D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[The Crimson Binome]

(1) Reflavoring. Go for it if you want to (I did it in 4e from the first session when the monk wanted a hammer but only had a club, or something). But it's not what the rules say.

I'm pretty sure that PHB does explicitly say that you can reflavor anything however you feel like, and as long as the game effect doesn't change, it's okay.

I remember it because it's one of my least favorite rules in any edition of any game ever, and there's little room for interpretation on that point.

 

[Manbearcat]

Nobody is perfect, and nobody should be expected to be perfect. As long as you're aware of these sorts of things, you can try to account for them, and however close you get should be close enough.

I definitely agree there (hence the xp), but it seemed like you've been advocating for something much more lofty...some kind of (unattainable imo) ideal where GM's don't inexorably inject their own "agenda drift", due to latent or realized cognitive biases, in sim exploration scenarios...where internal consistency has nary a hiccup...and where information conveyance from GM to players, and their assimilation thereof, achieves "mental lockstep" status.

If you're position is that "close enough" is the best we're going to get and "close enough" is left up to the table to define, then that is a different deal. To that "close enough" process-sim end however, I still hold that transparent/coherent resolution mechanics, explicit play procedures and GMing advice, and definitive constraints on GM latitude is the best way to ensure a player-agency-driven, illusionism-free game (whether the play agenda is narrativism or process-simulation).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm pretty sure that PHB does explicitly say that you can reflavor anything however you feel like, and as long as the game effect doesn't change, it's okay.

The really explicit rule is for powers, FWIW. But, yes, in general 4e mechanics are clear enough that re-skinning or reflavoring are no problem.

I remember it because it's one of my least favorite rules in any edition of any game ever, and there's little room for interpretation on that point.

Funny, since it doesn't /force/ you to do it. It really puts no burden on you. If you don't want to re-flavor, you don't.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you're position is that "close enough" is the best we're going to get and "close enough" is left up to the table to define, then that is a different deal. To that "close enough" process-sim end however, I still hold that transparent/coherent resolution mechanics, explicit play procedures and GMing advice, and definitive constraints on GM latitude is the best way to ensure a player-agency-driven, illusionism-free game (whether the play agenda is narrativism or process-simulation).

I'm all for transparency, but I fail to see how 4E achieves that in any meaningful way, compared to something like 3.5 or Pathfinder. As I was saying before, I have no idea what sort of check or Challenge would be required to complete any given task (described in narrative terms), when the difficulty of a task depends not only on quantifiable details like the bonus on your check, but also the DM's perception of how difficult something should be, both in an absolute sense, but also relative to your power level. If I want to build a boat, then the systems in place for that are fairly straightforward in 3.5, but I couldn't even begin to guess what the DM would ask me to do in 4E. Part of that is probably down to familiarity, of course, but could you tell me what kind of check it would require? Would a conference of seven DMs, each with substantial 4E experience, be able to agree on what was required?

The one area where everyone seems to hail the transparency of the mechanics is in the monster creation rules, which will quickly and reliably give the DM stats that allow an NPC to perform its given role within the story, but is that even really transparent? Not to the players, I would argue. After all, as a player, I can't see combat roles or enemy levels. My character can see what armor someone is wearing, or the thick hide of a beast, or how many teeth something has, but those are all meaningless since they don't actually correspond to anything. The upshot is that I have even less of an idea of what's going on than is typical for a game where class levels mean a mortal human can wrestle a t. rex into submission.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Funny, since it doesn't /force/ you to do it. It really puts no burden on you. If you don't want to re-flavor, you don't.

I feel like they also used this rule to get away with inadequately describing a lot of their powers. I tried merely not changing the flavor of anything, but I was still left with questions where I would Use a Power and nobody had any idea what just happened. (The particular Power was one of the at-will abilities of the Dark-pact Warlock, though I can't currently recall the name of the ability.)

