Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ah, it is far too easy to get wary about these sorts of queries,... I actually like discussing what I like or dislike in a game, and why or how... so no worries and my apologies for thinking otherwise...

Don't mention it; looking back, I can see how my questions probably came across as a cross-examination.

So anyhow, why is it that daily exploits bother you but encounter exploits don't? Is it because daily exploits violate D&D's long-established 'X/day = supernatural' precedent, while there's not much if any 'X/encounter = supernatural' precedent to violate?

 

[Wicht]

So anyhow, why is it that daily exploits bother you but encounter exploits don't? Is it because daily exploits violate D&D's long-established 'X/day = supernatural' precedent, while there's not much if any 'X/encounter = supernatural' precedent to violate?

I don't know that I would word it that way. For one thing, there's not really a whole lot of "encounter" based powers in 3x or Pathfinder to be bothered by. As well though, I don't think I had mentioned any encounter exploits up to this point.

Actually, if I were to think hard about it, an encounter exploit probably bothers me intellectually more than a daily power as the number of encounters per day is such a nebulous sort of thing that, story-wise, how it would work would make even less sense to me - if an encounter lasted an hour then you could use it once, but if you have four encounters fifteen minutes apart, you could do it 4 times? Mechanically I am sure it works out just fine, but rationally it makes very little sense why it would be that way.

However, in the end, my basic view, or preference if you will, would be for all mundane effects to be always on, or always available. If I were in charge, I would probably seek for another mechanic for timing the Barbarians rage and availability.

 

[innerdude]

The somewhat bizarre thing to me is that D&D has always had these mechanics - its to hit and damage rolls are the most obvious examples (what does a hit with a roll of 6, that does 12 hp damage, do? the GM just makes it up - the system only provides an answer if the damage reduces someone to zero hp). The GM deciding that on this occasion the 12 hp of damage mean a bruise to the hip, but next time narrating it as a stinging blow to the ribs, isn't houseruling! (And it's ludicrous of Justin Alexander to suggest otherwise.) S/he is playing the game, by adding in the narration that the system calls for.

The difference is that in nearly every case in 4e, the use of a power has a secondary effect that is 1) hard-coded mechanically, 2) strictly enforced in the fiction because REASONS (whatever fictional reason you choose), and 3) tied to an overarching metagame resource structure (AEDU) that in and of itself poses problems for fictional narration (I've seen comments even from 4e fans that martial dailies occasionally strain the limits of plausibility for the fiction).

4e seems to differ only in (i) generalising them from combat resolution to the skill system and the martial resource suite, and (ii) putting more of them on the player side (no GM, presumably, is going to ad hoc the narration around every player's use of an encounter power). Obviously some people don't like it, but that's all they have to say. There's no need to build a great pseudo-theory around it. Ron Edwards had already completely analysed it more than 10 years ago (and more than 5 years before 4e shipped).

And this is a big deal.

Here you make it sound like a trivial thing----"Just let the players make up the narration." When I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to be making up the fiction for what just happened every single combat round, for every use of every power. I want to be in the head of my character. Energy spent trying to couple the use of a power to the fiction is wasted time in the game for me, and dramatically reduces my enjoyment of and inducement to play the game.

When the fiction is decoupled from the mechanics, SOMEBODY, AT SOME POINT has to make up the fiction. And 4e's approach to "fiction creation" at the level of using powers is far, far too granular for my taste.

Furthermore, based on the situational use of a given power, the fiction for that power has to change. I've seen numerous, numerous times where 4e proponents say, "Well, just because you used that martial encounter or daily THERE, doesn't mean the character did the same thing in the fiction when they used it HERE."

And why do they say that? Because if they don't, the fiction breaks down to levels that are unacceptable even to them. So I can't even make up one single fictional narration for a given power, I have to recreate the fiction for that same power multiple times throughout the course of even a single gaming session, otherwise the "fiction" starts to feel like......well, dare I say it......a TACTICAL MINIATURES GAME instead of a shared dramatic milieu. (Yup, I dared say it.)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't know that I would word it that way. For one thing, there's not really a whole lot of "encounter" based powers in 3x or Pathfinder to be bothered by.

