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

[GX.Sigma]

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.

Interesting. You mean that the player has access to these world-affecting abilities that don't necessarily represent something that the character is doing (as opposed to a spell like mass charm or stone wall, which is something the character consciously does)? Can you think of an example of this?

 

[Nagol]

Interesting. You mean that the player has access to these world-affecting abilities that don't necessarily represent something that the character is doing (as opposed to a spell like mass charm or stone wall, which is something the character consciously does)? Can you think of an example of this?

A couple off the top of my head -- some of the effects have received errata, but I don't have access to either the original or corrected versions.

Come and Get It: Fighter power forces the opponents nearby to move into strike range and get cut. Most of the time the rationale is obvious, but finding exceptions is trivial. Suppose a doorway is guarded by 2 stone golems or other form of automaton. The guards have orders only to engage those who dare to cross the threshold and ignore all others. The fighter walks up to 10' from them and they engage. Why? Because the player said so. What could the PC do to force said engagement? Nothing. Originally the power automatically moved all opponents. I believe it now requires a roll vs. Will to affect, but there are still a lot of situations where the explanation becomes quite strained or nonsensical.

Warlord power that forcibly moves an ally. The Rules Compendium says such movement can be ignored if the affected players wishes. Originally there was no such exception so a player who deliberately placed his PC in a particular spot could be uprooted and shifted by another player. Why? Because the player said so. What did the PC do to accomplish this? Anything he wanted.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm inclined to agree. While I don't think 4e had one monolithic "feel" anymore than 3e or 2e or 1e did, I think it had sort of a drift in the rules (much like those editions might've). The combat rules were a BIG part of that drift, in many ways the central pillar, but they weren't the whole thing, and there's some subtleties that wouldn't be captured with just a minis-on-a-grid rules system, some subtleties that may have been presented in the combat system but that aren't confined to it.

Like, part of the "4e feel" I think is the blatant "protagonism" of the PC's. The PC's were mechanically, in the gameplay, the center of their strories, and the rules were written to assume that this was the case. Part of that is how 1st level PC's were survivable, awesomely skilled, already riddled with powers and abilities, from Level 1. Part of that is how nothing had stats unless it was a conceivable combat challenge. And while the powers and stats are all targeted at combat, the "protagonism" feel goes beyond combat.

But I think one of the things WotC discovered over the course of 4e is that this "protagonism" isn't always a good thing, and 4e made it hard to turn that off because it was so intrinsic as a baseline assumption to so many elements of the game. 5e hasn't shown many signs of that yet, but I think part of that is because the feel isn't hard to achieve, even in a game that doesn't make it intrinsic. Start your characters at level 3, don't bother with stats for things that aren't challenges, and DM in a certain "style," and you can capture it.

I think so much of the "4e feel" -- or the feel of any particular e, really -- boils down to a DMing style. Different e's have been more blatant about supporting different styles (4e's protagonism, 1e's Gygaxian dungeon-crawls, 2e's storytelling style), so I think the best 5e can do is make a lot of room for a lot of different styles.

'Protagonism' is in some ways a good way to look at it. 4e is built to be a game about being a heroic (or maybe anti-heroic) adventurer, and it distinctly puts the characters at the center, and their actions are featured. Most monsters are interesting challenges but they are made to be elements of the PCs story, not more or less equal pawns of the DM pitted against players PCs. At the same time as creating this focus the game also made everything pretty close to independent of specific narrative explanation.

The question "what's more narrative about Tide of Iron than about Charm Person" is that Tide of Iron can be used to construct many different narratives "I pushed the ogre back" to "I dived into his knees and threw him back, as we both rose I pressed the attack" to "brandishing my blade I simply scowl at the brute, causing him to reel back in terror!" where as classic AD&D Charm Person is pretty much locked into being one specific thing with one specific explanation.

This illustrates that second characteristic of narrative flexibility. The combination of the two things, plus a VERY wide variety of character options provides the players with a great degree of agency by default. Combine that with the plot-coupon type nature of AP and many powers, plus the ease with which PCs were able to equip themselves as they desired and really it is a very player favoring game, and a very character-centered one.

Honestly, its logical. I play RPGs to be able to fantasize about being an cool hero and doing cool things. The game is about and FOR the players. Many people are critical of this as being somehow "soft on players", but it absolutely need not be so. In fact I find that when the players are asked to step up and help define how, when, where and to what degree they will be challenged that they like to push it.

Finally all this combines with the cinematic play feel and what 4e does really well is romps. Players romp around and do crazy stuff and fantastical things happen and they pull themselves out of the fire again and again in cool ways, and now and then, you kill them, in cool ways too! Believe me, I'm a ruthless DM, I don't mind bodycount, but I like ELEGANT body count.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

IMHO at least narrative is what is actually going on in-game and the rules are a way to support determining what that is in a formal way, what the effects and results of narrative things are. Narrative: the orc is on fire; rules: the orc takes 3d8+4 fire damage and ongoing 10 fire damage (save ends). Thus narration is fundamentally control of the actual story, from which consequences and options are drawn, with the rules providing parameters and feedback (IE the rules may tell you that the orc died, though the DM might simply narrate that as the orc running off screaming on fire into the darkness). OFTEN this narrative can shape how the story advances even if it doesn't dictate mechanical results. A loud flashy fireball might scare away orcs or be pleasing to a dragon. Beyond that, ultimately, IMHO, narrative trumps rules, so you should be able to get creative (this will be balanced by whatever checks the DM may impose if you are attempting to get more than the normal advantage out of expending a resource).

