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

[Imaro]

I think a lot of this current discussion can be (and already has been) summed up in saying that 4E is giving players a new form of narrative control that hasn't existed before. Thus Come and Get It doesn't have to be explained a magical, it's just that now the player gets some new authority over how the game world runs that they didn't have earlier. That's it, full stop.
--Steve

I've seen quite a few pro 4e posters espouse this idea...but where is it backed up at in the books. Do the 4e core rules talk about and explain this as the style in which D&D 4e is suppose to be played? Because the other games that people seem to like drawing comparisons to take the time to explain this type of gamestyle as they're default. 4e, to my knowledge (and I might be wrong) doesn't talk about this at all. this could or could not be the style that 4e was intended to be played by the designers, but I think if it is, that it was shoddy and a bit lazy not to spend some pagecount on making this explicit and explaining it as the new style of D&D.

Of course the other option is that the designers didn't plan on this being D&D's new style and thus didn't explain it, instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun without consideration for narrative or simulation (Also believing that most gamers would like the mechanics so much, nothing else would matter) If this is true, fans who argue the narative angle are just glossing over the fact that it's pure gamist functionality that's being strived for. The funnny thing is I have seen plenty of gamist comments by the designers, but I find it hard to remember any about narative control or the like.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's not dismissive, I think you're right on. I have issues with 4e. I'm capable of getting past those and playing the game.

What I personally object to is someone trying to insist that 4e is the holy golden be all and end all of gaming and that all perceived flaws (even typos) lie solely in the deranged and malformed minds of a few willfully obtuse madmen. While I agree with them that there are people being willfully obtuse, I don't think those people lie in the '4e isn't for me but I'm willing to live and let live' camp.

Pro-4E people getting silly is provoked from having to deal with willfully obtuse madmen. In addition, to a lot of people who don't lose sleep over fiddling details, 4E is the best RPG they've come across, and are enthusiastic as a result.

 

[Mallus]

I've seen quite a few pro 4e posters espouse this idea...but where is it backed up at in the books.

Everywhere the books describe a martial exploit that's under the player's control.

...instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun without consideration for narrative or simulation

The DMG disproves this.

Imaro, really, it's great that you don't like the new edition. Cool beans. No harm, no foul. But you're going to have a tough time trying to demonstrate that the designers of 4e were careless or clueless in their design. They merely designed something you don't care for.

 

[Scribble]

Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).

PC of Pelor: I use healign strike (roll roll roll a hit!) "Do not fear my friends for Pelor guides our weapons! We cannot loose this battle!"

DM: Magnor swings his mighty hammer down onto the head of his foe, feeling the crunch of a direct hit. (turning to Doroth who received the healing)Doroth feels himself bolstered at the though of Pelor fighting by his side...

PC Doroth: "For Pelor!"

The PC receiving the healing smash probably feels the exact same thing any fanatic feels when something goes in his favor... Your team gets a touch-down "yeahhhh!!! Hustle hustle!"

 

[Thasmodious]

When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not actively interfere with immersion.

GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
GM: No, I don't want to call that a wound in case it gets healed by an inspiring word.
PC: What?
GM: If it gets healed by the cleric, then it was a wound. If it get healed by the warlord, or resting it was just shaken morale.
PC: But Thaglec is a foppish swashbuckler, when do I get to make quips about ruining my wardrobe while running people through?
GM: Just wait till after the battle then retcon in your dialouge.
PC: ...

Again, you aptly demonstrate that you haven't read and don't understand the game you are trying to attack.

Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).

Really? That's a challenge?

Cleric: I call for Pelor's Divine Blessing upon Joe the Fighter. A flash of sunlight seems to envelop me then disappears. I channel the divine gift through my weapon and strike at the ogre. *hit - numbers* A bright flash of sunlight seems to envelop both Joe and the ogre with the strike. The blessing is fulfilled and the gift bestowed on Joe.