Yeah, this is what I mean by 'little to no precedent.' 3.5 has the binder class and ToB, but otherwise D&D has no strong 'X/encounter = supernatural' tradition.

As well though, I don't think I had mentioned any encounter exploits up to this point.

In post #246, you comment that fighter daily powers would bug you if you were playing 4e but you make no mention of fighter encounter powers. Which is a common trend among 4e critics; it's always the dailies that get argued over while the encounter exploits get pretty much ignored. Which is odd to me, because by my way of thinking, if someone has a problem with one I'd expect a problem with the other; and if someone is okay with one I'd expect no problem with the other. Which is why I speculated that tradition (aka precedent) is the difference.

Actually, if I were to think hard about it, an encounter exploit probably bothers me intellectually more than a daily power as the number of encounters per day is such a nebulous sort of thing that, story-wise, how it would work would make even less sense to me - if an encounter lasted an hour then you could use it once, but if you have four encounters fifteen minutes apart, you could do it 4 times? Mechanically I am sure it works out just fine, but rationally it makes very little sense why it would be that way.

Encounter powers aren't quite so nebulous as that -- much like a caster can't refresh his spell slots without a good night's sleep, encounter powers can't be refreshed until you take a 5 minute breather. It would have been more accurate to call them '5-minute powers,' but I'm guessing the 4e team went with 'encounter powers' due to it rolling much more readily off the tongue.

Encounters themselves are as nebulous as always, but encounter powers are well-tied into the game world.

However, in the end, my basic view, or preference if you will, would be for all mundane effects to be always on, or always available. If I were in charge, I would probably seek for another mechanic for timing the Barbarians rage and availability.

Something like the Shock Trooper feat? Except, ya know, a class feature. And not as crazy.

 

[Wicht]

In post #246, you comment that fighter daily powers would bug you if you were playing 4e but you make no mention of fighter encounter powers. Which is a common trend among 4e critics; it's always the dailies that get argued over while the encounter exploits get pretty much ignored. Which is odd to me, because by my way of thinking, if someone has a problem with one I'd expect a problem with the other; and if someone is okay with one I'd expect no problem with the other. Which is why I speculated that tradition (aka precedent) is the difference.

I agree that both present very similar problems. I would guess the Dailys get focused on simply because they are so obvious a target and thus get brought up first. But the conversations, I would surmise, rarely get advanced enough to confirm that the others are also problematic (opinion wise) because, well, these sorts of conversations often break down quickly with much defensiveness on both sides.

But, yeah, if you have problems with one, I agree that the other is probably going to jar you somewhat as well. (With the Caveat that I actually have no problem with magical classes having magical daily powers, and as somewhat noted above, the idea of encounter powers, or exploits if you prefer, seem a little more nebulous.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

In post #246, you comment that fighter daily powers would bug you if you were playing 4e but you make no mention of fighter encounter powers. Which is a common trend among 4e critics; it's always the dailies that get argued over while the encounter exploits get pretty much ignored. Which is odd to me, because by my way of thinking, if someone has a problem with one I'd expect a problem with the other; and if someone is okay with one I'd expect no problem with the other. Which is why I speculated that tradition (aka precedent) is the difference.
.

Personally i don't like encounter powers either, but the dailies are just more glaring so get more attention I think. Most people I know that dislike AEDU have as many issues with encounter abilities as they do with dailies.

 

[Gnarl45]

4e didn't fail. It just didn't work as well as the other editions of D&D because tactical boardgame and crap utility magic don't sell as well as dice porn and overpowered casters. Going for a different public was a gamble that just didn't pay off.

I didn't like 4e because I found it boring. I would have disliked it just as much if it had been called something else than D&D.