Clearly 4e's narrativism is a more limited scope thing than BW or FATE have, where you see things like mechanical bonuses based on doing things in accordance with character goals, outright plot coupons, and completely open-ended descriptors where you would make up effects within loosely defined parameters (IE, I'm a fire mage, I want to damage that guy, so I call it a fireball and apply appropriate damage). Note how 4e's page 42 actually IS this sort of system in effect, but it is just not the primary system and PCs aren't given descriptors to shape how they use it (generally they use powers or just their character's general nature for that).

 

[GX.Sigma]

A couple off the top of my head -- some of the effects have received errata, but I don't have access to either the original or corrected versions.

Come and Get It: Fighter power forces the opponents nearby to move into strike range and get cut. Most of the time the rationale is obvious, but finding exceptions is trivial. Suppose a doorway is guarded by 2 stone golems or other form of automaton. The guards have orders only to engage those who dare to cross the threshold and ignore all others. The fighter walks up to 10' from them and they engage. Why? Because the player said so. What could the PC do to force said engagement? Nothing. Originally the power automatically moved all opponents. I believe it now requires a roll vs. Will to affect, but there are still a lot of situations where the explanation becomes quite strained or nonsensical.

Warlord power that forcibly moves an ally. The Rules Compendium says such movement can be ignored if the affected players wishes. Originally there was no such exception so a player who deliberately placed his PC in a particular spot could be uprooted and shifted by another player. Why? Because the player said so. What did the PC do to accomplish this? Anything he wanted.

I kind of see what you're saying, but those sound like the same kind of thing as Tide of Iron (an ability that only mechanically affects the combat minigame, which can be explained in-world however you want). I don't understand how they affect "the world at large" any more than ToI does.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The question "what's more narrative about Tide of Iron than about Charm Person" is that Tide of Iron can be used to construct many different narratives "I pushed the ogre back" to "I dived into his knees and threw him back, as we both rose I pressed the attack" to "brandishing my blade I simply scowl at the brute, causing him to reel back in terror!" where as classic AD&D Charm Person is pretty much locked into being one specific thing with one specific explanation.

I noted before that this is basically re-fluffing, just done to a larger degree thanks to 4e's iron-clad separation of story and gameplay. That is, the story you tell about the power doesn't affect at all how the power acts in play.

Which is really deeply problematic for a lot of players.

So while I think 5e can support that ("DMing styles" and independent math and all that), I think 5e also needs to demonstrate that it doesn't HAVE to be played like that. 4e frequently asked you not to think too hard about the story behind a particular game mechanic, and 5e can't rely on re-fluffing to bear the brunt of connecting the story to the mechanics.

It's also important (for 4e fans) that 5e CAN play like that. That's mostly just about getting the math right under the hood, though. If the math works, then, much like in 4e, you can slap whatever description you want on it. But equally important, the description that the game assumes matches with the mechanics.

And I think this is a distinct thing from "narrativism" or "protagonism" as I'd use the terms.

This is flexible fluff. This is the same thing as turning fireballs green or having magic missiles appear as screaming skulls (things that have always been permissible), just taken up a few notches. And it can't be done recklessly, or assumed to be a good thing for all, because what one person sees as empty space they get to fill with anything they want, another just sees as empty space that they HAVE to fill, and that whatever they fill it with isn't going to matter anyway.

 

[Obryn]

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?

Ummm... Sorta. The rules constrain the narrative, though, so it's not "anything goes". You can't say Tide of Iron does Lightning damage all of a sudden. You also can't say that Tide of Iron is someone running towards you. The narrative needs to be consistent within the rules framework.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I kind of see what you're saying, but those sound like the same kind of thing as Tide of Iron (an ability that only mechanically affects the combat minigame, which can be explained in-world however you want). I don't understand how they affect "the world at large" any more than ToI does.

I kind of agree, 4e is not BIG on this sort of meta-game control by the players. It exists in minor ways, but its nothing like in many heavily narrative games where players are encouraged to invent entire circumstances to explain things. Of course you COULD play 4e like that, to an extent. Magic missiles could be described by the player as his opponent having a heart attack or dying of a curse placed on him last week by kobolds. Given that most powers are fairly limited short range affairs it is moderately limited, and lacks as solid a counterpart in non-combat. I'd kind of like to see a more systematic approach.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It's also important (for 4e fans) that 5e CAN play like that. That's mostly just about getting the math right under the hood, though. If the math works, then, much like in 4e, you can slap whatever description you want on it. But equally important, the description that the game assumes matches with the mechanics.

