I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Rogue Agent]

What tends to frustrate me is the repeated suggestion, or sometimes (as in your post) the apparent assertion, that a game with metagame mechanics (or, at least, with 4e's metagame mechanics) is not roleplaying.

I'm sorry that it frustrates you. But, ultimately, the question I had to answer for myself was: Why, when playing 4th Edition, do I so frequently feel as if I'm playing Arkham Horror instead of Call of Cthulhu?

And the answer essentially boiled down to the types of mechanics used in the game: When mechanical decisions are roleplaying decisions, it feels like a roleplaying game. When mechanical decisions aren't character decisions, it feels like something else.

This is just one example of a player using the mechanical outcomes of the game - in this case, an effect ends according to the game's timing rules - to inhabit and roleplay his character - expressing his conviction of faith in his god (and also making it true, in the fiction, that his god had turned him back - so he was able to exercise narrative control without ever departing from in-character play).

Notably, what you describe there doesn't seem to have anything to do with dissociated mechanics.

The mechanics of the NPC power ("baleful polymorph") are "dissociated" from the gameworld, in the sense that the mechanical description of the power does not explain why, in the fiction, it comes to an end at the end of the NPC's next turn.

For example, I'm hazy on why you would think that effects with a limited duration are inherently dissociated.

As the example shows, this had no impeding effect on roleplaying.

You may also want to note that I said absolutely nothing about "impeding" roleplaying. In fact, I said the exact opposite of that.

 

[Rogue Agent]

By "narrativist", I mean "narrativist in the Forge sense". This is, roughly, that the game produces thematically compelling play without it being anyone's job to achieve that.

What the players have to do is build and play their PCs, pushing towards their character goals in the encounters that occur. What I as GM have to do is to build my encounters having regard to the players' thematic concerns (as revealed through the build and play of their PCs), and then to adjudicate those encounters in a way that keeps pouring the pressure onto the PCs (and, hence, the players) up until the encounter resolves.

Whenever I read descriptions of what you do with 4E, it sounds like a lovely kitbash. And I'm glad it works for you.

But, unlike an actual story game, there is nothing mechanical in the game that results in PCs pushing their character goals or the GM building encounters to the players' thematic concerns.

To be clear: I am not saying there's anything wrong with what you're doing. But I am saying that what you're doing has pretty much everything to do with how you're playing the game and pretty much nothing to do with the actual rules of the game.

With that being said...

For the sort of play that I find support for from 4e - that illustrates what I mean by encounters or situations that "pour on the pressure" - see any of the links in my earlier post above, or my new thread on PCs negotiating with Kas.

Every time you link to one of these AP reports, I click through hoping to get some elucidation of your position. But although you claim they'll show how 4E specifically and mechanically supports your style of play, these reports never seem to actually contain any information about the mechanical resolution of the actions you're describing.

In short, these reports aren't doing what you apparently think they should be doing.

To be clear: I can see that the encounters you're creating "pour on the pressure" and are created using Forge-like narrativist techniques. But none of it seems to be coming out of the mechanics of the system. And I'm not seeing anything about these encounters that couldn't be just as easily done in 3E or any other system that doesn't feature 4E's dissociated mechanics.

 

[Nagol]

I'm sorry that it frustrates you. But, ultimately, the question I had to answer for myself was: Why, when playing 4th Edition, do I so frequently feel as if I'm playing Arkham Horror instead of Call of Cthulhu?

And the answer essentially boiled down to the types of mechanics used in the game: When mechanical decisions are roleplaying decisions, it feels like a roleplaying game. When mechanical decisions aren't character decisions, it feels like something else.



Notably, what you describe there doesn't seem to have anything to do with dissociated mechanics.



For example, I'm hazy on why you would think that effects with a limited duration are inherently dissociated.

In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s case, he is taking undefined rationale (why does the polymorph end after one round) and adding new associations based upon player input (because the paladin's god intervened). In effect, pemerton is building a interwoven narrative on the fly that maps to the mechanics and effects presented but ties the result into the wider universe based upon player input and expressed interest. The mechanics of polymorph are disassociated for pemerton, because in effect, the rationale for why it works that way is dependent on someone explaining it at the time -- the paladin's god got involved, the wizard knew a counter-spell, etc.

This style breaks down when the players don't bother explaining the results in the world's terms and simply accept the mechanics.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Thanks for the response @pemerton !

I figured it was somewhat like that, and your gaming is pretty foreign, but intriguing to me (in a good way).


@rogueagent

I can't speak for Pemerton (especially given how foreign his style is to my own), but maybe I can explain it as I've come to understand it from my own perspective?

I THINK Pemerton is more of a "use the mechanics to define the outer boundaries of the story in the moment" and then follow with "define, within those (somewhat broad) boundaries, an exciting narrative".

Whereas I'm more of a "use the mechanics to tell the narrative, filling in elements that are missing, or embelish beyond what is present" kinda guy.


As far as I can tell, 4e DOES allow for more narrative freedom (but that the freedom comes at a cost of "built in descripton" which some (such as myself) tend to link with immersion. Immersion might not be the right word though, I think specificity might be better.

I want to know what happens in the game when I roll dice.

For some it's freeing to not know. For others, not knowing diminishes "roleplaying" or "immersion" depending on what people are utilizing the rules for.

No one way is correct, but the different rules appeal differently to different styles.

 

[Griego]

Is there a point to calling DA out as not telling the truth? Does this contribute to the discussion of this topic or to the atmosphere of the board or does it detract?

I'm not going so far as to say he's lying, but there's gotta be something he's forgetting or neglecting to tell us. It just doesn't fly. Now, even if everything's on the up-and-up, then he should realize his experience is far from common in 3e. Maybe his party is full of skilled optimizers with free reign to use any splatbook, but again, is that the norm for a 3e campaign? No.

