D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I call artificial, are powers like the Warlord's commanding presence which, for some reason that is never explained and has nothing to do with presence, heals characters that us action points. Why ? It's purely technical, and there is no description of what happens in the game world, it corresponds to nothing in fiction. Or using simple words to heal someone, no spell, no magic, nothing. Nothing in actual fiction (books, movies of the genre) looks like this, so how can you expect anything else than fictionless combat when you have powers that make absolutely no sense and are just there for technical effect ?

It's not that they are globally inadequate, they correspond to some fantasy fiction characters. But other fantasy fictions I like are commanders, and neither of these classes display anything that matches what a commander would do.

I never got all these objections. I mean, there was an NPC ally in one of the parties in a game of 4e I ran, the purpose of which was actually to teach the players some of the ropes of 4e combat. This, being an NPC, wasn't built EXACTLY as a bona fide Warlord PC, but he had some powers that amounted to "slide an enemy 2 squares" along with Commander's Strike and an Inspiring Word or something. So, that 'slide the enemy' was great, because it was super easy to spin that as leadership, "Hey there! You, fighter! don't let that orc through the gap!' (slides orc to a spot where the fighter will intercept it on his turn, or even slides it to where Commander's Strike can be used to smack it).

So, like Commanding Presence, in a sort of general sense it is a RALLY AMPLIFIER. It does exactly what a good leader does, gather up his resources and focus them at the decisive point of the action. The PCs are in a tough spot, they need to get ahead of the curve, so they start burning action points, which is THE most effective way to make a comeback, generate more volume of offense. And what happens? All of a sudden they're gaining confidence and resolution to get the job done, they gain hit points! You can easily RP that, I don't see the issue. Yes, it is true that there's no VERY SPECIFIC fiction attached to it like "A magic spell happens" or something. OTOH in NO edition (except interestingly 4th) do the attacks made by fighters have any specific fiction either! Its just "I attack." Whatever that means is up to the people playing the game! I see no difference.

 

[Garthanos]

Why give a mechanical reward to a fiction move, since the player won’t care or won’t use it, preferring another more fictional move?

My general thought is the same reason we use mechanics at all?

 

[Lyxen]

Finally, I think at least with 4e in particular, the game is really MEANT to be tactical

It is meant to be tactical on a grid and applying rules and powers which mean nothing in fiction (see below). It's not meant to be tactical on anything resembling tactics in actual fiction (books and movies of the genre, for example), because not even in the most outrageous shows do we see something as absurd as the example below.

I never got all these objections. I mean, there was an NPC ally in one of the parties in a game of 4e I ran, the purpose of which was actually to teach the players some of the ropes of 4e combat. This, being an NPC, wasn't built EXACTLY as a bona fide Warlord PC, but he had some powers that amounted to "slide an enemy 2 squares" along with Commander's Strike and an Inspiring Word or something. So, that 'slide the enemy' was great, because it was super easy to spin that as leadership, "Hey there! You, fighter! don't let that orc through the gap!' (slides orc to a spot where the fighter will intercept it on his turn, or even slides it to where Commander's Strike can be used to smack it).

And I'm sorry, but it looks ridiculous in fiction, you are not even commanding anyone, you are teleporting an enemy.

And now imagine an NPC with that power, I can guarantee that a lot of players would scream "unfair", he is teleporting me against my will, where is my player agency ?

So, like Commanding Presence, in a sort of general sense it is a RALLY AMPLIFIER. It does exactly what a good leader does, gather up his resources and focus them at the decisive point of the action. The PCs are in a tough spot, they need to get ahead of the curve, so they start burning action points, which is THE most effective way to make a comeback, generate more volume of offense. And what happens? All of a sudden they're gaining confidence and resolution to get the job done, they gain hit points!

And I still fail to see how gaining offense would actually also make you gain defense. It's bizarre, and actually 5e does it better with things like reckless attack. And if it's about hit point, I think it's still better done with the Battlemaster' Rally, because it gives you temporary hit points which are all about confidence, it does not pretend to heal you.

You can easily RP that, I don't see the issue. Yes, it is true that there's no VERY SPECIFIC fiction attached to it like "A magic spell happens" or something. OTOH in NO edition (except interestingly 4th) do the attacks made by fighters have any specific fiction either! Its just "I attack." Whatever that means is up to the people playing the game! I see no difference.

Wrong, look at most of the powers of the Battlemaster, including Bait and Switch, Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack, etc.

 

[clearstream]

Various physicists rest uneasy in their graves tonight, but I still think that your point is interesting.

To be fair, there is no one common, accepted theory of time. Possibly the simplest thing to say is that the universe is everything that interacts, and time is the rate of change (where ordering is subsumed in rate) from the point of view of some observer. Unfortunately, anything one might say about time skirts being 'not even wrong'. My intended take away is that any assumptions about time that simulationist expectations might rest upon, are likely incorrect.

What should be focused on is whatever disrupts SoD for the given players. Good solutions are whatever steps serve to resolve that, whether or not they result in the combat mechanism better simulating time.

I've always seen something like 3/4/5e's sequential turn order mechanics as something of a subjective description of the action, not an absolute and cogent causally coherent one. The becomes especially true with things like 4e's out-of-turn actions, the various 'repositioning' abilities of leaders, etc. In other words, I actually see some of the things that, for instance a 4e bard or warlord can do as RETCONS! In other words, you move the orc 2 squares with a power, that isn't (necessarily) the orc being moved back, it could be the orc NEVER MOVED FORWARD, or the Warlord called out that possibility to his ally the fighter and forestalled it from ever happening.

That's something like what I mean by "the middle is where they meet."

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sorry, just because the publisher says the game is something, doesn't mean it actually is.

No matter how you turn, the fact remains:

The game offers you actions that reward acting game-like ("I stop just short of the goblin forcing it to move on its turn").

Not fiction-like ("I rush the goblin"). By that I mean saying that might be its own reward, but the game does not reward you for it.

Now let's stop debating exactly what he means by fictionless. Let's instead discuss this statement of mine:

Sorry, just because you're making things look ridiculous doesn't mean they are inherently ridiculous.

"I move towards the goblin, ready to intercept when it acts" is not inherently ridiculous. Making the conversation explicitly about mechanics in the way you are is like trying to turn hit points into a concrete mechanic that is measurable in the game's universe rather than treating it as a rough, abstracted problem

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is meant to be tactical on a grid and applying rules and powers which mean nothing in fiction (see below). It's not meant to be tactical on anything resembling tactics in actual fiction (books and movies of the genre, for example), because not even in the most outrageous shows do we see something as absurd as the example below.

And working to heighten absurdity rather than working to integrate it means neither more nor less than that you personally are working to make things absurd.

And I still fail to see how gaining offense would actually also make you gain defense.

You mean being more determined means that you can take more punishment and keep going longer? Why is this even slightly weird?

It's bizarre, and actually 5e does it better with things like reckless attack. And if it's about hit point, I think it's still better done with the Battlemaster' Rally, because it gives you temporary hit points which are all about confidence, it does not pretend to heal you.

And this is a complete misrepresentation of how the fiction works.

First temporary hit points make no fictional sense. They literally make you invulnerable. Confidence doesn't do that. Even if you're confident the wounds have still been taken. Temporary hit points might as well involve wandering around with a force field.

Second the warlord doesn't heal you. Healing surges are your own stamina recorded on your own character sheet. The warlord enables you to dig deep into your own stamina and keep going by spending your own resources. Yes, 4e has action movie physics - and the dynamic of a boxing match where a boxer takes damage from punches but comes out the next round stronger and the roar of the crowd behind them enables them to keep going.

So enabling people to make better use of their own stamina is bad in your world and confidence being a force field that means that you don't actually get hurt by someone swinging a sword or even burned by fire is good?

 

[Lyxen]

And working to heighten absurdity rather than working to integrate it means neither more nor less than that you personally are working to make things absurd.

No, they are absurd from the start. The powers were written with a purely gamist perspective of moving pieces on a board and giving them stats, some of them don't even have a visual description, and those which have don't make any sense most of the time.

I notice in particular that you have dropped completely the power that you had been speaking of that moved an adversary as part of a warlord's command, because it was even more absurd than the basic Commander Presence.

You mean being more determined means that you can take more punishment and keep going longer? Why is this even slightly weird?

Because it mixes everything together again for purely gamist purpose, in an effect that does not even have an in-world description, just a technical effect.

This one: Thunderous Fury: "The ferocity of your blow quiets the storm of battle for a moment" Until the end of your next turn, your allies gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to your Intelligence modifier. How is the effect even remotely linked to the description, is actually the opposite !