This becomes tricky, in the example used above, if an ability lets a character push another creature away, but then forces that character to deal with all kinds of annoying things like creature size. Suddenly, the pushing character is de-protagonized in a big way. Especially since traditionally, magic abilities have been allowed to do an end-run around the physics that the game has insisted on applying to martial characters doing the same kinds of things.

This is flexible fluff. This is the same thing as turning fireballs green or having magic missiles appear as screaming skulls (things that have always been permissible), just taken up a few notches.

I will note that this has not always been allowed. Sure, you could do this in chainmail or AD&D, or 3.x, but it had not been spelled out until 4e AFAIK. At least in AD&D, the prevailing mentality was "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" unless you got special permission from the DM, or you went ahead and researched a new version of a spell that reflected the changes you wanted to make.

And it can't be done recklessly, or assumed to be a good thing for all, because what one person sees as empty space they get to fill with anything they want, another just sees as empty space that they HAVE to fill, and that whatever they fill it with isn't going to matter anyway.

This just underscores how brilliantly they will have to pull off the marriage of mechanics and fluff while leaving enough space to alter things as I am used to being able to do. As you say, the math is going to have to "work," but in my book that means it can't be working against the players' agency (as in the ToI vs a giant example), or I don't buy in, even as a DM.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This becomes tricky, in the example used above, if an ability lets a character push another creature away, but then forces that character to deal with all kinds of annoying things like creature size. Suddenly, the pushing character is de-protagonized in a big way. Especially since traditionally, magic abilities have been allowed to do an end-run around the physics that the game has insisted on applying to martial characters doing the same kinds of things.

For your specific example, the easiest solution is not to rely on the rules to dictate what you can and cannot affect. This works for "tripping oozes" and "sneak attacking undead" the like, too, BTW. The effects that generate a "push" don't specify anywhere what types of creature they can and cannot effect, and the DM is given explicit permission and encouragement to make that decision for themselves. So in Game A, you can't push a giant, but in Game B maybe you can, and in Game C you can if you "describe it well enough." It is up to the judgement of the judge to determine if a given ability works, and the judge can always say "no." All the rules say is "This damages the enemy and pushes them."

One onion layer that might have some benefits (especially for newbies and casual players) is to have a generalized default that is easy to override. IE: Generally, you can't push a creature bigger than Large. Maybe in Game D you can, because they ignore that rule, because it's more fun for them that way. That has the benefit of easy judgment calls for newbies, but is also flexible without wrecking anything for folks who want other stuff.

To achieve this, we're going to have to tolerate that each table is going to be different, and that at the table where the DM doesn't let it work against giants and the adventure is all about giants, the ability won't be very useful, and that's fine. You shouldn't pick that ability in that DM's game. Pick something else. Player are not entitled to have their abilities work the same at every DM's table worldwide (but a given DM may very well grant players that).

I will note that this has not always been allowed. Sure, you could do this in chainmail or AD&D, or 3.x, but it had not been spelled out until 4e AFAIK. At least in AD&D, the prevailing mentality was "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" unless you got special permission from the DM, or you went ahead and researched a new version of a spell that reflected the changes you wanted to make.

I can't find the blurb right now, but I think it was in 2e, where specifically, the idea of magic missiles as screaming skulls came from. I think it was 2e because I remember the advice being kind of long-winded and unfocused, generally talking about how this is fine as long as there's no advantage to be gained. And there were examples of this as early as OD&D, where every monster was rather explicitly just a skin on some table stats, and the game talked about adding whatever the hell you wanted, as long as you gave it some numbers from that table. Re-fluffing wasn't invented in 2008.

I pointed out that 4e embraced this more fully than most other editions, but also that there was a cost for this: the wall that was built between gameplay and story was an intolerable thing for a big chunk of the player base. I'd prefer it to be more of a semi-permeable membrane at the level of the game rules, so that I can let them be basically the same thing, and a fan of 4e's iron-clad division could make them not overlap at all and we could all be playing the same thing.

This just underscores how brilliantly they will have to pull off the marriage of mechanics and fluff while leaving enough space to alter things as I am used to being able to do. As you say, the math is going to have to "work," but in my book that means it can't be working against the players' agency (as in the ToI vs a giant example), or I don't buy in, even as a DM.

I think the rules can be silent on pushing a giant centipede, because the DM can make the decision that is right for her table about that, and it can be different at different tables. It doesn't need to be a rule. It can be something decided in the moment. Alternately, the rules can have a default mode that is easy to override, without tremendously affecting balance or spiraling into complex rules interactions. Either way, you don't need to quantify exceptions in the rules text, you just need to give DMs permission and guidance about making their own exceptions.

That may mean that people whose fun relies on always being able to use their given abilities won't play under certain DM's, but that's fine. They can all still be playing D&D5e, because it's a big-tent kind of game, that abides the presence of people who are too strong about their magical elf preferences to have fun making funny voices and rolling dice together.