Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Thasmodious]

Snakes are naturally prone

No, they are not. They simply have more "feet" in touch with the ground. When those feet aren't in touch with the ground, they are THEN prone.

 

[eamon]

For that matter, I don't have much trouble imagining knocking an ooze prone. Just because they're undifferentiated biologically doesn't mean they are physically too.

Your typical ooze in combat is likely to be extruding cilia on its underside for extra grip, and pseudopods from its top side to lash out at opponents. If you flip it so that the cilia are at the top and the pseudopods are underneath, that's going to inconvenience it until it takes a moment (let's call it a move action) to reconfigure itself.

On the one hand - that's a neat explanation!

I don't think I'll use it, however. I don't think prone oozes make sense (more on that later), and assuming it doesn't make sense, it's unwise to harp on it. Let's face it, there's lots of stuff in D&D that doesn't make perfect sense. It's trivial (and hilarious fun) to have a one-shot with lots of ludicrous counter-intuitive scenarios that are rules-legal but challenging to visualize (just like the prone ooze). In a normal campaign these are just as possible, but people don't harp on them because they're not out to undermine verisimilitude.

As to why the explanation - which is good, and creative - is still not something I'd actively encourage:

First of all, there's the rules consistency issue: prone doesn't just involve movement penalties, it also involves ranged defense bonuses and attack penalties, and CA - but only to melee attackers. The fiddling-with-ooze-internals explanation only matches partially here. It doesn't rhyme with the ranged defense bonus, nor does it explain the CA specific to melee attacks. You might be able to tweak the explanation and patch up these holes slightly, but the problem with doing so is that the explanation will be intricate and obviously reverse engineered to achieve just these mechanical modifiers. If you insist on finding an explanation to match the precise mechanical effects, the oddly specific in-game effect serves to remind people that you're playing an unrealistic game rather than to ameliorate the inconsistency between mechanics and in-game events. If you don't, it just doesn't match very well.

Secondly, there's the ability consistency here: obviously mechanically if a PC has a power imposing prone he can't just willy-nilly say it instead slows or whatnot: the PC's abilities are consistent across scenarios. But in-game if you tweak the explanation to fit the mechanics you get complete inconsistency on the fluff front: why, if in one scenario (say) a fighter turn a five-foot cube on its head can't he do something similar in all situations? Would you let him do that to a defenseless bale of hay? If he can trip even a giant, why can't he fell a tree in one swoop? If a seeker can push a huge giant (without fail!), can he push a huge boulder? If you change the in-game explanation all the time, the question arises why the abilities of the in-game character change all the time. It'd be wonderfully in-character for a player to describe some of his attacks colorfully, and proceed to use those same skills later again with consistent in-game effects but differing mechanical effects.

So, you can use cool descriptions for drama, but it's virtually impossible to refluff basic mechanics without running into consistency issues.

 

[Hussar]

Didn't I just read this EXACT conversation in another thread? Oh, yes I did. Wow, that was confusing. Thought I had the wrong windows open.

-----------

While the idea that the 4e DM has the final say is in the 4ed DMG, there is also a rather lengthy treatise in there on "say yes" which is not present in previous versions of D&D. IOW, sure, you can say no. That's not really in question. But, before you say no, stop and actually give an honest try to say yes first.

Which is more important - stopping the game to explain why the PC's power cannot knock the snake prone, probably prompting a rules discussion at the table (possibly one that drags on for several pages across multiple threads... oops, sorry, that's on forums, not game tables) or simply shrugging, adding in the modifiers and having the player explain how he's knocked the snake prone?

 

[Hussar]

Secondly, there's the ability consistency here: obviously mechanically if a PC has a power imposing prone he can't just willy-nilly say it instead slows or whatnot: the PC's abilities are consistent across scenarios. But in-game if you tweak the explanation to fit the mechanics you get complete inconsistency on the fluff front: why, if in one scenario (say) a fighter turn a five-foot cube on its head can't he do something similar in all situations? Would you let him do that to a defenseless bale of hay?

Well, I'm not quite sure what effect knocking a bale of hay prone would be, but, sure, why not?

If he can trip even a giant, why can't he fell a tree in one swoop?

Because trees, by and large, don't locomate?

If a seeker can push a huge giant (without fail!), can he push a huge boulder?

Not familiar with this specific power, but, again, boulders don't locomate typically. You can push the giant, because using the power causes the giant to stumble (not directly but by imposing a little bit of Player Editorial power)

If you change the in-game explanation all the time, the question arises why the abilities of the in-game character change all the time. It'd be wonderfully in-character for a player to describe some of his attacks colorfully, and proceed to use those same skills later again with consistent in-game effects but differing mechanical effects.

This would only be true if you insist that all powers have one, and only one possible explanation for how they work instead of having them work differently on a case by case basis.

 

[Balesir]

You're kind of moving the goalposts on me here, though.

Yes, and I apologise for that. Put it down to me blundering around a bit in that last post, as I often do when trying to communicate about this very slippery conceptual area. Let me try to add clarity, again...

