D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[TwoSix]

Note how this is unlike Pokemount, in that others may like X specifically because of the same <technical term> and defined by <explanation> whereas Pokemount is a dismissive term specifically invented to encapsulate that dismissiveness.

As a tangent, I never understood the issue with the Pokemount. How else are you going to handle it? What are you supposed to do, tie up a magical horse and leave it outside?

 

[Nagol]

But that assumes that the character actually has a running tally of his probability of success, which seems to me somewhat LOL-worthy. He might know he has a technique that allows him to puncture even the heaviest armor (attack vs Ref), and he might know that the armored 8 foot tall brute in front of him is going to be harder to hit than his cronies with most of his attacks, but he has no idea of what his probability to hit is.

The character probably does as it also needs to make tactical choices. I feel I can trip him and get in a good hit on the way down. It's odd that I always think that until I demonstrated that exact manoeuvre but after it's proven I can accomplish it, my tactical abilities seem to diminish.

Hey Bob! Come over here a sec! I want to spar a bit -- I think I found a limitation in my training . We're going to practice combined strike/tripping for a while.

...

Hey Bob, don't you think it odd that I can get a trip/strike on you pretty much any time I want, but only the once per sparring session? It's like there is something that resets when we break for water or something. No matter how I try I can't get the second one to work right, but the first one is always flawless. Weird.

 

[Nagol]

As a tangent, I never understood the issue with the Pokemount. How else are you going to handle it? What are you supposed to do, tie up a magical horse and leave it outside?

That's pretty much what we did with all the mounts and draft animals, yes.

Or leave it free? It is sentient and a pretty wicked combatant on its own after all.

 

[BryonD]

Could you link us to that strict definition?

Again, if the meaning of "role playing" being "to play a specific role" is controversial to you then so be it.

In 3 seconds on google I get this:
http://hbsp.harvard.edu/list/role-plays

"Role plays allow students to practice real-world skills by assuming a specific role and interacting with other students who also play characters in the exercise."

 

[Kraztur]

"Dissociated" is just like any other hot button buzzword. Pokemount, anime comparisons, video gamey, etc. They all say the same thing, "I don't like X, but, instead of simply stating that I don't like X, I have to now justify why I don't like X in such a way that it should be obvious to everyone that they shouldn't like X either."

How does your summary in a nutshell encapsulate other scenarios, such as:
I don't like X
Why don't you like X?
Because Y
Your Y is invalid
Y is valid to me
I like X because of Z
I don't like X because of Y
[600-something posts later]
TwoSix says something wonderfully even-handed that I would XP him if I hadn't XPed him beforehand for a funny joke
Hussar says Y (or is it X?) is just like P,A or V
And now we're back to the beginning... for the infiniteth time... No, not infinite, uncountable. OK, technically countable, but not realistically countable

 

[Imaro]

But the example they gave included a non-damaging effect (namely, forced movement of an ogre). So there was no implication that p 42 didn't include non-damage effects/conditions.

And how was the number of squares allowable (which was 1) in the example determined? Was the how or why even mentioned in determining the effect? I also think this gets much more complicated when we start getting into conditions like dazed, immobilized, helpless, etc.

I remember threads in the second half of 2008 with various 4e GMs and players discussing the appropriate range of options for p 42. To my mind it's no different from the current threads discussing DC setting and spell rulings for 5e. This sort of rules adjudication is part and parcel of GMing.

The biggest difference is that DC's have some sort of guidance inherent in how they are presented... whether that is the easy/moderate/hard of a certain level that 4e uses or the sim-based DC's that 3e uses. There was absolutely no guidance whatsoever in the 4e DMG concerning conditions or movement when you were doing something outside the box... difficulty and damage were it.

It is particularly odd to see as a criticism of 4e, which is so frequently accused of having made the game a slave to the rules, that some of its rules required GM adjudication.

Wait, let me get this straight... it's odd to see a total lack of guidance in an area of 4e criticized... when the rules are praised for their ease of use, transparency, balance and mathematical robustness etc.??? So then what exactly would be a valid criticism if the previously listed items are supposed to be some of the greatest strengths of the rules? I mean honestly sometimes it seems like 4e just can't be criticized...

 

[BryonD]

You have, and fairly classily to boot. Thank you.

Thanks

So, to be clear, you'd agree with the statement "While 4e has too many features that draw me out of my desired roleplaying mindset, as well as numerous other features that impinge upon my preferred style of play to allow me to enjoy the game, 4e, as with all other editions of D&D, is a role-playing game."