In general, though, I want a game that is written such that mechanical resolution follows directly from narrative description; so a game that starts with the mechanics, and asks you to go figure out which narrative will get you there, would be "backwards" to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel like they also used this rule to get away with inadequately describing a lot of their powers.

I'm not sure that's 'getting away' with anything. You do have a very adequate description of what the power actually does. You don't need a 'flavor' description to help with that.

I tried merely not changing the flavor of anything, but I was still left with questions where I would Use a Power and nobody had any idea what just happened.

To be clear, you knew exactly what happened, you were unclear on what it looked like. That's not that strange in an RPG. You can imagine, say, a fighter killing an orc with his sword in a lot of ways - from improbable bisection to a simple stab through the heart with a lot in-between - that freedom isn't a downside. That is, it wouldn't make the 'longsword' entry any better if it described the sword being used to kill an orc by severing it's femoral artery with a draw cut.

The same level of abstraction and consequent degrees of freedom apply to the use of any item or power. They're not just like hitting a button on a video game, invoking the same sprite animation every time.

In general, though, I want a game that is written such that mechanical resolution follows directly from narrative description; so a game that starts with the mechanics, and asks you to go figure out which narrative will get you there, would be "backwards" to me.

That's /so/ limiting, though, if each mechanical resolution can only be used for one narrative description. Because, you are limited to a finite set of mechanical resolutions. Then you are just Gauntlet characters re-using the same animation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To be clear, you knew exactly what happened, you were unclear on what it looked like. That's not that strange in an RPG. You can imagine, say, a fighter killing an orc with his sword in a lot of ways - from improbable bisection to a simple stab through the heart with a lot in-between - that freedom isn't a downside. That is, it wouldn't make the 'longsword' entry any better if it described the sword being used to kill an orc by severing it's femoral artery with a draw cut.

Seriously, I have no idea what happened. The player declared which Power was being used, and nobody had any idea how to narrate it, so we just moved on with the game and I think I stopped using that Power since it left gaps in the narrative.

At least with a sword, you know that you cut the enemy. You might have slashed or stabbed it, in any number of ways - you might have hit armor, or skin - but you definitely applied the sword directly to the goblin and then the goblin died. This Power didn't give you anywhere near that level of detail. The best we could figure out was that maybe I gave the goblin a funny look, before it keeled over.

That's /so/ limiting, though, if each mechanical resolution can only be used for one narrative description. Because, you are limited to a finite set of mechanical resolutions. Then you are just Gauntlet characters re-using the same animation.

It's an issue of degree to the abstraction. There are an infinite number of ways that you can kill a goblin by attacking it with a sword, even if you don't have the freedom to narrate it as shooting lasers or causing the goblin to have a sudden heart-attack. At our table, getting hit by a weapon only meant that you got hit by the weapon, and you could still narrate the specifics as unique. Likewise, burning hands might require the same gestures with every cast, but the flames could catch the enemy directly in the chest or the face, or barely hit a limb as it quickly recoils.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seriously, I have no idea what happened. The player declared which Power was being used, and nobody had any idea how to narrate it, so we just moved on with the game and I think I stopped using that Power since it left gaps in the narrative.

A literal "failure of imagination," then. You left gaps in the narrative rather than either 1) accept how the power was described or 2) change it to something else.

This Power didn't give you anywhere near that level of detail. The best we could figure out was that maybe I gave the goblin a funny look, before it keeled over.

It's still a spell, so there's clearly going to be a little more to it...

Relevant bits:

"You have forged a pact with the dark beings that lurk in the shadows of the drow civilization. Spells of darkness, poison, madness, and spite fill your mind."

"Spiteful Glamor: The mere sight of you is anathema to your enemy."

As an arcane power, it's a spell. the use of spite in both places makes one aspect of it pretty clear, it involves that negative emotion. 'Glamour' is fey magic that changes appearances.

So, you use magic to make yourself look creepy in a way that messes with your target's mind. It does do psychic damage, which fits. It's presumably tailored to that individual, since it doesn't affect everyone looking at you. It had a greater effect on a target that hasn't been injured yet, too, which would indicate it's disquieting in a way that has less impact in the heat of battle. So fairly subtle creepy looking psychic spite.

