Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That said, I personally think that the DM should avoid thinking "Aw man! In the next scene I was gonna have the PCs fight a running battle on the rooftops with the serpent cultists! What am I gonna do now?" The more the DM forces events to follow his encounter order/plot line, the less the players are allowed to actually accomplish.

But there is also the player perspective.
"Huh, I had this 2 page background for my character, and now he died due to some random Kobold encounter! I so hoped for exploring what happened to my mentor!"
"Okay, we would prefer to find the Treasure Vault of King Leorna, but since Bobs Fighter has just contracted Mummy Rot, we need to find a healer first that casts Remove Disease on him. If Jack would have played a Cleric, we wouldn't have this problem!"
"We have only 2 days to stop the ritual! But Bob took a critical hit and we can't go on without him. We have to rest another day!"

It's not only about DM rail-roading the party into a specific plot. It is about avoiding anything but the players (which include the DM) decide their pacing and the directions they want to go. Yes, there should be penalties for failures (and a sense of "failure"), but they need a certain DM and/or player control.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It can be pretty swingy, especially if the GM isn't consistently doling out Hero Points. The GM is supposed to award Hero Points throughout the adventure. This is the way the system should be used, and I don't think that's made clear anywhere in the base book.

pp. 122-124.

 

[Mallus]

pp. 122-124.

Thanks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see them as more a way to keep fighting through the pain of injury.

But that also presuposes injury, which is where the Schrödinger's Wounding problem comes in.

 

[Mallus]

But that also presuposes injury, which is where the Schrödinger's Wounding problem comes in.

But I think that whole Schrödinger's Wounding thing is nonsense, RC. I don't accept that 4e necessitates narrating damage in that fashion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But there is also the player perspective.
"Huh, I had this 2 page background for my character, and now he died due to some random Kobold encounter! I so hoped for exploring what happened to my mentor!"

Tough. You fought some kobolds and you died.

"Okay, we would prefer to find the Treasure Vault of King Leorna, but since Bobs Fighter has just contracted Mummy Rot, we need to find a healer first that casts Remove Disease on him. If Jack would have played a Cleric, we wouldn't have this problem!"

Tough. You fought a mummy, and there were consequences.

"We have only 2 days to stop the ritual! But Bob took a critical hit and we can't go on without him. We have to rest another day!"

Tough. You either go on without Bob, or drag his critical-hitted person along with you, or you don't stop the ritual.

It's not only about DM rail-roading the party into a specific plot. It is about avoiding anything but the players (which include the DM) decide their pacing and the directions they want to go. Yes, there should be penalties for failures (and a sense of "failure"), but they need a certain DM and/or player control.

Sorry, but this is exactly what I mean about real accomplishment. You describe player goals, and then things that can derail those goals. Well, things that can derail those goals are part of the game. It is only when one of two things occurs that there is a problem:

1. The DM sets up a scenario wherein if the PCs do not do X, Y will happen....and she can't accept Y happening. Solution: If you can't accept Y happening, don't set it up as a consequence of failure.

2. You are playing Candyland and calling it D&D.


IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Tough. You either go on without Bob, or drag his critical-hitted person along with you, or you don't stop the ritual.

So, you support the idea that the mechanics of the game should encourage players to become spectators?

Sorry, but, watching D&D can be fun and all, but, sitting on my butt for three hours doing nothing while the rest of the group plays sucks. And, sure, I could run the NPC, if there was one, or I could run the monsters, whatever, but, at the end of the day, I came to play my character.

If stripping away a smidgeon of simulation, which was the thinnest veneer anyway, allows the players to play all the time (or at least the vast majority of time) then I say strip away. Full Monty.

1. The DM sets up a scenario wherein if the PCs do not do X, Y will happen....and she can't accept Y happening. Solution: If you can't accept Y happening, don't set it up as a consequence of failure.

2. You are playing Candyland and calling it D&D.

Yes, because any deviation from your chosen playstyle is wrongbadfun and must be stamped out.

Holy crap, talk about unbelievably arrogant. These are the ONLY two choices? There is no middle ground? Either suck it up or you're playing wrong? Gimme a break.

 

[GlaziusF]

That's sorta what I meant earlier, about why I should have noted it then. A question that seems nonsensical can, quite often, lead to innovations of thinking.

If "healing surges" really do represent morale and adrenelin bursts, having an additional boost of morale when you are unhurt isn't a "nonsensical player decision", provided that it is supported by the game rules.

Healing surges are how much recovery capacity you have. You can strain it or have it drained from you by things that aren't strictly injury, or have it tapped into in combat more than during just your one moment of clarity when others use a divine spark or a trained insight to get it out of you.

Action points and magic item dailies model your capacity to overcharge your gear or do "extra" things. They're orthogonal to hit points - even if you're still banged up, you could still get a burst of adrenaline and do something extra, but if you don't try to recover you'll be just as worse off after it passes.

 

[apoptosis]

That's why, if you wanted to put a "lasting wound" system into 4E, I would argue that it should go one level up - the DM should either bestow lasting wounds by plot fiat, or decide to place monsters that could cause them a la the Bugbear Legbreaker. Randomness can still adjudicate whether they happen and how quickly the characters recover, but the DM will - or should - consider the possibility the characters will want to recover more carefully than if it could happen with a low probability at any time.
.

Some games do this to an extent. I know i bring up TSOY a lot but that is one advantage to stake setting.

The stake could be...(DM) crazy bugbear breaks your leg vs (Player) you knock crazy bugbear out.

 

[apoptosis]

So, you support the idea that the mechanics of the game should encourage players to become spectators?

Sorry, but, watching D&D can be fun and all, but, sitting on my butt for three hours doing nothing while the rest of the group plays sucks. And, sure, I could run the NPC, if there was one, or I could run the monsters, whatever, but, at the end of the day, I came to play my character.

If stripping away a smidgeon of simulation, which was the thinnest veneer anyway, allows the players to play all the time (or at least the vast majority of time) then I say strip away. Full Monty.



Yes, because any deviation from your chosen playstyle is wrongbadfun and must be stamped out.

Holy crap, talk about unbelievably arrogant. These are the ONLY two choices? There is no middle ground? Either suck it up or you're playing wrong? Gimme a break.

I have always been at war with these two competing ideologies in the game:

1. You want to feel like your actions/decisions are meaningful - if no matter what all characters make it to the evil ritual to stop it regardless of past failures and situations then the idea that the choices i made are meaningful seems an illusion

2. Having players not play the game due to Bob being decapitated on the way to to the ritual...

I used pretty extreme positions for these but in essence these have alwasy been at odd with me as to which one should occur. It tends to switch depending on the game and current mood. This is of course completely connected to simulationist/gamist/narrativist approaches