D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[GSHamster]

This thought popped in my head while reading the discussion on CaGI. Imagine a game with the following situation (one dimensional to simplify things):

1 2 3 4
- A X -

A is a PC named Anna, X is an orc. The two are engaged in a sword fight. Now this game has a rule that if a combatant successfully hits an opponent, she can shift both herself and the opponent one square in the same direction, to simulate movement in combat. Now, Anna hits the orc and takes the following shift:

1 2 3 4
- - A X

I think most gamers would be totally okay with this, seeing this as Anna forcing the orc back.

But suppose Anna took the following shift instead:

1 2 3 4
A X - -

I think there would be a significant number of gamers who would object to allowing that shift, that it just does not fit with their vision of how combat should work.

So is the second shift justifiable? Or should the game only allow the first shift?

 

[Argyle King]

This thought popped in my head while reading the discussion on CaGI. Imagine a game with the following situation (one dimensional to simplify things):

1 2 3 4
- A X -

A is a PC named Anna, X is an orc. The two are engaged in a sword fight. Now this game has a rule that if a combatant successfully hits an opponent, she can shift both herself and the opponent one square in the same direction, to simulate movement in combat. Now, Anna hits the orc and takes the following shift:

1 2 3 4
- - A X

I think most gamers would be totally okay with this, seeing this as Anna forcing the orc back.

But suppose Anna took the following shift instead:

1 2 3 4
A X - -

I think there would be a significant number of gamers who would object to allowing that shift, that it just does not fit with their vision of how combat should work.

So is the second shift justifiable? Or should the game only allow the first shift?

I don't see a problem with the second shift. Most combat styles break down into either hard or soft styles. I could potentially see the second diagram being possible via 'soft' techniques which use the orc's attack momentum against him; Anna absorbs the energy and takes a step back to reposition the orc.

 

[pemerton]

This thought popped in my head while reading the discussion on CaGI. Imagine a game with the following situation (one dimensional to simplify things):

1 2 3 4
- A X -

A is a PC named Anna, X is an orc. The two are engaged in a sword fight. Now this game has a rule that if a combatant successfully hits an opponent, she can shift both herself and the opponent one square in the same direction, to simulate movement in combat. Now, Anna hits the orc and takes the following shift:

1 2 3 4
- - A X

I think most gamers would be totally okay with this, seeing this as Anna forcing the orc back.

But suppose Anna took the following shift instead:

1 2 3 4
A X - -

I think there would be a significant number of gamers who would object to allowing that shift, that it just does not fit with their vision of how combat should work.

So is the second shift justifiable? Or should the game only allow the first shift?

I don't have a strong view on which is preferable/permissible, but just wanted to point out how 4e would handle them: the first one is "Anna pushes X one square and then shifts into the vacated square as a free action", while the second one is "Anna shifts one square as a free action and then pulls X into the vacated square".

In 4e, the second one is a fighter at-will called Footwork Lure (and some other classes have similar (identical?) abilities - I think the avenger and the swordmage). The first one is Tide of Iron, a fighter at-will that requires a shield.

In my game I generally think of Come and Get It used against intelligent opponents as a mass footwork lure.

 

[GSHamster]

I don't see a problem with the second shift. Most combat styles break down into either hard or soft styles. I could potentially see the second diagram being possible via 'soft' techniques which use the orc's attack momentum against him; Anna absorbs the energy and takes a step back to reposition the orc.

But Anna is the one who successfully made the attack, not the orc. I think you run into issues like "if Anna takes a step back, why does the orc have to do the same".

 

[Dragoslav]

But Anna is the one who successfully made the attack, not the orc. I think you run into issues like "if Anna takes a step back, why does the orc have to do the same".

Two parts to this:

1) An attack represents represents an entire round's worth (in 4e, 6 seconds) of combat, during which both the attacker and defender are both attacking and parrying against one another. Given that, it makes sense for the PC to be able to "pull" his opponent by using the opponent's momentum against him and/or outmaneuvering him, stepping back, and forcing the opponent to step forward to continue engaging him.

2) "if Anna takes a step back, why does the orc have to do the same". As above, but one could argue "But what if the orc doesn't WANT to step forward to continue engaging Anna when she steps away? Why shouldn't it be up to the DM to decide whether the orc follows her or not?" It's because Anna is a badass fighter who is able to outmaneuver her opponent and trick him into overextending himself and make hasty decisions in the heat of battle.

You could come up with all sorts of objections and ideas for how to complicate the issue. "The orc should get a will save to determine whether he follows. Anna should take a penalty to AC to incentivize the orc to follow her instead of moving somewhere else on his turn. That technique shouldn't work on enemies with high intelligence scores because they don't make careless decision in the heat of combat." But when you get down to it, D&D combat has always been highly abstract, and trying to make combat more process-simulationist is a senseless goal. If the wizard can will things into existence, the fighter should be able to pull off tricks in melee combat (in a sense imposing his own will on the flow of battle).

IMHO

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6690267]Dragoslav[/MENTION], 100% agreed, and I see CaGI in the same way.

 

[D'karr]

But Anna is the one who successfully made the attack, not the orc. I think you run into issues like "if Anna takes a step back, why does the orc have to do the same".

In martial arts this is quite a common technique, luring your opponent is commonly done. As a matter of fact it hardly requires Anna to make an attack.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In martial arts this is quite a common technique, luring your opponent is commonly done. As a matter of fact it hardly requires Anna to make an attack.

The problem for me here is when you try to draw your opponent in, they always have the choice of not playing along (and you don't have actual control of their movement or position in the ring). You can create an opening for instance, that will attract an attack, but they don't have to bite.

 

[D'karr]

The problem for me here is when you try to draw your opponent in, they always have the choice of not playing along (and you don't have actual control of their movement or position in the ring). You can create an opening for instance, that will attract an attack, but they don't have to bite.

And that is why the game mechanics require that you make an "attack", in a simple sense your "attack" has made the opponent "bite". If your "attack" misses, which it obviously can, then the opponent doesn't "bite". I put all those things in quotation marks because "attacking" and "biting (going for it)" are obviously game abstractions. In martial arts I didn't have to "attack" my opponent to lure him, but the game abstracts it that way for mechanical reasons.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And that is why the game mechanics require that you make an "attack", in a simple sense your "attack" has made the opponent "bite". If your "attack" misses, which it obviously can, then the opponent doesn't "bite". I put all those things in quotation marks because "attacking" and "biting (going for it)" are obviously game abstractions. In martial arts I didn't have to "attack" my opponent to lure him, but the game abstracts it that way for mechanical reasons.

I see your point, but this still just doesnt work for me. Movement and attacking are things I feel should be under the control of the character in question unless there is some kind of powerful force taking that away. The issue I have is I am taking direct control of an npc's movement. In martial arts, i can try to lure someone by stepping back or to the side and hoping they follow me, but I cant compel them to stay on me ir move. Or I can give an opening, hoping to lure them into an attack, but again, it is totally up to them what they do with that. I much prefer this sort of thing be left up to the person controling the npc (the GM). If I step back, he might well follow, but doesn't have to. He gets to decide based on the npc, just like i get to decide my movement on battfield based on my pc.if I give an opponening, i would much prefer a mechanic that lowers my AC but gives me a damage boost should I hit on the counter. That way the GM gets to decide based on something much closer to that actual situation (there is an opening, it means something, capitalizing on it has some risk, the npc has to make the choice on what to do).