 

[Hussar]

Funnily enough, RogueAgent pretty much hit it on the head. The DM is running more, weaker encounters. That would jive pretty strongly with what was said many pages ago on how to do this. IOW, change the baseline assumptions to allow for more encounters per day and you can get away without needing all the healing.

Take a module, use more characters than the module is presumed to use, use characters that are significantly stronger than the baseline, and voila, you can burn through multiple encounters per adventuring day. Oh, and be fairly generous when interpreting the results of skill checks like Bluff and "roleplay".

Might result in some swinginess, particularly with regards to critical attacks and the like, but, it will work.

What bugs me, more than anything else, is the somewhat smug answer of "well, we just played really well". It's smug because it's so condescending. Anyone who doesn't get the same results obviously isn't playing very well. If we all just "played better", then we'd have no problems, just like DA and others.

OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What bugs me, more than anything else, is the somewhat smug answer of "well, we just played really well". It's smug because it's so condescending. Anyone who doesn't get the same results obviously isn't playing very well. If we all just "played better", then we'd have no problems, just like DA and others.

OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.

I don't think it was meant that way. But I see the line between "smart play" and "DM let us get away with something ridiculous" as both fairly narrow, and something that is drawn all over the map.

I'm sure plenty of people here would find how I DM to be on either side of the line, at one time or another. I'll remind the players of key abilities during combat, mention a few tactical options they may haven't considered, etc. And then I'll put their characters in a very tough situation where if they don't play smart, they wil be in a world of hurt. This is because I want the players challenged, and this group is better at strategic and situational problems than they are tactical or resources problems.

There are also pacing concerns, that I'm sure affects how DMs handle these kind of issues. Perhaps Danny's group simply prefers to have several easier encounters instead of fewer tougher encounters, for pacing reasons, and thus made it so. I'll never take out the penultimate encounter in a module to make it easier on the group, but I have removed it so that we can finish an adventure by the time the all-day session ends (and then adjust the XP down accordingly). Objectively, I'm making the adventure easier on the players, but the motive is pure pacing.

 

[billd91]

Funnily enough, RogueAgent pretty much hit it on the head. The DM is running more, weaker encounters. That would jive pretty strongly with what was said many pages ago on how to do this. IOW, change the baseline assumptions to allow for more encounters per day and you can get away without needing all the healing.

Take a module, use more characters than the module is presumed to use, use characters that are significantly stronger than the baseline, and voila, you can burn through multiple encounters per adventuring day. Oh, and be fairly generous when interpreting the results of skill checks like Bluff and "roleplay".

Might result in some swinginess, particularly with regards to critical attacks and the like, but, it will work.

What bugs me, more than anything else, is the somewhat smug answer of "well, we just played really well". It's smug because it's so condescending. Anyone who doesn't get the same results obviously isn't playing very well. If we all just "played better", then we'd have no problems, just like DA and others.

OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.

Yeah, funny thing going on here. You're grabbing at straws based on what RogueAgent said, while ignoring what DannyAlcatraz said about his DM adjusting the difficult of encounters upward to account for extra players.

How important is it to have your assumptions about how 3e should play validated? Is there a reason you won't accept what DA says about his experiences?

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, funny thing going on here. You're grabbing at straws based on what RogueAgent said, while ignoring what DannyAlcatraz said about his DM adjusting the difficult of encounters upward to account for extra players.

How important is it to have your assumptions about how 3e should play validated? Is there a reason you won't accept what DA says about his experiences?

If I claimed that I routinely, regularly golfed at 20 under par, would you accept that at face value? Or would you question me about it? Because, this is what DannyA is doing.

He's claiming that not only were they blowing through 4-6 encounters per rest period, but also they did it without any serious magical item healing (beyond a few healing potions), not one PC ever used any item creation feats ever, AND the DM adjusted encounters upwards to account for having more PC's.

I'd point out that this isn't just MY assumptions. These are the DESIGNER assumptions. If you're running EL=Par encounters, you shouldn't be able to do more than 4 per rest period, and that's assuming that you have a core healer.

If someone is doing more than that, then obviously there must be some changes going on in the baseline assumptions. But, every time I try to pin down how this was done, all I get are vague lines and contradictions. The casters didn't "nova". There was no core healer and little healing magic. The encounters weren't easier or set at EL under par. On and on and on.

So, I'm sorry for being skeptical here, but, DannyA's claims run in the face of experience AND the stated assumptions of the game.

Once you eliminate the possible, whatever remains must be the truth. The problem is, we're running out of possible things, so what remains becomes impossible. There's something missing from this equation and, despite repeated attempts, it never seems to surface.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There's something missing from this equation and, despite repeated attempts, it never seems to surface.

How about a thought exercise.

There are certain expectations built into 3e regarding resources. The dynamic however goes two ways. The system needs to assume an average or baseline (which in this case you seem to be correctly using). However, the players understanding the "generosity" of this baseline will throw their characters at a situation using up their resources according to the formula. Think of it, if you're thirsty and someone pours you a drink, you'll generally drink all of it, regardless (within reason) of how much you were actually given. I think a similar situation is perhaps going on here with DA's game. It is like they were poured 500mL of drink but damn it if any one in the party is going to drink more than 100mL. They have treated their resources like gold, rather than a daily allowance of bread that's expected to be consumed. This style of play is completely foreign to most players.

We successfully played a 3e conversion of Return to the Tomb of Horrors and only lost a single character through incredibly anal conservation of resources as well as precautions every step of the way. I can understand with a similar (or perhaps greater) attention to detail, DA's group may have achieved what you are regarding as the impossible.

Whatever the case, I don't see much point in badgering DA further.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise