D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[Nagol]

I don't think Tide of Iron gives more narrative to the player. It is just the character pushing the monster. Charm Person doesn't give narrative control either since the the character is just influencing the monster. The DM still makes decisions for the monster (taking the charming ino account).

However, Come and Get It does give the player narrative control since using the power the player (not the character) decides what the monster does.

I hate talking about CaGI. but the big narrative boost it offers isn't what the opponents do. It's because the player gets to decide why they do it.

 

[Nagol]

Ah, okay. So when you say "narrative," you literally mean "narration," as in the player gets to narrate what happens in-world, even though it doesn't actually change the outcome.

How is that different from a feat/maneuver like Bull Rush or Cleave? Why can't a player say he has a green fireball in AD&D?

I didn't start the conversation so I can't comment on the original intent.

In-world narration certainly increased. Some powers allow for more narrative influence than others -- the poster child is CaGI which I address in a post just before this one but there are others that extend the player control outside his PC and into the realm of the environment, other PCs, or NPCs.

 

[Keldryn]

Can you show me an example? I'm looking through the Player's Handbook right now, and all the powers have flavor text that explain what they're supposed to represent.

Let's look at Tide of Iron, for example. It's in game effect is that of a melee attack, plus the option to push an opponent one square and shift into the vacated square. This could be narrated as striking your opponent with your sword and then following up with a soled bash that pushes him back.

But it doesn't have to be. When fighting a large opponent like a dragon or giant, it starts to seem implausible; 3.x applied size penalties when trying to bull rush a larger opponent. Instead of trying to model a specific process, powers simply create an effect in the game world. The fighter isn't physically pushing the dragon backwards, but his aggressive attacks cause the giant to take a step back to avoid the fighter's blows. Or the giant is off balance for a moment, allowing the fighter to get into its personal space.

Focusing on the effect means that the player and DM can describe how the giant steps away from the fighter without getting locked into the idea that the fighter is physically pushing the giant and all the modifiers which make that unlikely to succeed.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Ah, okay. So when you say "narrative," you literally mean "narration," as in the player gets to narrate what happens in-world, even though it doesn't actually change the outcome.

How is that different from a feat/maneuver like Bull Rush or Cleave? Why can't a player say he has a green fireball in AD&D?

No, simple refluffing is part of it, but not all.

In previous editions, (and in Next so far) when you bull rush or cleave, the game rules are very clear about spelling out exactly what is happening in the fiction. In 4e you get a power and it has an effect - describe any way you like.

Further, simple bull-rushes and other feat-type effects make bad examples, since nearly anyone can do it. CaGI is a better, if way-too-often flogged example.

AD&D wizards, similarly were not free to say what their fireballs looked like - the description was baked right into the spell's effect. A DM might let you alter that, but by RAW, you're looking at costly, time-consuming spell research to create a new variant of spell effect.

I didn't start the conversation so I can't comment on the original intent.

In-world narration certainly increased. Some powers allow for more narrative influence than others -- the poster child is CaGI which I address in a post just before this one but there are others that extend the player control outside his PC and into the realm of the environment, other PCs, or NPCs.

This is getting close to what I mean...

Let's look at Tide of Iron, for example. It's in game effect is that of a melee attack, plus the option to push an opponent one square and shift into the vacated square. This could be narrated as striking your opponent with your sword and then following up with a soled bash that pushes him back.

But it doesn't have to be. When fighting a large opponent like a dragon or giant, it starts to seem implausible; 3.x applied size penalties when trying to bull rush a larger opponent. Instead of trying to model a specific process, powers simply create an effect in the game world. The fighter isn't physically pushing the dragon backwards, but his aggressive attacks cause the giant to take a step back to avoid the fighter's blows. Or the giant is off balance for a moment, allowing the fighter to get into its personal space.

Focusing on the effect means that the player and DM can describe how the giant steps away from the fighter without getting locked into the idea that the fighter is physically pushing the giant and all the modifiers which make that unlikely to succeed.

As is this...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, describing Tide of Iron differently is just re-fluffing, and re-fluffing is as old as Chainmail.

4e enabled more re-fluffing by the player by not allowing the narrative to actually influence the mechanics, unlike previous editions. That wall between story and gameplay means that the player is free to describe whatever they want without it affecting the actual gameplay at all.

And it's a contentious thing. What one player sees as liberating ("Yay, I can make up whatever I want and it won't change the balance of the game!"), another sees as horribly unsatisfying ("WTF, no matter what I describe this like, it doesn't do anything different? Great, I'm just an avatar for cold mechanics, what I do in the world doesn't count for crud").

5e is likely to cross those streams by marrying the math very closely to the world initially (so that the mechanics always describe something your character is actually doing, and the difference between those actions matters mechanically), while allowing groups who want to divorce that to rest a little more on the underlying math. IE: they're just going to hide it better.

We haven't seen much of that, likely because they're still tweaking the math, and they want the rules to match closely to what characters are are actually doing at first.

They'll probably choose that as something you opt into, rather than the way the game operates on a basic level, because a tight marriage between the gameplay and the story are key for newbies, and because re-fluffing is always something you do once you're familiar with the thing you're re-fluffing anyway.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

So, other than some initial confusion, is there a reason we're still dwelling on this one tiny element of the answer to the question that was asked? I think we've answered it sufficiently.

 

[Keldryn]

Ah, okay. So when you say "narrative," you literally mean "narration," as in the player gets to narrate what happens in-world, even though it doesn't actually change the outcome.

How is that different from a feat/maneuver like Bull Rush or Cleave? Why can't a player say he has a green fireball in AD&D?

In the case of Tide of Iron, the player gets to say that the opponent moves 5' away, whether it's a human or a Titan. Assuming the fighter hits with his sword, that Titan is moving if the player wants it to; there is no roll with a massive size penalty to be made.

Tide of Iron is probably not the best example, but the key distinction is between "I attempt to..." and "this is what happens..."

 

[GX.Sigma]

So, other than some initial confusion, is there a reason we're still dwelling on this one tiny element of the answer to the question that was asked? I think we've answered it sufficiently.

I was just curious; I never really understood it. I think I get it now; KM's post was very succinct. I wasn't understanding the definition of "narrative" (and perhaps "control") that is often used when discussing this. It seems that the term means the players' ability to narrate actions on the micro-scale, due to the mechanics not being inseparably tied to in-world actions. Is that correct?

 

[Nagol]

I was just curious; I never really understood it. I think I get it now; KM's post was very succinct. I wasn't understanding the definition of "narrative" (and perhaps "control") that is often used when discussing this. It seems that the term means the players' ability to narrate actions on the micro-scale, due to the mechanics not being inseparably tied to in-world actions. Is that correct?

Partially. There are also a subset of abilities that also extend player control outside their characters to affect motivation, action, or similar effects in the world at large without any corresponding tie-back to the PC.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I was just curious; I never really understood it. I think I get it now; KM's post was very succinct. I wasn't understanding the definition of "narrative" (and perhaps "control") that is often used when discussing this. It seems that the term means the players' ability to narrate actions on the micro-scale, due to the mechanics not being inseparably tied to in-world actions. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's part of it. I feel like there's more to it, but I'm having trouble trying to articulate what I mean.

Another part of it also touches on caster-warrior balance issues, which are much less pronounced in 4e. This is another thing which I'm having trouble trying to articulate at the moment, but is nevertheless integral to the "feel" in my experience.