It could be fun to narrate what the target sees differently each time, or you could just assume the same darksome appearance each time - or both. Just like you could actually come up with some vicious mockery each time you use Vicious Mockery, or describe how you cut down yet another orc with your sword differently each time - or not.

At least with a sword, you know that you cut the enemy. You might have slashed or stabbed it, in any number of ways - you might have hit armor, or skin - but you definitely applied the sword directly to the goblin and then the goblin died.

Maybe. Or maybe the final blow that killed the goblin was a Reaping Strike, and you actually caved in his little goblin noggin with the pommel. Or pulled the strike and only KO'd him. You have a fair bit of 'narrative power,' even there.

It's an issue of degree to the abstraction.

You can make it a lesser degree of abstraction if you choose fluff that more closely maps to the mechanics (in your view thereof).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, you use magic to make yourself look creepy in a way that messes with your target's mind. It does do psychic damage, which fits. It's presumably tailored to that individual, since it doesn't affect everyone looking at you. It had a greater effect on a target that hasn't been injured yet, too, which would indicate it's disquieting in a way that has less impact in the heat of battle. So fairly subtle creepy looking psychic spite.

Is that what's going on? You're taking a lot from just the name. What you call a "failure of imagination" is what I call "an unwillingness to make up facts that aren't sufficiently supported". A name is just a name, and isn't always indicative. Since the game actually does give a description for each Power, it should actually give a description, instead of sometimes giving a description and otherwise relying on you to make it up.

So, let's say you're right, and that's the narrative they intended for the Power. What am I doing when I activate the ability? I alter my appearance - in the eyes of a single target - who might not even be looking at me? The goblin looks at me, sees something spooky, and then dies?

I guess that's cool. It never would have occurred to me, since it relies on the ability of my character to force another character to take an action, but it's on par with some other abilities in 4E. I wish they could have just said that outright, though. There are a lot of Powers that have fairly similar but subtly nuanced mechanical resolutions, so descriptions are really important in order to explain why those mechanics vary in the way that they do.

 

[Starfox]

Read them as both player and character are aware and yes the players know their decisions to delay things will affect things. I remember I became frustrated in 4e when the urgency of the in-game fiction for the characters did not carry through to the players - so they would declare rests often and refresh their abilities. It forced me to design every combat encounter challenging enough to warrant their rests. I'm curious, did no one else experience this or have a problem with it?

[...]

I'm genuinely surprised this playstyle doesn't see more light.

In my homebrew game, I have deliberately removed almost all aspects of resource management. There is one resource (fortune points) that renews every session, basically every other resource (including damage short of debilitating wounds) recharges in each scene. Some resources must be BUILT in a scene and fade at the end of a scene, these are called limit breaks. This gives me the reverse of your situation - I know exactly what my players capabilities will be entering each scene, and always balance encounter for them being at close to peak condition. I find this a great help in scenario/session planning.

When it comes to campaign time, my problem is generally that I want more time to pass than my players want to pass. To make a story interesting, to give it gravitas, I feel it has to take a certain amount of time. I love for the players to have living, evolving lives, establish families, advance socially and so on. To facilitate some of my players desire to feel that adventures is something that only happens when they are young, I deliberately make campaign time flow VERY vague. Sometimes I will announce things like "it is now spring", but there is no time-counting in the campaign, no official game year, and characters only have an age in the vaguest sense (teenager, young, middle aged, old, ancient). Some can remain teenagers trough what would reasonably be decades of in-game history. It is like a comic book that way - Tintin never ages, despite time passing by.

Edit: As a player, I can frustrate GMs by not wanting to hurry. I am a bit of a taoist in this way - I rarely see a need to do anything right away, especially drastic, violent things, and would often rather wait and see. I guess this is also how I often am in RL as well - I feel overly hurried, drastic solutions generally fail and lead to an even worse situation developing.