4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Raven Crowking]

The main problem is that, in other editions, you have to explain "but why did it happen?"

The main problem is that, in other editions, you can explain "but why did it happen?"

 

[phloog]

The main problem is that, in other editions, you can explain "but why did it happen?"

Nice.

I think that you CAN explain in 4e, just that there are three things which are issues for me:

1) the degree of 'dancing' required

2) the need for post hoc rationalization - - the wizard actually was right next to me, and never noticed, and was therefore too silly to actually move away in his last action - - the whole players-driving-narrative is not the problem, but for me it becomes an issue when the past changes.

3) the need for (possibly consistent with your own campaign) mystical or magical bases for powers used by classes I wish to remain mundane.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nice.

I think that you CAN explain in 4e, just that there are three things which are issues for me:

1) the degree of 'dancing' required

2) the need for post hoc rationalization - - the wizard actually was right next to me, and never noticed, and was therefore too silly to actually move away in his last action - - the whole players-driving-narrative is not the problem, but for me it becomes an issue when the past changes.

3) the need for (possibly consistent with your own campaign) mystical or magical bases for powers used by classes I wish to remain mundane.

I agree.

 

[WalterKovacs]

This is why I never criticize people for liking 4e, and why I just can't reconcile it with my own campaign/style, and why 4e and I can just enjoy a cup of coffee, politely say farewell, and then I go off and play True20.

There's nothing wrong with how they're doing it, it just gets way too fiddly for me. Combat is always imagined as lots of moves and lots of swings summarized in one that hits, but now with all these little slides we've actually gotten a bit quantum. I know I saw a thread with Erwin Schroedinger mentioned, but I think that this shifting and such really invokes Heisenberg as well. The fighter collapses waveforms in his favor...the position of the wizard was not certain, but instead a quantum-like superposition of states, from which the fighter chooses one and locks it in. I'm not able personally (admittedly likely my own failing) to get into the rather skirmish minifigs game-like concepts - again, not saying it's a bad game, but based on the fact that we played True20 for ten hours last weekend, with multiple battles, and used improvised figures to represented the combats exactly ONCE, the rest done in the mind, you can see where I balk at a lot of these things. CAGI forces you to recognize space and position on some form of grid/board to adjudicate effect, and then immediately in the narrative explains that all those positions weren't actually as they seemed. Not at all a big deal, just not my style.

I can definitely see how style comes into play ... my style of play is definitely pro miniature ... even back when I played 2e or 3e, it was always annoying to basically have to constantly ask the DM what my character can actually see and whether I can aim a fireball a certain way, etc... If the DM hadn't actually decided in his head where the various combatants were than it would mostly be decided on the spot meaning that monsters would ussually be in, at best, ok formation for fireballs, etc. In our 4e game, because of the dislike of the "firecubes", we have a stringbased system ... unfortunately the rogue now suffers as getting into flanking position is much more complicated than the system intends ...

It is a matter of taste, some players need to see their options for movement and attacking to be able to make decisions, and come up with fun uses of the interesting terrain, while having a vaguer view of the action has other improvisational tactic benefits in that a DM can allow a player to move around in the space a bit more freely, not being restrained by "that is 4 squares, that is 5".

 

[WalterKovacs]

The main problem is that, in other editions, you can explain "but why did it happen?"

If the main goal of game design is to shut up people that ask "why?" then you may end up having the game be lacking in other areas.

Is it entirely impossible for a mundane reason to have someone to charge at you/run over to you/etc because you taunt them? Ignoring, for the moment, the "no save" element ... does the ONLY way to convince ANYONE to move next to the fighter need to be magical or mystical?

Because specific instances occur when the power doesn't make sense, even if most of the time it will make sense, because the fighter is likely going to be closer to the soldiers and brutes than to the squishier opponents, and most of the monsters fought aren't superintelligent spellcasters with high will saves.

A power that occaisionally doesn't make sense can be handled two ways.

You either create a ton of "special resistances" because of the 10% where things don't make sense, or you just hand wave the few times where it might be a bit odd.

The fighter's training involve it being a good defender, in "marking" people. That is the defining characteristic of the 4e fighter. Through their body language, how they talk, how they fight ... they are constantly giving off the "magic" aura of ignore me at your peril. The fighter's mark [like hit points] is what it is. If a fighter can mark someone ... it is equally likely they can sucker them into getting close to him.

Either way, it just is a bit odd that people feel the need to paint such a large brush of 4e are superheroes with magic powers because a few of the powers have a few situations where they seem a bit more than what is mundanely possible. I guess if the fighter is only ever fighting either completely mindless automatons or superintelligent creatures with high insight and will and know what the fighter's intentions are ... it would seem odd that the fighter is telling them what to do and it's working. However it seems that, in some cases there is as much tapdancing involved in finding "magic" powers as there is in coming up with narrative solutions for them.

 

[Greg K]

At the same time though ... it's a matter of perspective. For a narrative ... the fighter is able to trick an opponent ONCE into falling for some sort of baiting. It's an encounter power in part because it isn't going to work on the same guy twice.
.

I just find it amusing that one of the designers (I believe it was Mearls) claimed that the designer team learned that an ability like Knight's challenge which forces an opponent to attack was a bad design idea. Then, the design team turns around and gives us an abiliity like "Come and Get it".

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

"You have given out too many Experience Points in the last 24 hours. Try again later."




RC

I've got you covered.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I just find it amusing that one of the designers (I believe it was Mearls) claimed that the designer team learned that an ability like Knight's challenge which forces an opponent to attack was a bad design idea. Then, the design team turns around and gives us an abiliity like "Come and Get it".

Wasn't that relating to the marking idea though? I may be thinking of a different time when people were comparing marking to forcing/compelling a monster to attack you instead of just discouraging them from ignoring you.

 

[Fifth Element]

I just find it amusing that one of the designers (I believe it was Mearls) claimed that the designer team learned that an ability like Knight's challenge which forces an opponent to attack was a bad design idea. Then, the design team turns around and gives us an abiliity like "Come and Get it".

"Come and Get it" does not force the opponent to attack. It just moves them 10 feet.

 

[Arnwyn]

"Come and Get it" does not force the opponent to attack.

He didn't say it did.

I can't speak for him, but he may be commenting on the conceptual similarity. As phloog mentions, it's kind of like a "power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character".

I can see the similarities. It may be enough of a difference for some people, but not enough for others. *shrug*