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

[mmadsen]

You chose those examples to illustrate your point that these acts were carried out without the need for "superpowers" which is how you choose to derogatorily describe the 4e power framework. I coutnered by showing how the examples YOU CHOSE could play out in 4e.

I said "flashy superpowers" for a reason. I was not derogatorily describing the 4e power framework; I was describing some powers as not mundane.

Yes, there are a couple of powers that, when looked at in a certain way, could be seen as a bit beyond the pale as martial powers. But there are only a few of them, and you really do have to cock your head sideways and stick out your tongue to see them that way. Come and Get It only seems like a superpower if you insist on looking at it as some magical compulsion that force pulls opponents into orbit around the fighter. That, to me, is cocking your head sideways and sticking out your tongue. Especially when a dozen posters describe two dozen other ways to conceive of that effect. It's not a stretch, its not scrambling for some kind of justification, it's simply the narrative.

I think we have to agree to disagree, at least on some level.

I don't think anyone has put forward those powers as magical-force-pulls; they just can't come up with an explanation for why a certain individual can consistently get opponents to act as if they were subject to a magical-force-pull, regardless of who or what those opponents might be.

What you are calling metagame is nothing more than a shift in the narrative. It's no more metagame for the player to describe the effect than it is for the DM.

The DM is not playing a character; the players are. It's OK to like the meta-game aspect, but it is definitely a meta-game aspect, where the players are making decisions out-of-character.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, there are a couple of powers that, when looked at in a certain way, could be seen as a bit beyond the pale as martial powers. But there are only a few of them, and you really do have to cock your head sideways and stick out your tongue to see them that way.

Your Mileage Definitely Varies From Mine.

I have to cock my head sideways and stick my tongue out to not see far too many of 4e's powers as even vaguely mundane, and even then if I waver or blink they snap right back into the realm of....something else.

There's nothing wrong with your liking the system, of course, but imagining that some people have to work to have problems with it is.......well, more in the realm of imagination than in the realm of reality.


RC

 

[Thasmodious]

The DM is not playing a character; the players are. It's OK to like the meta-game aspect, but it is definitely a meta-game aspect, where the players are making decisions out-of-character.

We're certainly not using the same definition of metagame then. If that is the definition, then most anything a player does is metagame. When a fighter decides its a good time to use his power attack feat, that would be metagame according to that.

How I define metagaming is a player using knowledge that his character would not have, like specific vulnerabilities or monsters or holes in the rules. A player using an ability is not metagaming. Even when that ability places some narrative control in his hands. Its a very limited, very immediate control, but either way, I am familiar with metagaming being defined as the character affecting the narration. I've always seen that as kind of a goal.

 

[Scribble]

I say use the system to game, don't let the system use you to game...

If you start out feeling the powers are "super power" in nature, then you're probably going to find all of them to be super pwoered, and only find super power being the way to explain them.

If you start out feeling the powers are not super powered, you'll proably see them in a light that isn't super powered, or need some sort of super power to pull them off.

It's just all in how you've decided to play the game.

 

[mmadsen]

A player using an ability is not metagaming.

It is not metagaming for a player to use an ability his character understands. It's not metagaming for a wizard to cast a magic spell, for instance, because the player and the character share the same understanding of what the spell is and does.

It slowly veers into metagaming the further the rules diverge from anything going on in the game world. Something like Power Attack is mildly metagamey, because the player is going to maximize expected damage by doing a math problem in his head, and that process does not model what the character might be deciding instinctively in the actual game world. But that's a mild problem, and if to-hit and damage values in D&D made consistent sense, so that Power Attack meant something concrete, it would go away.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Your Mileage Definitely Varies From Mine.

I have to cock my head sideways and stick my tongue out to not see far too many of 4e's powers as even vaguely mundane, and even then if I waver or blink they snap right back into the realm of....something else.

There's nothing wrong with your liking the system, of course, but imagining that some people have to work to have problems with it is.......well, more in the realm of imagination than in the realm of reality.

RC

Thankfully, there is nothing in the 4th Edition rule books that call anything "Mundane", because they are called "Martial". In a world where Dwarves, Dragons, and Halflings, creatures that Do Not Exist without a substantial non-mundane explanation, we can live with Olympic-esque combat maneuvers that occur once and only once in a scene.

"Martial not Mundane" is such an old-hat argument that I've run 36 total hours of game time since I answered it the last time. And during that time I've never had any experience at the table that shows me I'm wrong.

 

[mmadsen]

Thankfully, there is nothing in the 4th Edition rule books that call anything "Mundane", because they are called "Martial". In a world where Dwarves, Dragons, and Halflings, creatures that Do Not Exist without a substantial non-mundane explanation, we can live with Olympic-esque combat maneuvers that occur once and only once in a scene.

"Martial not Mundane" is such an old-hat argument that I've run 36 total hours of game time since I answered it the last time. And during that time I've never had any experience at the table that shows me I'm wrong.

So, your point is that you like the game, and you can't understand why anyone would want martial exploits to be non-magical?

 

[RefinedBean]

The whole meta-game issue is kind of pointless to argue. I mean, if I wanted to DM a game completely devoid of meta-game influence, I would calmly pass out sheets of paper to my players describing what's happening, and have a little check-list available to see what they want to do. Then we'd all cry over how boring it is.

As far as Magical Martial Powers of Mysticism, c'mon. Really? Are we really going to argue about what's magic and what isn't? Of course not. We're all better than that. If something feels too "magical" instead of "mundane," and you can't reflavor it, that's a personal problem with a system, not a general flaw.

Not that I'm saying anyone here is engaging in such inefficient discussion! Aheheh.

 

[pawsplay]

That makes way more sense to me than just, "I'm basically a regular guy, but I've been practicing my sword forms out in the back yard for the last 20 years, so now I can go kill a gargantuan dracolich who could decimate cities and armies . . . with my trusty sharp stick here."

"I'm Batman."

 

[Thasmodious]

Your Mileage Definitely Varies From Mine.

I have to cock my head sideways and stick my tongue out to not see far too many of 4e's powers as even vaguely mundane, and even then if I waver or blink they snap right back into the realm of....something else.

No one said anything about mundane. Conan, Legolas, Aragorn, and their ilk can hardly be called mundane. Their exploits and abilities and legendary and heroic. And "far too many", care to list the many 4e powers that aren't even vaguely martial, as that's what we're talking about, not mundane. This isn't Farmhands & Fields with powers like Break Clod, Plow Faster, and Turnip Surprise. This a game of heroic fantasy.

There's nothing wrong with your liking the system, of course, but imagining that some people have to work to have problems with it is.......well, more in the realm of imagination than in the realm of reality.

No. Not when you come here and complain about how you can't possibly see power x as martial and not magical in nature, then a dozen posters give you two dozen answers and you just shake your head and say nope, none of that works, I'll stick with my version which I can't reconcile it with how I want to see martial characters. It's disigenious and willfully obstinate.