Joe: As the mote of sunlight hits me, I feel a surge of divine power course through my tired muscles. I look across at Cleric and grin, this is going to be a long six seconds for the ogre...

 

[Imaro]

Everywhere the books describe a martial exploit that's under the player's control.

So narrative control is explained and talked about under every martial exploit? Are you being serious here or just snarky because the books don't talk about it?

The DMG disproves this.

Uhm...how? Especially when the PHB is chocked full of gamist, mini on grid, tactical, powery gamist elements?? I'm not claiming it's a bad thing, mind you, but really...let's call it how it is. Sorta like how you seem full of snark and short on any type of evidence.

 

[Scribble]

I've seen quite a few pro 4e posters espouse this idea...but where is it backed up at in the books. Do the 4e core rules talk about and explain this as the style in which D&D 4e is suppose to be played?

Supposed to be played?

D&D is (and has always been in my eyes) supposed to be played in the way that is most fun for your group. The idea of "supposed to be played" is such a strange concept to me.

Am I not allowed to play the game if I do so in a difefrent way then the designers do so?

If it's more fun for you to play it in a way that describes all the powers as magical in nature... Awesome!

If it'as more fun for you to describe the powers in a way that is mundane in effect... Equally awesome!

Play the game in whatever style is fun. Who cares how it's supposed to be fun.

 

[Thasmodious]

*sigh* You said CAGI would not work on a Purple Fungus beause they can't move, therefore they cannot slide 2.

Correct. It's clear from a reading of the rules.

In point of fact almost nothing can slide 2 natively.

Anything that can move can slide. And many powers push, pull and slide more than 1 square. CAGI is one of them.

If there was a monster with a speed of one standing 3squares away from the fighter would CAGI or not? Why so?

Yes, because the rules of forced movement apply to anything that can move. If a human is slowed to a move of 2, it can still be pushed 5 by a warlord power.

Since the 'flavor' of the power I keep seeing is 'Oh look an opening' why does it make creature with reach move adjacent to the fighter? How about people armed only with bows?

Why not?

Does CAGI work on:
An ogre with reach?
A halfling with a sling?
A kobold with a longspear?
An enemy trying to run away? (Possible on a readied action)
A warlock with no melee weapon?
A Purple Fungus?
An aboleth in the water 3 squares away from a fighter on land?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, yes.

Does it work if the fighter in invisible and silenced? Does it work on sleeping foes?

I would say yes to the first, but narrate it differently and no, it doesn't work on sleeping, unconscious, or immobile foes.

 

[Imaro]

Ev
Imaro, really, it's great that you don't like the new edition. Cool beans. No harm, no foul. But you're going to have a tough time trying to demonstrate that the designers of 4e were careless or clueless in their design. They merely designed something you don't care for.

And this is a big assumption, especially since I've convinced my group to give 4e another go starting this Sunday.

I never said their design was careless or cluelss (please don't put words in my mouth.) What I'm questioning is if those goals and designs are being misrepresented by fans who (desperate to make 4e the ultimate game system in every aspect) have decided their own take on 4e is the way the designers thought. Especially when I'm not seeing evidence of this anywhere.

It's not that I don't care for 4e, I like it now that I accept it for the type of fun it brings me and my group...but I'm also not blindly making up stuff or intepreting things without some proof to defend 4e against all criticism. I want a better game next time, and I will harp on 4e's flaws because I don't think it's perfect, and at this point I'm not even sure if it's better or equal to 3.5...but that doesn't mean I won't play it.

 

[Mallus]

Are you being serious here or just snarky because the books don't talk about it?

I'm being serious. The whole powers system makes the most sense when viewed in terms of narrative control transfer. So I viewed it as such. I didn't see the need for that to be stated explicitly (because, again, it's implicit in the way the whole thing is set up).

Uhm...how? Especially when the PHB is chocked full of gamist, mini on grid, tactical, powery gamist elements??

Notice I wrote DMG, not PHB. Yes, the PHB is much more concerned with the gamist part of the game (weren't they always?).