We're talking about mixing the elements of play, not requiring that any we use be the main focus when it is being used. I don't think stories "switch" from one to the other, but blend. I would agree, most have a primary focus, but they mix seemlessly the other elements, the great ones often do, anyway.

That "primary focus" may relate to what I'm trying to say, but it may not, since there is a critical difference between what we are talking about here with "stories" and roleplaying. Your next example highlights it nicely...

That was handled much better in an example I'd hold up as a highlight of blending elements that also, as a side benefit, led to the creation of our beloved hobby -

LotR. The thematic thread running through the whole tale was industry versus nature, but, as with most great stories (and I think great games), the theme was not something so directly acted upon by the characters. There are moments where a character makes a comment in support of the theme, but mostly Tolkien just shows us by making us love Hobbiton, and Rivendell, and Fangorn, and half a dozen other locations. The physical obstacles are many: fights, battles, natural obstacles, social obstacles (dealing with the elves, the ents, etc). We have a pretty seemless blending of all the elements, focused on a party, broken down into challenges, that nonetheless includes a wealth of moral and ethical situations, a strong running theme, and exploration of both the world and society as a central part of the adventure.

Right, but this "ethical content" is hotly disputed by Tolkien fans and the supposed thoughts and beliefs of the man himself - did he deliberately set out to create a paen against industry, and associate industry with the fascists becoming prevalent at the time he wrote the tale, or not? And here lies the key difference between reading, or watching (or listening to) a story and roleplaying. With a story, we are witnessing the finished work, the tale complete, after the act of creation is done. With roleplaying, though, we are in the midst of the act of creation. The story is being made at the table. The analogue, then, is not with the finished tale of LotR, but with JRR Tolkien's focus as he wrote it. Sadly, there is only one person who even could really know what that was - and he has long passed from the world. Was the "industry : fascist : bad vs. countryside and nature : hobbits : good" stuff something he deliberately crafted into the story, or was it simply his world-view, naturally and unconsciously expressed as he focussed on creating an adventure tale? I don't know - and I'm pretty sure I never will.

I feel I need to stress that I'm talking about blending the elements and not switching foci. I don't think switching focus is the goal. I don't think making a game moment solely about one thing or another is a good way to go about it.

OK, so you have one focus, but it contains a number of things. I'm struggling to see how, but as I have said before, maybe it's possible - I have just stopped trying (for now) to do it.

I agree that many stories and games likely have a focus along one element or another, they are primarily action based or primarily a game of exploration (sand box for example), but a good game will blend in plenty of physical challenges and combats as well as elements of story and plot (whether GM or player determined, or both).

I'll pull you up here for what I see as a common misconception - sorry if it was just a slip. The physical challenges and such are elements of the story and plot! That was kind-of the point of my description of "story" before getting into game specific stuff, earlier. As long as you have adversity/conflict - i.e. a protagonist with a dramatic need unable to fulfill it due to a series of barriers, whether they involve an antagonist or not - you will get a story. It may even be a good one. "Story elements" are simply "adversity/conflict", and "plot" is what we see in retrospect as we view events in hindsight. As Charles Tilly pointed out, "the truth is not a story" - stories are a way that we try to communicate about the truth by connecting certain parts of it together.

I don't. It may well have a clear focus, but even most action stories have story, even while action is what drives it. Sure, at the low end of genre, its pretty generic and tacked on, but, again, the great ones rise above the trappings by blending the elements, by having a great story, real character development, a focused setting.

And every roleplaying game will generate a story; that is like saying every roleplaying game (or story) involves an imaginary reality. Even with "historical" stories, this is true, since the story is happening in our heads, otherwise it would be the events themselves, not a story about them. But both of these observations are generic. They say nothing about the nature of the game/story within its general class. Of course there will be a "shared imaginary space", and of course there will be an emergent story - those are fundamental, necessary elements for the whole endeavour to work. It's a bit like saying that a car is like a bicycle, because they both have wheels; of course they both have wheels - but it's the other things they have or don't have that makes them different.

The Matrix is a prime example of this.

Movies are an interesting case. Here, the story is almost created multiple times - first by the screenwriter, then by the director, the cameraman and so forth. It may be that the screenwriter had one focus and the film makers another. The Matrix almost pulled this off, I think. Avatar, less so.

My argument is that it's not a switch, or doesn't have to be. You don't stop the game, completely change the presentation, clear the minis off the map while the dilemma is being resolved, its blended with the action element or with the setting element. It arises from character or plot or setting. You don't have to change the focus of the game, it's ALL the game.

Absolutely, it's all the game. But, in play, the game group will be focussing on something - they will be "doing" something specific. Maybe the group you play with focus on a melange of overcoming the immediate in-game obstacle, figuring out the most interesting moral line to adopt in the current situation and assessing how the game world and characters "work" in the current situation - but I find that I generally focus on just one of those, and I find games I GM work better when I focus on just one of them, too. Your experience may be different - if so, good luck to you!

 

[eamon]

Well, I'm not quite sure what effect knocking a bale of hay prone would be, but, sure, why not?

I'm not talking about mechanical consistency, I'm talking about in-game consistency - so if you can flip a gelatinous cube, you should be able to flip over anything similar (barring significant differences). And... it seems a bit ridiculous for a fighter to be able to do that.

