Disappointed in 4e

[Raven Crowking]

Well then you have played with hundreds of players that do not share your vision of How the Game Should Be.

On the contrary, I have played with hundreds of players who are quite happy that the game includes reasons for not pushing on, because it is not "fun and heroic for their characters to push on" after a certain point. It robs the game of verisimilitude. But it is the smart thing to do within the game structure if the game gives you no reasons not to.

I have, IOW, played with hundreds of players who don't want a game that makes smart play run counter to fun play.

Because, while I certainly did cause them to "see lost time as lost opportunity", I was not telling "those hundreds of players that your way is right and they are having badwrongfun for wanting their characters to keep going" because we were playing a game system that kept us on the same page.

And sometimes they would push on regardless, because they viewed it as "worth it" in terms of risk/reward ratio. Sometimes they were right. Sometimes it proved deadly. But that tension between risk and reward, making the decision to push on or to wait until you are stronger, has been an integral part of the D&D experience since Day One.

As a player, I've had the same experience. I enjoy meaningful decisions. The more meaningful, the better. The more I have to balance the potential costs versus the potential gains, the better. The more complex the campaign world, the more complex my options, the better.

And this enjoyment is not as universal as the player "playing the game" and going on as long as possible (IME). It is, however, about 80% true for the people that I have gamed with.

It is also my experience that about 90% of the players who initially dislike complex option/challenge games (including the need to rest) strongly prefer that game once they get into the swing of it.

YMMV, obviously, depending upon the type of game you run. I have certainly seen "complex option" games that sucked.

I think you've provided your own anecdotal evidence to support why 4E healing took the path it did.

If so, I hope you accept that it is also why I think it was the wrong path.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. Getting up from Prone is a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
2. Dancing around the room is also a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
3. Dropping Prone is a Free Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
4. Winking at the elf is a Free Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.

Well if it is "just colour and there was no conflict there" why can't I?

If you argue that "Getting up from Prone is a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious." then how can you also argue that trying to get up from Prone is not an action, so that's okay, even though you're Unconcious. Or is something only an action when you succeed?

If it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter tries to get up and fails -- because it is just colour and has no game effect -- then it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter gets up, dances a jig, and then falls where he started, and lies there blinking at the elf, so long as it is just colour and has no game effect.

Right?

Also, out of curiosity, I am having trouble finding where it says winking at the elf is a free action. Can you point out that page to me? It seems to me that trying to get up is more of an action than winking......?


RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action. Furthermore, getting up, dancing around the room, and then falling back to your original location would require actions, and is therefore proscribed by the rules. The narrative concerning what happens as the fighter lies there making death saves is indeed flexible, but it is overruled by the constraints imposed by the rules. Perhaps he could effect a saucy wink without needing a free action; although that would, again, violate the genre limitations that one might impose on the narrative--unless, as I said, you are intending to run a silly game. In that case, mazel tov!

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action.

Bob is allowed one action per turn.

BOB: I hit the orc with my sword.

DM: Roll a d20!

BOB: A "1". I miss.

DM: That's OK. Failure to hit an orc is not an action. You can try again.

BOB: WTF?!?

Later on, Bob is knocked prone by an ogre. The ogre is standing over Bob, ready to knock him flat if he tries to get up. The DM has decided that Bob needs to make a Reflex save to successfully stand.

BOB: I try to stand up.

DM: The ogre attempts to push you down as you rise. Roll a Reflex save.

BOB: A "2". Dang.

DM: Don't worry. Standing up from prone is a move action. It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action. You can try again.

BOB: WTF?!?!?!




RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes.

Okay...would you care to address the rest of my post? The part about the absurd result of a mighty warrior in 1E taking a week to fully recover from a scratch?

 

[Mallus]

Well if it is "just colour and there was no conflict there" why can't I?

If your goal is to make the game stupid, you certainly can. It's your right as a thinking individual .

Or is something only an action when you succeed?

Smart narration of mechanical results is smart.

If it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter tries to get up and fails -- because it is just colour and has no game effect -- then it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter gets up, dances a jig, and then falls where he started, and lies there blinking at the elf, so long as it is just colour and has no game effect.

See above.

Look, it's everyone's job at the table to maintain verisimilitude in the game. The sad fact is that DM --hell, the rules themselves-- can't do it alone. This necessitates a willingness to translate the game mechanics/results into a sensible narrative.

You can describe the processes of any RPG system in an absurd manner if you're hell bent on doing so. The question is "why would you want to?"

 

[Fifth Element]

Bob is allowed one action per turn.

BOB: I hit the orc with my sword.

DM: Roll a d20!

BOB: A "1". I miss.

DM: That's OK. Failure to hit an orc is not an action. You can try again.

BOB: WTF?!?

Invalid argument. The action is not "hitting an orc". The action is "attacking an orc". Bob attacked the orc. He therefore performed an action.

BOB: I try to stand up.

DM: The ogre attempts to push you down as you rise. Roll a Reflex save.

BOB: A "2". Dang.

DM: Don't worry. Standing up from prone is a move action. It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action. You can try again.

BOB: WTF?!?!?!

The rules cover this one by having the ogre's push-down occur immediately after the standing-up. So there's a move action to stand up, and then an attack by the ogre to push him back down.

Notice how in your example you say "the ogre attempt to push you down". So the ogre is clearly using an action in response to Bob's action.

 

[Fifth Element]

Or is something only an action when you succeed?

In some sense, yes. But remember that in combat, attacking is the action, not hitting. So if you mean "succeed" in an attack in the sense that you are able to make an attack (regardless of whether it hits or not), yes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay...would you care to address the rest of my post? The part about the absurd result of a mighty warrior in 1E taking a week to fully recover from a scratch?

I think I've already mentioned that, if it could be answered by a cut & paste from earlier in the discussion, I'm not doing the cut & paste.

If your goal is to make the game stupid, you certainly can. It's your right as a thinking individual .

This begs for a response of "Well, if WotC can make the game stupid, why can't I?" Except, unfortunately, I don't honestly think it would be a fair comment.

You can describe the processes of any RPG system in an absurd manner if you're hell bent on doing so. The question is "why would you want to?"

There are certainly players who, faced with rules that continually bring up contents that they have to fight to make non-absurd, will make them ever-more-blatantly-absurd as a means of dealing with their disappointment in the game system.

Invalid argument. The action is not "hitting an orc". The action is "attacking an orc". Bob attacked the orc. He therefore performed an action.

Exactly. The action isn't the success; the action is the attempt.

Just as "attempting to rise" is the action, and "rising/not rising" is a statement as to the success (or lack thereof) of the action.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Exactly. The action isn't the success; the action is the attempt.

Just as "attempting to rise" is the action, and "rising/not rising" is a statement as to the success (or lack thereof) of the action.

These two situations use different mechanics to resolve them. If you are able to stand up, you stand up. The ogre might then attempt to push you down, but you don't need to roll a die to see if you stand.

In the "unconscious" situation, you cannot even "attempt" to stand in this sense, because doing so would result in you standing up, which you are not allowed to do. So in this case, the "attempt" described is merely colour, and has nothing to do with the mechanics.

So your problem is you're conflating two different meanings of "attempt" here. One ties directly into game mechanics, the other is only for colour. Don't confuse the two.