Why I'm done with 4e

[BryonD]

Fortunately in 4e you can have your cake and eat it. A characters powers are mechanics controlling the narrative, but there is also the page 42 stunting system which gives the rules for narrative controlling the mechanics.

Oh yes, and a good DM should certainly toss the rules out on their ear and use this kind of system to correctly respond to the narrative flow of the game any and every time it is appropriate. But if the main rules of the game must be thrown out on their ear as a regular part of quality play, then maybe a different system should be considered

This doesn't change the fact that the design concept of the game is based on "the encounter". IMO if you threw out the rest of the game and just ran things by the "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" section, you would improve the game.

But the game presumes you will use the rules that cover things when the players try to do those things, and will use this system when "the rules don't cover" something.

Do you let players consistently use this system to bypass the encounter and daily limitations on their powers?

 

[BryonD]

If the problem is specific martial encounter and daily powers, then the solution becomes even simpler: just don't use them. It would be like complaining that 3e is a bad system because I didn't like the divine power spell.

Heh, actually, I don't think it is fair to discuss Come and Get It. I think it is a particularly poorly designed power. I'd find the thought of trying to defend 3E on the basis of the worst feat WotC ever pushed out to be quite horrifying.

 

[BryonD]

I find describing how any attribute could be the basis of attack or defense ... incredibly good fun...

I am not in any way trying to claim that pop quiz roleplaying is anything other than fun.

I'm just saying that it is a different fun. Some people enjoy one, some people enjoy another, lots of people enjoy both. But they are different.

 

[Phaezen]

Oh yes, and a good DM should certainly toss the rules out on their ear and use this kind of system to correctly respond to the narrative flow of the game any and every time it is appropriate. But if the main rules of the game must be thrown out on their ear as a regular part of quality play, then maybe a different system should be considered

This doesn't change the fact that the design concept of the game is based on "the encounter". IMO if you threw out the rest of the game and just ran things by the "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" section, you would improve the game.

But the game presumes you will use the rules that cover things when the players try to do those things, and will use this system when "the rules don't cover" something.

Do you let players consistently use this system to bypass the encounter and daily limitations on their powers?

Thing is, I don't really see it as needing to "toss the rules out on their ear" The stunting rules enhance the basic rules of the game, rather than replace them. The thing to remember is is 4e is a exceptions based ruleset where specific overrides general.

I generaly allow players to stunt for an effect/damage somewhere between an atwill and an encounter power, and if it is a onceoff stunt for the encounter then I will bump the effect/damage to closer to a daily. I also run a bit of a risk/reward buyoff, so the higher the risk the greater the payoff.

THe upshot of this is incombats where I have had dwarves leaping off cliffs and into groups of orcs, players pushing down pillars, knocking down ruined walls and other such actions which leads to a more enjoyable experience for everyone. SUre, they still use their encounter and daily powers where needed, but is there is no feeling of artificial limitation of you can only do x cool things per encounter.

 

[AllisterH]

No, they are not. In the superman stories he uses the powers when they fit the need. In 4E the characters use them when the rules permit.

Encounter powers tend to match fiction much better than at-will powers frankly.

For example, you don't see in fiction OR real life for that matter, people spamming the same attack. It just doesn't work that way even though technically they CAN but it would never be successful. You don't see Jacky Chan constantly trying the same attack every time which is what 3.5 IMPROVED Trip was like.

Encounter powers IMO much better match the scenes from fiction and real life where the protoganist pulls off a special move and then gets an advantage.

Ironically, if anything, at-will spamming is a VIDEOGAME trait that doesn't really exist.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

No, they are not. In the superman stories he uses the powers when they fit the need. In 4E the characters use them when the rules permit.

He uses his powers when the story need him to in order to make for a good story, not when he needs to in order to be as effective as he logically could/should be. Superman almost never operates at anywhere near full capacity--and the fanwanked justifications like "he holds back a lot most of the time" completely fall apart when that "holding back" results in innocent people dying. The justification is blatantly plot-driven: there need to be some sort of stakes, and villains who can actually go toe to toe with Superman going all out in a realistic way are hard to come by, so Superman simply obeys limits the story demands but that he logically shouldn't. And an entire comic of him doing nothing but flying into the atmosphere and using supersight, x-ray vision and heat vision to systematically take down all of his enemies from orbit would be boring--even though he can clearly do that, if you simply look at the really high level stuff he's shown himself to be capable of when the plot demands. This happens with a huge number of other heroes in serialized action fiction containing supernatural elements (i.e. the sort of fiction which most clostly resembles D&D story structure), and not even the massively overpowered ones. Cool super moves simply get used less often, whether a justification that holds water in a simulationist sense is offered or not.

Encounter powers exist for a story-driven reason: characters seem more badass, and fights are more interesting, when they have cool moves, but cool moves are only cool when you can't spam them all the time. So characters will get a few cool moves to use a fight, but they won't be usable completely at-will--and the really powerful ones will only be usable fairly rarely, not even once a fight.

Its that simple. Now, you may not want to tell stories that follow the conventions of that sort of fiction--if you want to play an odd medley of Milton and torture porn horror movies like others in this thread, or indeed any other type of game, it is doable with enough effort and creativity, and I hope you have fun doing it.

But I think it is pretty clear that that sort of fiction is where 4e got the inspiration for its power structure. It might not resemble the kind of narrative you like, but its still narrative-driven.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Anywya on OP:
you either grokk 4th ed or you don't.
Each to his own, but most folk who seem to hate 4th ed I believe would not do so if they came at 4th ed as fresh, new to D&D players.
Nostalgia can be a bliding poison!

It isn't very flattering to a game system to say that players would enjoy it only if they hadn't tried anything else. I would hardly call that an encouraging endorsement.

 

[StarFyre]

Phaezen...

If I understand the argument, I think my previous example covers it best:

-------------
...we have a thoradorian minotaur (and we allow stat bonuses higher than +2, since it makes sense for that race, and players prefer it to be how it should be...regardlessof if it's their race or not). Anyways, that minotaur is strong enough to easily kneel down and swing a long polearm around his head, hitting groups of enemies around him (if they are tall enough).

However, if he does that, 4E purists would argue that's not fair; it detracts from them using a power that may allow forsome damage to allthose around him, etc. However, it makes perfect sense for the Thoradorian.

My players complain if I don't allow "realistic" things like that;stuff that makes sense.

That same character, charges forward, gore ssomeone and tramples them, picks up another person, and tosses them behind him, leaving him ripe for the rest of the party to use their "powers" on it. Thing is, against regular huamnoids, the thoradorian does more damage sometimes without using powers based on what he tries to do. But in all cases, he is alot more interesting...more savage, etc..like he should be.

My players love it..and want him to do stuff like that.
--------------------------

So from stuff like that; i basically said screw the 4E system..do whatever you guys want; whatever youcan do and i will deal with it accordingly. They still have their powers and use them; but really, they can do anything. even stuff that most parties won't allow since it's not standard 4E....

I think this is the issue that his group is having above...

Sanjay

 

[keterys]

The minotaur example sounds like pretty normal 4e stuff to me - hitting people all around you, hurling an enemy around, etc.

That said, I have no idea how kneeling down and swinging a polearm around to hit people's heads (at least, if they're tall) - successfully - has anything to do with realism. And whether a system allows or disallows that has anything to do with its realism.

I'll echo agreement on the superman not overusing his powers because it's narratively more interesting that way. 4E's power structure lends itself far more to that particular narrativist element than the simulationist element of having specific resources you can quantify exactly that you use up in whatever manner you see fit. 3E is absolutely and undoubtably better at simulation than 4e, although worse than some other non-D&D systems. How important 'stuff making real sense' is to a person varies. For some, it makes them unable to play 4e. Others just care about having fun or getting a good group story, at which point the issue is muddled from there.

And, seriously, if Come and Get It offends, then remove it, or move it to the Swordmage.

 

[Engilbrand]

Why doesn't the thoradorian just choose a class that would allow him to do that sort of thing anyway? The Barbarian would be a good example.
You can do a lot of stuff, you just need to be willing to choose the powers that allow you to do what you want. Personally, I think that it would definitely be broken to allow someone to just hit everyone around him every round without mechanical justification. I, as a player, would be annoyed that someone else had options that I didn't. (That's beyond the obvious differences in classes and races.)