Do YOU nod to "realism"?

[Wormwood]

kind of like saying that anyone who writes a sentence is being clever because monkeys cannot do it.

ಠ_ಠ

 

[Hussar]

KarinsDad - therefore, by your definition, if I push someone off a cliff in AD&D, I'm being clever because the mechanics are not in place to handle this. But, if I do the exact same thing in 4e, I'm not being clever, because the mechanics are in place to handle this.

So, basically, the more comprehensive a ruleset is, the more difficult it is to be clever. Pushing someone off a cliff in 3e isn't clever because we have bull rush mechanics. Flanking and tactical movement in 3e or 4e isn't clever because we have mechanics tied to position. Flanking in AD&D wouldn't be clever because there are mechanics there for that. But it would be in 2e because flanking doesn't have any mechanics tied to it?

So, in your opinion, what would count as doing something clever in 4e?

Or, hey, let's move away from D&D for a second. In Savage Worlds, we have the Rule of 4. Any result of 4 or better is a success. How does one be clever in a system that has universal resolution mechanics using your definition of "clever".

Since use of terrain isn't clever. And use of powers isn't clever. Nor is using any existing mechanics, what exactly do we have left?

 

[KarinsDad]

So, in your opinion, what would count as doing something clever in 4e?

I'll read through your story hours and let you know if I see one. Be patient though, it might take a while.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, in your opinion, what would count as doing something clever in 4e?

Actually, I'll give you an example.

Say that a given player has a melee PC and he intends to go into flank and attack a foe. When his turn comes up, he realizes that if he moves into the flank square, his PC will be open to a large number of attacks by the enemies. Instead of flanking the foe, he instead moves to a non-flank square and attacks, thereby forcing the enemies to spread their attacks amongst the PCs instead of getting focused fire on a single PC.

I consider this clever because many players would never see this and would with very little real thought on it, take the flank and have their PC get crushed, and because it forces the NPCs to not have access for one round to one of the best tactics of the game, focused fire.

 

[Balesir]

Seriously, this is how I view your At Will "something cool" power as well.

The cool thing about illusions was that although they could be a bit nebulous, there were some rules for how a DM should handle them and how NPCs could react with them, so regardless of whether the DM was heavily persuaded or not, he at least had adjudication rules to guide him. And the bottom line was that something cool could come out of it in game.

I don't see that with your "you can do anything you want as long as the DM agrees" something cool powers.

The very thing that you are complaining about here, you created your own house rules to mimic, just not with illusions.

Um, I think you have me confused with [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], who provided the "Do Something Cool" and "Do Something Cooler" cards. I was just expressing my relief that the open-ended and patently-abusable-with-DM-connivance spells from older editions are no longer a "feature" that I have to deal with.

I consider 'out of the box' thinking to be things like in 2E where a Gnome PC cast Darkness 3 feet off the ground and then went around attacking his foes with no vision penalties. The medium sized monsters couldn't see and didn't know that below them, vision was just fine until real late in the encounter and then they got a different penalty for crouching down below the darkness once they figured it out. The PC was able to hold off an entire room of monsters while the rest of the party was fighting nearby.

Completely aside from the fact that this seems to have worked far more effectively that I would personally consider to be "realistic", I have seen similar tactics in 4E when fighting large monsters (which are actually sufficiently taller than the PCs to make for significant scope to have poison clouds, darkness and so on affect the large creatures but not the party) and larger. But I suppose that doesn't count, as 4E has specific "spaces" occupied by both creatures and spell effects, so such things, "clever" in earlier rulesets, become merely "playing the system" in 4E, hmm?

The idea that "clever" play is possible only if the rules do not cover as many possibilities as needed for players to easily find areas to be "clever" in is... intriguing. I think I'll stick to valuing creative and intelligent play within the rules as a priority, thanks.

 

[Balesir]

Actually, I'll give you an example.

Say that a given player has a melee PC and he intends to go into flank and attack a foe. When his turn comes up, he realizes that if he moves into the flank square, his PC will be open to a large number of attacks by the enemies. Instead of flanking the foe, he instead moves to a non-flank square and attacks, thereby forcing the enemies to spread their attacks amongst the PCs instead of getting focused fire on a single PC.

I consider this clever because many players would never see this and would with very little real thought on it, take the flank and have their PC get crushed, and because it forces the NPCs to not have access for one round to one of the best tactics of the game, focused fire.

