagree on degree of convolution (?).

Also, my group for the most part engages in good descriptions on their own.

I agree and am fine with the fact that HP are abstract.

However, 4E for the most part (and in truth 3.5 before it) DEMANDS a grid with miniatures, and the power I referenced which sucks in opponents COULD be abstracted...BUT...

It becomes freakish and convoluted because then you have to assume that the grid itself and DISTANCES are abstracted, or you have to go with the magic-like explanation of "the fighter can draw in any foe, with no ability to resist and independent of that foe's wisdom, willpower, intelligence, mastery of tactics, etc".

The explanation must involve some supernatural or bizarre gravity or influence over others, or you must take some path like assuming that all those foes were actually closer than originally depicted on the grid.

Any explanation in martial/mundane terms doesn't work unless the DM puts artificial, against-the-book, and potentially unbalancing limitations on the power - like "This power requires an attack against Will to affect someone", or "this power doesn't work on really smart dudes"

Example: faced with a group of six foes, two of which are genius-intellect frail wizards, and the rest of which are moronic orcs, this warrior somehow does something in his action that makes not only the four orcs rush to him for their free beatdown, but also causes the wizards to be compelled against all their will and sense to move within striking distance of the fighter, disregarding their arsenal of spells and deciding that getting into dagger range is a good idea.

I've heard explanations that it's a dare, or a taunt, or false show of weakness that draws others in for the attack....this type of explanation either causes the wizards or any other targets to lose all willpower and sense, or it gives the warrior legendary abilities to taunt, bluff, etc....abilities which vanish in other situations. I was originally open to, and in fact asked for explanations that would make sense, but after looking at all those offered it just didn't work for me.

For me this power and others like it, and not the healing or other rules, are the things that make it more like a videogame. And again, it might be insanely fun to have a warrior with a 'power' that allows this.

There is in D&D like in movies a level of entertainment that allows you to suspend your disbelief...this kind of power is not something I can overlook myself.

 

[Dragonbait]

I want to know when At-Will powers were the sign of being very videogamy? Was it when Shadowrun allowed spells to be used at will? Or when Star Wars (D6) allowed their Force abilities to be used at will? Or when Warhammer mages in 2ed could use their spells at will? That concept has been around for decades, and just because it was never in D&D before does not mean that they are very videogamy.

As for encounter powers - Again, when they showed up in Star Wars SAGA edition, I heard people talk about the cinematic approach. Not the video game approach.

As for daily - There were spell-like abilities that could be used 1/day. Sure, a fighter in previous editions didn't deal with that stuff, but they didn't deal with versitility at all, really (I stay where I am and attack with my weapon.. Just presume I do that for the next four rounds, too).

As for monster "types" - well, it moved from a type determining hit dice, saves, skills, base attack bonus, and so on to type determining how they play. "Psst, that's a giant. Hit him with something that requires a Reflex save. And he has the Fire subtype, hit him with a cold-based attack" People call out the titles "A gnoll clawfighter?! That's so videogamy. What if I want to have the PCs fight just a regular gnoll?" Well, what if I went to 3ed or 2ed or 1ed and wanted the PCs to fight a regular human? There is no 1-hit die generic "human". If a race is intelligent, why would it NOT have different combat skills, talents, and capabilities just like a human would?

The minis and the grid - A MUST for 4e, IMO. But it was also a MUST for 3E IMO. I've met people who hate minis for reasons I can not fathom. I have tried mini-less combat in 3E, but realized I had to ditch a quarter of the rules (5-foot steps, movement, AoO from moving past enemies, and so on) to do it.

 

[LostSoul]

I've heard explanations that it's a dare, or a taunt, or false show of weakness that draws others in for the attack....this type of explanation either causes the wizards or any other targets to lose all willpower and sense, or it gives the warrior legendary abilities to taunt, bluff, etc....abilities which vanish in other situations.

It's not that his ability to taunt or draw other people in vanishes in other situations, it's just that it doesn't work in the same way at the metagame level.

If you want consistency in the game world, you have to approach the interaction between the mechanics and what's actually taking place in the game world / fiction in a different way.

The Fighter makes his challenge, and the orcs fall for it. The Fighter, caught up with fighting the orcs, turns his back on the wizards.

The Fighter doesn't mean to do this! He's screwed up! He's left his back open!

The wizards move in for a quick, silent stab - but the Fighter gets pushed by an orc and luckily spots the Wizards in time, slashing both of them with one sweep of his sword.

Note that, in this example, we have no idea if the Fighter has even used Come and Get It at the metagame level. We just have some fancy fiction that satisfies me.

The mechanics are more abstract; there's a difference between the metagame (what the players experience) and the in-game fiction (what the characters experience). This break has always been there in D&D, but now it exists in more places.

Maybe that means that you can't feel the emotions your character is feeling. If that's a big priority for you then I think 4e is not going to work for you. You can define that barrier to immersion as "videogamey" if you want; I think it's an odd label for a game that doesn't support immersive play.

But anways. The fact that barrier exists doesn't mean the fiction created by your group has to be ridiculous and nonsensical.

 

[Danzauker]

...
The explanation must involve some supernatural or bizarre gravity or influence over others, or you must take some path like assuming that all those foes were actually closer than originally depicted on the grid.
...

That's why I usually like so follow your second ipothesis.

The way I see it, the powers give you GAME EFFECTS, while they are left vague enough for players and DMs to make up their STORY EXPLANATIONS (the fluff in the power description is just one of the countless explanations).

I'll give you one more example:

- when a monster's HP go to zero, it's dead. You pick it's mini and put it away. That's a GAME EFFECT.

If the monster is an humanoid? Usually the DM says something like "You stab the orc right through it's chest, and it falls on the floor in a pool of blood. We all seen it.

But what if the monster's a stone golem? Well you could describe it this way: "The last blow hits a crack you opened before and the monster crumbles in a pile of rubble.

If it's a ghost? Maybe something like: "The ghost wails as if in pain while it dissolves, cursing you with it's burning eyes".

Same net game effects, three different story explanations. Please note that I stayed "edition neuter". You could do this in every D&D edition. Actually, we all DID this, I think.

So, I see no problem in trying to find the best story explanation for a power's game effect on a one-by-one basis. The power just tells you that you have to move some minis around. How and why, it's in your imagination. Sometimes can be a taunt, sometimes a feint, sometimes you can just "reality shift" and just state that this is the "correct" mini position, where the opponent ended thanks to your tactics (it's the rationale I usually use for Warlord powers).

This is the real difference between videogames and D&D. In videogames, if you perform the same "combo", you usually get the same animation. In D&D, for the same game effect, you have only your imagination to bind you.

 

[phloog]

As noted, I just think that my own (and my groups) tolerance for laboring to rationalize is not more than offset by the fun level of 4e.

I think that maybe my point becomes more critical to me when I think about a different scenario...I realize that single situations are always problematic, but I think this could be extended to lots of less extreme cases. Here goes:

Reverse the situation.

YOU are playing a frail magic-using character that you have spent nearly all of your resources turning into a long-ranged magic powerhouse with a steel will and a brilliant tactical mind.

In fact, as part of the concept, he is so snooty and feels himself so superior to rank-and-file warriors that he carries no physical weapons, relying only on his mighty magic.

The DM places you in a combat where a warrior character uses CAGI on YOU.

Now YOUR character's actions are dictated by the DM - No matter how much of your own character concept has been focused on them being cool, calm, collected and completely unwilling to enter combat...no matter how many feats, advancements, points, or magic items you have devoted to being master of your own actions, suddenly either:

A) your character goes berzerk and rushes to attack with his bare hands,

or

B) Some miraculous hand-wavy distortion of space occurs - or you assume that the grid depiction was off by a bit and your wizard was there the whole time

A) is bad because it ignores everything about the situation except for this figher's power, which trumps ALL other stats and decisions and the essential 'reality' of the situation. Maybe more Magic: The Gathering-y than videogamy, but still a problem....you are mind controlled by a warrior.

B) is bad because it also makes no sense....

Actually, it might make a little sense against orcs. They are A) and or B) - - some were taunted to attack, some were closer to start with.

But in this example what you are saying is that this wizard who openly avoids combat and is a tactical genius has somehow accidentally moved next to the warrior and didn't realize it.

The abstract grid just doesn't happen to match the actual situation, but you must now assume that the wizard player screwed up completely in terms of position.

And again, the issue is not so much this on its own, but this happening with no consideration of the wizards abilities/stats/resistances/etc. The fighter makes the wizard stupid for a second, without requiring any sort of check.

 

[LostSoul]

A) your character goes berzerk and rushes to attack with his bare hands,

or

B) Some miraculous hand-wavy distortion of space occurs - or you assume that the grid depiction was off by a bit and your wizard was there the whole time

There's another option:

3) I have to come up with a reason why my Wizard would rush into combat.

That seems like it could be a really cool opportunity for me to further develop my character. What could the Fighter do or say to make me jump at him? Maybe I am so cocky I decide to get in there and slap the fighter with my bare hands. Maybe it was just revealed that the Fighter was the one who killed Fluffy, my rat familiar!

Maybe... whatever you think is cool at the time. Describing your guy going berserk is not the only way to do it.

 

[phloog]

Shouldn't have used the term berserk....

The problem for me remains this:

I as the DM present a storyline to which the players add. They add by having their characters take actions. While I create the overarching story, they truly have a huge role and a great deal of power because they can, as you say, come up with their own views, opinions, and rationales for their actions.

Your option #3 is fabulous if the player of the wizard WANTS that to happen. The problem is that this choice is removed from the player -

"Bob, remember how you told me that your character is decidedly anti-physical combat, and that he has the coolest head in the Seven Realms? Remember making all those choices to boost your willpower and such? Remember how we discussed during character creation that the only way he would ever attack someone if it was Ragnalor, the man who killed his beloved Fluffy? ... ... yeah, well this scruffy warrior just used CAGI on you so you're going to have to scrap all that, because he's decided that you're going to rush him and get attacked"

The problem is not that the player is incapable of coming up with an exciting reason to rush in barehanded...the problem is that the player is being FORCED to rush in barehanded regardless of how his character is designed, how he wants his character to be played, and completely independent of the list of powers, abilities, and benefits on his character sheet. If you want to describe fighters as quasi-magical beings with an assortment of mystical powers it gets a bit better, but still ignores the entirety of the targets stats.

Will defense? Irrelevant. Intelligence and Tactical Ability? Irrelevant.

How you want your character to act? Meaningless.

If there was some form of save, or an attack required, the storyline rationale would still be broken and goofy, but it would be slightly better.

I haven't seen anything in 4e that was as goofy and horrid as CAGI, but I haven't played it all that much.

Too many words from me - - I disagree with any power that takes control of a character, PARTICULARLY a PC, without a roll or any regard for the nature of the character controlled.

 

[cmbarona]

I disagree with any power that takes control of a character, PARTICULARLY a PC, without a roll or any regard for the nature of the character controlled.

As for the "PARTICULARLY a PC" complaint, did you miss the part in 4e where encounters are PC-centered and the rules aren't concerned with PCs fighting one another?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Shouldn't have used the term berserk....

The problem for me remains this:

I as the DM present a storyline to which the players add. They add by having their characters take actions. While I create the overarching story, they truly have a huge role and a great deal of power because they can, as you say, come up with their own views, opinions, and rationales for their actions.

Your option #3 is fabulous if the player of the wizard WANTS that to happen. The problem is that this choice is removed from the player -

"Bob, remember how you told me that your character is decidedly anti-physical combat, and that he has the coolest head in the Seven Realms? Remember making all those choices to boost your willpower and such? Remember how we discussed during character creation that the only way he would ever attack someone if it was Ragnalor, the man who killed his beloved Fluffy? ... ... yeah, well this scruffy warrior just used CAGI on you so you're going to have to scrap all that, because he's decided that you're going to rush him and get attacked"

The problem is not that the player is incapable of coming up with an exciting reason to rush in barehanded...the problem is that the player is being FORCED to rush in barehanded regardless of how his character is designed, how he wants his character to be played, and completely independent of the list of powers, abilities, and benefits on his character sheet. If you want to describe fighters as quasi-magical beings with an assortment of mystical powers it gets a bit better, but still ignores the entirety of the targets stats.

Will defense? Irrelevant. Intelligence and Tactical Ability? Irrelevant.

How you want your character to act? Meaningless.

If there was some form of save, or an attack required, the storyline rationale would still be broken and goofy, but it would be slightly better.

I haven't seen anything in 4e that was as goofy and horrid as CAGI, but I haven't played it all that much.

Too many words from me - - I disagree with any power that takes control of a character, PARTICULARLY a PC, without a roll or any regard for the nature of the character controlled.

4E is decidedly not a PvP system, so I see this point as being partly moot. I can't think of any monsters that can move you around using CAGI-like powers.

In any case, if CAGI is such a sore point, it's well within the DM's right to rule that it isn't allowed in his game. I don't think that there are more than maybe a half dozen such powers, so I can't see it being game-breaking.

Honestly though, I don't see it as being that big of a deal. Even if the fighter lures the wizard in, it isn't as though the wizard can't BAMF away on his next turn. Maybe the fighter is a tactical genius in his own right, and he wins this round of their mental battle. Maybe in the fog of battle the wizard stumbles closer to the fighter than he actually intended. Or maybe the fighter made a rude comment about the wizard's mother that unhinged him for a second. Whatever.

My group considered the Improved Disarm/ Trip/ etc line of feats to be unrealistic in 3.x. We didn't ban those feats, players just policed themselves and didn't overuse them.

 

[phloog]

As for the "PARTICULARLY a PC" complaint, did you miss the part in 4e where encounters are PC-centered and the rules aren't concerned with PCs fighting one another?

Um...I don't think you understood what I was saying...

I have less problem with a PC controlling an NPC with a freaky power that disregards all that is known about that NPC than I do with such a disregarding power that is used by an NPC on a PC.

I wasn't talking about PC vs PC combat at all. I was talking about how as bad as I see this CAGI power, it is even worse when it is used to control a PC and ignores all their stats.

With the fact that PCs put a lot of time and thought into their characters, from a stats and a story perspective, I don't like taking control of them without a roll or some consideration of their stats.

My post had nothing to do with a PC using this on another PC, but any creature under DM control using it on a PC. It's quite goofy when a PC uses it on an NPC, but NPCs are not the focus so if one or two get zapped by a goofy mechanic I guess it's not such a big deal.

Now am I wrong in thinking that PCs might run up against villains with this ability?