Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

[Lonely Tylenol]

In order to claim you can do something to me as a DM you better be ready to back it up with an explanation to me, not just that some video game super power rule says you can, because I don't play video game PnP RPGs.

How about this:

The design of 4th edition is such that it divides up narrative control between the players and the DM in a way similar to some recent independent RPGs. Specifically, it allows the player to declare that circumstances are right for the use of a complicated manoeuvre; for example, an enemy is momentarily distracted by another opponent, or falls for a feint, or holds his shield in a way that interferes with his attack, etc. This allows 4e to include events in the game that occur beneath the level of abstraction allowed by the previous edition's rules.

While we have always assumed that combat involved a lot of feints, dodges, and clever manoeuvres, the mechanical system has always boiled down to "*roll* I hit, for *roll* 10 damage." The cool minutiae of combat are ignored because they're too fiddly to devote any energy to. If we had tried to do so, a combat round would take half an hour to play through because of all the dodging and blocking and whatnot. Feats were able to add a bit of complexity, particularly Tactical Feats. However, they generally relied on triggering conditions that may or may not ever occur, which meant that what should have been a cool addition to a player's tactical repertoire ended up being so much wasted space.

4e addresses this problem by allowing players a certain number of tokens that they may play in order to grab narrative control every so often. The control they gain is extremely limited, and is generally restricted to the purpose of making combat look and feel awesome. By designing the game in this way, it allows powers to specifically emulate the kinds of cool, rich details that combat consists of, and pulls us away from the "I miss/I hit" days of yore. You can now literally sit down to watch 300 and make notes for new martial powers based on cool things the Spartans do, then implement them in under 10 minutes. All for the price of allowing the player to say "the orc is standing with his leg exposed under his shield, so I kneecap him," once or twice per session.


Now then, I really don't think you're interested in hearing any of this, but I thought I'd throw it out there because this is, as far as I'm concerned, the biggest innovation that 4e has brought to the table. Forget balancing classes, forget ditching the christmas tree effect, forget the end of the 15 minute adventuring day. Being able to do awesome things, because you are given narrative control within particular boundaries, is the thing that got me playing 4e.

Also, that thing you mention with Transmute Mud to Rock? That's an exploit. The DM is there to prevent abuses like that, not to encourage them. I really don't see what's fun about effortlessly killing yet another group of enemies because you figured out a loophole in the system that your DM is too wimpy to overrule.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You should use my method.

I never try to explain (or even comprehend...) why my character isn't doing things he isn't doing. Every time my turn comes up, there is something I can do -- focus on that. I never narrate a reason I can't use Covering Attack again this fight; I just Tide of Iron and yell "get behind me!"

It's the player version of "Always say yes."

PS

Oh god, imagine using the Improv Rule in what is essentially improv S&S fiction! Nice post.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

"OK, I use x fighter encounter power. I can't use that one again because now the enemies have all seen what I've done and their guard is up so it won't work again ... but wait! Here comes a new enemy! He didn't see me use that power! But for some reason I can't try to use it again on him either! Damn! I must be too tired to be able to try it again or else my luck just isn't with me and this enemy is just too smart - never mind that it's an owlbear - for me to be able to pull it off again. However ... if I run away and hide and do nothing for 5 minutes then not only will I feel strong enough to try my cool cinematic encounter power again but it might even work on those same enemies that I used it on before because they'll have forgotten what I did only 5 minutes ago! Woohoo!"
(Yes, this assumes a lot but hopefully you get my point ...)

I seem to recall that Hypersmurf (or someone) used to copy-paste a favourite sentiment of his regarding thinking too hard about fantasy into threads about D&D physics. It applies here too.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I guess the thing is that I want a game that allows me to immerse myself in the narrative as it is happening, not one that requires me to wait until after the fact. With 4e, I just don't feel like I can get that kind of gameplay. With 4e, I can't forget that I'm playing a game.

Speaking as someone who has played 3e since 2000, and continues to play it to this day, I am seriously amused by this comment. 3e is a good game, but it's a game, and it reminds you that it's a game with each forgotten +1 bonus, each reference to the back to remember what Nauseated does, and each hour of DM prep required to generate statblocks for high-level NPCs. What immersion there is happens between die rolls, when you narrate your character's actions or roleplay your way through an encounter...just like in 4e, or in any edition of the game.


P.S. 4 posts in a row. Still waiting for that merge function, fellas!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I seem to recall that Hypersmurf (or someone)

Not me - sounds like hong's mantra.

-Hyp.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You people...