Again, I'm not tying this to 4E. There are a lot of things I dislike about 4E. This topic is not specific to 4E in any way.
I also don't like saying *anything* that includes "4e, as with all other editions of D&D". I consider 4E to be as different from 1E as GURPS is from 1E. I consider also consider 3E to be as different from 1E as GURPS is from 1E.

I would say they all easily fall under the umbrella of "fantasy RPGs".

Whether or not a group of players elects to approach the game in different ways is up the their tastes and enjoyment.

 

[Hussar]

No it's a way to explain what about X is disliked when asked. I don't dislike all of X; the part I don't like is <technical term> which I define as <explanation>.

Note how this is unlike Pokemount, in that others may like X specifically because of the same <technical term> and defined by <explanation> whereas Pokemount is a dismissive term specifically invented to encapsulate that dismissiveness.

Not really. Because any actual meaning that might have been gained by using this term is over written by the boat load of connotative meaning that is carried with it. The term is dismissive. It was written to be dismissive. Heck the essay which coined the term dissociated is one long anti-4e screed and makes no secret of it. Trying to pretend that the word is neutral and carries no extra baggage is an attempt to re-write history. Own up to disliking something. You don't have to justify why you dislike it. It's perfectly fine to dislike something.

Trying to use these hot-button terms never, ever gets your point across. The only time you will find that it does get your point across is to people who agree with you in the first place. They don't like X, so, they're simply going to agree with whatever justification you use anyway.

How does your summary in a nutshell encapsulate other scenarios, such as:
I don't like X
Why don't you like X?
Because Y
Your Y is invalid
Y is valid to me
I like X because of Z
I don't like X because of Y
[600-something posts later]
TwoSix says something wonderfully even-handed that I would XP him if I hadn't XPed him beforehand for a funny joke
Hussar says Y (or is it X?) is just like P,A or V
And now we're back to the beginning... for the infiniteth time... No, not infinite, uncountable. OK, technically countable, but not realistically countable

lol. The point is, trying to use these terms simply doesn't work. It never, ever does. Drop a Forgism term in a conversation and you spend the next ten pages wanking about how bad Forgisms are. Drop a Tolkien comparison in a conversation and it's ten pages about how you don't really understand Tolkien. Hell, in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-quot-NO-quot-Banned-Races-and-Classes/page12 we've just spent several pages wanking on whether or not Friar Tuck was a bloody monk with all sorts of snide commentary about how this or that reading of Robin Hood just isn't up to snuff. It's ludicrous.

Any time you want to end conversation and start argument, just drop any of these hot button terms into the conversation. It works every time.

So, [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], no, you are not explaining anything when you use these terms. All you are doing is starting the cycle over again. If you actually want to explain something, do so without relying on these terms and you'll get much, much further.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, if the meaning of "role playing" being "to play a specific role" is controversial to you then so be it.

That's not the definition you're using, though, because playing a specific role doesn't preclude what you're saying it does preclude.

But as you've politely abandoned the earlier nonsense about "storytelling games" being somehow distinct from RPGs, and agree that all RPGs feature a ton of stuff that has nothing to do with pure RP, I won't argue it further.

 

[TwoSix]

Hey Bob, don't you think it odd that I can get a trip/strike on you pretty much any time I want, but only the once per sparring session? It's like there is something that resets when we break for water or something. No matter how I try I can't get the second one to work right, but the first one is always flawless. Weird.

Let me contrast with this.

In-character: "Ok, you're a pretty big dude! Time to knock you down a peg, Spinning Hurricane Slash!"
Player: "Ok, using my encounter power, 18 vs AC, 11 damage, and he's knocked prone."
In-character: "Ouch, looks like he took a nasty fall when I hit him, probably bruised up in that armor he's wearing."
In-character: "Uh-oh, hear come your two cronies. Let's see how if they'd like a taste of what you got. Spinning Hurricane Slash!"
Player: "Ok, I want to knock him down next to his boss, that'll give my rogue friend Logan here combat advantage against them. Can I do a Athletics check to knock him prone?"
DM: "Sure, makes sense as an Athletics check. DC 16 on that, but no damage."
Player: "Cool. Got...another 18."
In-character: "And on your butt you go! Ladies and Gentlemen, Bowling for Hobgoblins!"
In-character: "OK, my cleric buddy just finished off your pal with some "mace" in the face. Time to die, pal, Reverse Spinning Hurricane Slash!.
Player: "He needs to go down, so I'll do a basic attack. 20 versus AC, 14 damage"
DM: "Ok, that drops him to neg 2. Do you kill him?"
Player: "We're on top of the tower, right?"
DM: "Sure are."
Player: "I'll give him a chance, and Hurricane Slash him off the top of the tower. Maybe he knows how to fly."
DM: "<Pause> Does bouncing count?"