On the topid of pushing over giants and trees.

Because trees, by and large, don't locomate?

I meant pushing over a giant, which is not the best of examples, indeed.

On the topic of seeker's pushing class feature...

Not familiar with this specific power, but, again, boulders don't locomate typically. You can push the giant, because using the power causes the giant to stumble (not directly but by imposing a little bit of Player Editorial power)

Sure, so you cause the boulder to roll a little. Why not?


On the topic of powers' in-game effects...

This would only be true if you insist that all powers have one, and only one possible explanation for how they work instead of having them work differently on a case by case basis.

And that's exactly the point. If you redefine a power's in-game function continually, you're constantly redefining the character's abilities. Are you really going to allow those new in-game interpretations in other scenario's where they're possibly more powerful? Probably not.

So to recap; refluffing powers opens a proverbial bag of rats: and if you as a DM do so, you can't in good conscience (at least, I couldn't) disallow it in another scenario, you've gotta be consistent. And furthermore, the refluff doesn't actually make sense in the first place (whence the ranged defense bonus and the melee-specific CA?)

I think refluffing has a solid niche in introducing a little bit of drama, but not so much as a means to explain away incongruous mechanics.

 

[Kingreaper]

I'm not talking about mechanical consistency, I'm talking about in-game consistency - so if you can flip a gelatinous cube, you should be able to flip over anything similar (barring significant differences). And... it seems a bit ridiculous for a fighter to be able to do that.

I can, if necessary, flip over a bale of hay.

I'm not a superstrong fantasy warrior. In fact, for my build/genetics (which are admittedly, both rather close to the standard warrior archetype) I'm a weakling. I'm a pretty standard pizza-eating, sunlight-fearing, geek.

A fighter who can't flip a bale of hay? What kind of game are you playing?

If you were talking about an artful dodger rogue, I might get your point. But then again, that'd be someone who was doing it via trickery, and you can't trick hay.

On the topic of seeker's pushing class feature...
Sure, so you cause the boulder to roll a little. Why not?

Well, for starters you have to overcome it's static friction.

If the boulder's rolling already, then yeah should be doable.

So to recap; refluffing powers opens a proverbial bag of rats: and if you as a DM do so, you can't in good conscience (at least, I couldn't) disallow it in another scenario, you've gotta be consistent. And furthermore, the refluff doesn't actually make sense in the first place (whence the ranged defense bonus and the melee-specific CA?)

Melee-specific CA? The lack of cilia, and presence of pseudopods, makes it easier to get an attack in without being parried.

Ranged defense bonus? Pseudopods are tougher than cilia.

Simplez

 

[Balesir]

And that's exactly the point. If you redefine a power's in-game function continually, you're constantly redefining the character's abilities.

If I may make a slight correction, in the example provided you are not redefining a power's in-game function, you are redefininf a power's in-setting operation, which is quite different. The D&D 4E rules set out to define in-game functions and capabilities, rather than in-setting effects and capabilities as is traditional among "mainstream" roleplaying systems. On the one hand, this creates problems with "simulationist" habits, since the "game world" is no longer explicitly modelled and determinant. On the other hand, it's actually quite liberating, since the limits to the capabilities of sapient lifeforms are notoriously tricky to quantify.

... you can't trick hay.

Or maybe that would be an Epic level ability?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Everytime this type of discussion gets started, I can't help but think that a certain amount of the disconnect is that people simply don't know how some things work. And not the same things, either. We've all got these holes in our practical experience, and they make it difficult to discuss simulation and narrative breaks from simulation.

I'd talk about the holes in my knowledge, but obviously I don't know what those are.

Snakes do not "fight prone". How do you know? If you have ever seen a snake strike and then strike again, you know they don't have much reach while staying ready to quickly strike again. If they commit and stretch, it takes a few seconds for them to be ready again. That is why people can, if they have the nerve, grab a rattlesnake by the tail immediately after a strike. (I don't recommend that you try this at home.)

If you don't know that, then your "sim" of snakes is that they lie on the ground and bite people. If you write house rules to fit, they'll probably have snakes acting in ways that snakes don't. (Simplifying, obviously.) Likewise, if you want to narrate a power that makes a snake prone, and don't know how real snakes act, then you are kind of at a loss, or you have to get even more imaginative than someone who does know. Or maybe you change the nature of snakes, via fiat or magic.

And of course, that doesn't address how snakes act in any film, book, story which you might want to capture in the setting. It also doesn't address any gaps in the game authors' knowledge when they were writing the general rules.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Snakes do not "fight prone". How do you know? If you have ever seen a snake strike and then strike again, you know they don't have much reach while staying ready to quickly strike again. If they commit and stretch, it takes a few seconds for them to be ready again. That is why people can, if they have the nerve, grab a rattlesnake by the tail immediately after a strike. (I don't recommend that you try this at home.)

Yup.

But....grabbing a snake by the tail, even when it is stretched out, can result in a bite anyway. I've seen it happen. Snakes are pretty good at twisting their bodies around, and the person holding them isn't always nearly cautious enough.


RC