LOL! Such a high bar set for "clever" heretofore, but now it's just "avoiding being utterly dumb"!

It's entertaining, I suppose.

 

[KarinsDad]

The idea that "clever" play is possible only if the rules do not cover as many possibilities as needed for players to easily find areas to be "clever" in is... intriguing. I think I'll stick to valuing creative and intelligent play within the rules as a priority, thanks.

I never once said that. That's your (and some other people's) spin on what I said. If you go back and read what I wrote, I said that there are tactics such as using forced movement to push a foe into a hazard which are not especially clever, rather they are standard tactics. No different than moving into flank is a standard tactic.

If a player playing 1E managed to convince his DM that his PC was flanking a foe because of some reason and the DM gave that player a bonus because of that, it might be considered clever because the player doesn't normally have that tool in this toolkit. In 4E, flanking is not a clever tactic. Finding an unusual way to move in order to get flanking might be clever. But flanking is 4E 101, just like forced movement into a hazard is 4E 101.

Considering forced movement into a hazard creative and intelligent play? It's not stupid play, but it's not especially unprecedented or ingenious play. It's just typical play. For those of you who consider it special, I probably cannot convince you that it's just a normal tactic that the game designers handed players on a plate. It can lead to some special moments where the entire table erupts in cheers and laughter, but the tactic itself is not special or unique. Just one more tool in the player's toolbox and one that is heavily wellworn at some tables.

 

[KarinsDad]

LOL! Such a high bar set for "clever" heretofore, but now it's just "avoiding being utterly dumb"!

It's entertaining, I suppose.

I wonder how many times as a player or DM that you had a character do something that wasn't a good tactical move and only saw the reason it wasn't after the fact? Or are you one of those perfect people who never make tactical mistakes? It's clever when someone sees it coming ahead of time, regardless of your inability to see it, and regardless of your armchair assessment that someone doing something truly clever like anticipating the future actions of the monsters and preventing them as just avoiding being dumb. You must be an awesome tactical player if something that most players can rarely do is mundane for you.

 

[Balesir]

I wonder how many times as a player or DM that you had a character do something that wasn't a good tactical move and only saw the reason it wasn't after the fact? Or are you one of those perfect people who never make tactical mistakes? It's clever when someone sees it coming ahead of time, regardless of your inability to see it, and regardless of your armchair assessment that someone doing something truly clever like anticipating the future actions of the monsters and preventing them as just avoiding being dumb. You must be an awesome tactical player if something that most players can rarely do is mundane for you.

Oh, I can make mistakes with the best in that business, but the whole area of threats and counter-threats of flanking is just a work-a-day part of the tactical tapestry in our games. Considering what flanks you can get or threaten, and what flanks could be got or threatened against you, is all part and parcel of play, so making a really big hash of it is relatively rare.

 

[KarinsDad]

Oh, I can make mistakes with the best in that business, but the whole area of threats and counter-threats of flanking is just a work-a-day part of the tactical tapestry in our games. Considering what flanks you can get or threaten, and what flanks could be got or threatened against you, is all part and parcel of play, so making a really big hash of it is relatively rare.

I only made a big hash of a player anticipating the tactics of the monsters and avoiding them by doing what would normally be considered a subpar tactic. That's what I find clever. In the vast majority of circumstances, it doesn't matter too much which square a PC is in. As a DM, if I wanted to unload on that PC, I typically can and there's not much the players can do to stop it (with the exception of any marked monsters or monsters that someone has put some level of control over). But if a player can position his PC (and/or other PCs in the case of a Leader who can move fellow PCs) in such a way as to limit my options as a DM, I consider that player to be doing something clever.

Granted, if the player uses the same tactic over and over again, then it starts going from the realm of being a clever tactic to a standard tactic for that player and that group. But in the case of the "does not go into flank" example, truly preventing the monsters from unloading on any single PC is something that is fairly rare as an option. So when a player sees and uses that option, he's being clever because it is something that rarely is possible in an encounter, but he was heads up enough to take advantage of it.

Forty years ago, it was clever for mankind to go to the moon. Four hundreds years from now, it might be considered as clever as getting on a bus is today. Just like pushing a foe off a cliff in 1E was clever, but pushing a foe off a cliff in 4E isn't.