House ruling or saying "Just pretend the problem isn't there" doesn't get rid of the problem. First off, I'm glad some of you don't think it's a problem - no sarcasm, it means you're having no problems having fun with the game, and you're overall just having a good time. And that's a good thing; it's what games are supposed to do. But other people are having a problem with this, and saying "I don't see the problem" doesn't change their experience. Just because YOU don't have a problem doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else. Because we love food metaphors, I dislike mustard. I dislike just about everything about mustard. For me, there's a problem with mustard. But I've yet to have someone say "You don't have a REAL problem with mustard. You're just FAKING it. Stop thinking so hard about mustard and just enjoy it." Primarily because if they did, they would be a douche, and I would punch them for being-a-douche related reasons. For some reason, it's socially acceptable to have a problem with mustard, but it's not socially acceptable (at least around here) to have an issue with 4e Powers system mechanics.

Secondly, if anything, the number of explanations and house ruled ways to show how powers aren't bad, really, just proves that there IS a problem. I'm glad the house ruling works for you. But here's the thing - house ruling isn't core. Your house rules aren't everyone's house rules; if anything, your house rules aren't ANYONE'S house rules. And most of you have completely different explanations at that. But here's the thing - those explanations and house rules wouldn't exist if there wasn't something for you to fix in the first place. You don't make all these explanations like "Oh, well, clearly I just didn't have the opening for the move that time" unless you felt the need to.

 

[Gort]

Ok, if I understand the current back and forth it boils down to the fact that in 4e you can produce mundanely effects previously achievable only by magic, and that to explain these effects without magic is awkward to 'requires retconning.'

EG: Bob the fighter is in melee with an Orc. He has taken a few minor hits but then the Orc uses his Big Power and crits with it. Bob take 39 points of damage dropping him from 'not even bloodied' to 'down and dying'. The GM describes this as a mighty axe blow that cleaves into Bobs chest and cuts to the breast bone sending bits of lung flying. A round goes by, Bob fails his stabilization roll dropping a step closer to death. The GM describes his breath coming up in bubbles of blood. The warlord uses inspiring word "On your feet Bob, it's only a fleshwound." Bob is suddenly at 1/4 HP and functional.

How is this explained? The simplest way for the GM is to say it was never as bad as it looked, the blood and bits of lung were really the juice box and baloney sandwich Bob had packed for lunch, etc. Without that Retcon it seems supernatural.

So alternatively must the GM leave all wounds and blows undescribed until after the fight is done and we know if they were final, healed magially, or healed by a pep talk? 'Schrodinger's wounds' don't sound that appealing either.

Is that the crux of the arguement?

Your example is silly. The GM knows that Bob can be picked up at any time by the warlord, so why would he go into such an overly anatomical description for Bob being knocked down, when he could simply describe him being knocked to his knees, winded, lacking the will to carry on, as the darkness swirled in around him?

Stop putting words in our mouths please.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not me - sounds like hong's mantra.

-Hyp.

Hong, or someone like him, then. It's a good point anyway. As soon as you allow magical unicorns and physics-defying giant humanoids into a game, you can either start writing Nitpickers' Guides or you can just play the damn game.

 

[Andor]

Your example is silly. The GM knows that Bob can be picked up at any time by the warlord, so why would he go into such an overly anatomical description for Bob being knocked down, when he could simply describe him being knocked to his knees, winded, lacking the will to carry on, as the darkness swirled in around him?

Stop putting words in our mouths please.

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I asked if I understood the argument. I provided an example to make my question clear. Apparently I failed.

*sigh* That having been said, the DM's description would have been good GMing in any other edition of D&D. And many other RPGs for that matter. Your reply seems to indicate that that you follow my alternate suggestion and as a GM you do not dare to provide dramatic renditions of the course of the fight for fear of being contradicted by later use of some mundane power.

So am I correct in understanding that you feel good GMing in 4e require the GM confine himself only to vauge general statements about damage?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Secondly, if anything, the number of explanations and house ruled ways to show how powers aren't bad, really, just proves that there IS a problem. I'm glad the house ruling works for you. But here's the thing - house ruling isn't core. Your house rules aren't everyone's house rules; if anything, your house rules aren't ANYONE'S house rules. And most of you have completely different explanations at that. But here's the thing - those explanations and house rules wouldn't exist if there wasn't something for you to fix in the first place.

Except that these aren't house rules. The approach we're describing toward the narration of in-game events is the intended approach. It's not a workaround for a problem, it's the actual way they expected us to do it. You have a power that describes a mechanical effect, and it has some fluff text attached to it. They specifically point out that the fluff text is completely optional, and actually should be modified to fit the particulars of the situation, as you see fit. If a particular description doesn't work, for whatever reason, be it verisimilitude, logic, or personal taste, the job of the player is to narrate a better description.