 

[billd91]

I agree that both present very similar problems. I would guess the Dailys get focused on simply because they are so obvious a target and thus get brought up first. But the conversations, I would surmise, rarely get advanced enough to confirm that the others are also problematic (opinion wise) because, well, these sorts of conversations often break down quickly with much defensiveness on both sides.

You can count me as a 4e critic who thinks dailies are more problematic for martial characters than encounter powers. Encounter powers can represent special tricks that, once used in an encounter, no longer fool the opponent. That rationalization falls pretty flat, however, if the encounter blends into multiple encounter groups and the later ones have not seen the exploit pulled and, therefore, should have no particular guard up against it. So you could say I don't really have unlimited tolerance for encounter powers either - just a bit more tolerance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You can count me as a 4e critic who thinks dailies are more problematic for martial characters than encounter powers. Encounter powers can represent special tricks that, once used in an encounter, no longer fool the opponent. That rationalization falls pretty flat, however, if the encounter blends into multiple encounter groups and the later ones have not seen the exploit pulled and, therefore, should have no particular guard up against it. So you could say I don't really have unlimited tolerance for encounter powers either - just a bit more tolerance.

The problem I notice with encounter powers is it just feels weird that your pulling them off once per encounter over time. I can only really experience it as a genre convention or cinematic feat, which again wouldn't bother me in certain genres of play but wasn't how I imagined a standard D&D game.

 

[Aribar]

And this is a big deal.

Here you make it sound like a trivial thing----"Just let the players make up the narration." When I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to be making up the fiction for what just happened every single combat round, for every use of every power. I want to be in the head of my character. Energy spent trying to couple the use of a power to the fiction is wasted time in the game for me, and dramatically reduces my enjoyment of and inducement to play the game.

When the fiction is decoupled from the mechanics, SOMEBODY, AT SOME POINT has to make up the fiction. And 4e's approach to "fiction creation" at the level of using powers is far, far too granular for my taste.

Furthermore, based on the situational use of a given power, the fiction for that power has to change. I've seen numerous, numerous times where 4e proponents say, "Well, just because you used that martial encounter or daily THERE, doesn't mean the character did the same thing in the fiction when they used it HERE."

And why do they say that? Because if they don't, the fiction breaks down to levels that are unacceptable even to them. So I can't even make up one single fictional narration for a given power, I have to recreate the fiction for that same power multiple times throughout the course of even a single gaming session, otherwise the "fiction" starts to feel like......well, dare I say it......a TACTICAL MINIATURES GAME instead of a shared dramatic milieu. (Yup, I dared say it.)

If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference between these situations? Is there anything here you would object to a player saying here that would take you out of the game?

3.5 Ranger in a greek mythology-themed campaign I played a year ago
"My ranger brings up her bow and fires off a shot at the gladiator's leg, hoping to hamper his mobility." (Pinning shot feat)
"She backs away from the hellhounds Hades's servant summoned while peppering them with arrows." (Manyshot feat)
"I empty my quiver into the cyclops!" (just a full round action at level 12)

4E Ranger played in a Sci-Fi campaign I DMed.
"My sniper takes aim and double-taps his gun towards the thugs harassing the party." (Two-Fanged Strike)
"I load a flechette round into my bolt-action rifle and fire." (Splintering Shot)
"I take a deep breath and totally go in the zone, aiming and firing at every robot coming towards us." (Spray of Arrows)

Maybe it's me, but describing what my character does is fun and creative. It's boring to say the same thing ("I swing my sword really hard") over and over again, and if I get tired of describing stuff, it's fine to say "I use this ability" and continue on.

I've just been sitting on the sidelines this topic trying and failing to understand the problem people have here; the things people call disassociative have never taken me out of character. It's stuff like ability scores ("Your 18 strength fighter only has 25% more chance of moving this boulder than the 8 strength wizard) and underpowered abilities ("I'm a 5E Eldritch Knight that can't easily combine spells and swordplay and is outshined by Valor Bards and BattleMaster/Abj Wizard multiclasses) that break me out of character and think "wow, that doesn't make sense."