Or this one: Warlord's Rush "Like a wild, terrible storm, you hurl yourself at your foe. Your allies are swept along on the force of your wrath."
Allies who have line of sight to you can move their speed, how does this work when they can actually move in any direction they want ? It's not cinematic, it's just purely technical.

And this is a complete misrepresentation of how the fiction works.

First temporary hit points make no fictional sense. They literally make you invulnerable.

You are the one being mistaken about what hit points represent, then. Hit points are not wound points. You could lose half of your hit points and still not get one mark on your body, if all you have lost is divine favour, or luck, which are actually part of hit points.

Confidence doesn't do that. Even if you're confident the wounds have still been taken. Temporary hit points might as well involve wandering around with a force field.

Temporary hit points are not a force field. For an example of a force field, see the abjurer's Arcane Ward, but these are not Temporary Hit Points. Like other hit points, you can interpret them in any way you like, divine protection, luck, stamina, the only thing that they protect are not you, but your other hit points which are just as abstract.

Also note that there are 4e powers that give you temporary hit points, but in this case, no, you don't complain about it being a force field:
Heart of the Titan "You level your weapon at your enemies and utter a grim threat that leaves them fearing for their lives. With great words, you turn yourself or an ally into a battle-hardened juggernaut." The target gains temporary hit points equal to his orher healing surge value + your Charisma modifier. Until the target loses as many temporary hit points as he or she gained from this power, the target adds your Charisma modifier to damage rolls and can’t be dazed, immobilized, pulled, pushed, restrained, slid, slowed, stunned, or weakened

So, does that grim threat to an enemy create a force field around you or your ally or not ? And then please explain how threatening an enemy creates a force field... Come on, it does not mean anything cinematically, especially if you bestow it on an ally.

Second the warlord doesn't heal you.

Wrong, it says: "that ally also regains hit points equal to one-half your level" and the 4e rules say "Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing."

Hence, Commanding Presence heals you. You can't get a clearer definition than this using 4e rules.

Healing surges are your own stamina recorded on your own character sheet.

No, healing surges can be used for absolutely anything in the game, which is why they were replaced by another concept in 5e, as they have little to do with healing and even less with stamina in the game.

The warlord enables you to dig deep into your own stamina and keep going by spending your own resources. Yes, 4e has action movie physics - and the dynamic of a boxing match where a boxer takes damage from punches but comes out the next round stronger and the roar of the crowd behind them enables them to keep going.

No, 4e has nothing of the kind. Sorry, but most of the powers read as purely gamist in their perspective. Again, regaining hit points is healing, 4e writes it plainly, so please explain how me hitting someone heals a comrade watching.

So enabling people to make better use of their own stamina is bad in your world and confidence being a force field that means that you don't actually get hurt by someone swinging a sword or even burned by fire is good?

You can't have it both ways, interpreting hit points one way when it suits you and the other way when it does not.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, they are absurd from the start. The powers were written with a purely gamist perspective of moving pieces on a board and giving them stats, some of them don't even have a visual description, and those which have don't make any sense most of the time.

OK. So you're a mind reader now. You were actually sitting round the table when 4e was created.

Right, gotcha.

You are the one being mistaken about what hit points represent, then. Hit points are not wound points. You could lose half of your hit points and still not get one mark on your body, if all you have lost is divine favour, or luck, which are actually part of hit points.

Oh, so what you are saying is that hit points are a purely gamist construction with no actual in-universe description, just a technical effect.

You are also by the same token saying that a to hit roll is a purely gamist construction that does not have an in-universe justification, just a technical effect. You roll to hit and you succeed in hitting but you do not actually hit or produce any marks on the foe's body, merely taking away their divine favour or luck despite the mechanics saying you hit. And this is entirely and completely expected. At this point how do you not think that the entire thing is purely an excercise in gamist abstractions?

Since your version of D&D has combat where neither the hit points nor the to hit rolls have any resemblance to what is actually happening and are merely the abstract numbers produced by pieces on a board where do you have a problem with 4e making what those pieces on a board do interesting?

I notice in particular that you have dropped completely the power that you had been speaking of that moved an adversary as part of a warlord's command, because it was even more absurd than the basic Commander Presence.

Which power was it? I genuinely didn't notice the named powers.

Because it mixes everything together again for purely gamist purpose, in an effect that does not even have an in-world description, just a technical effect.

You're talking about Temporary Hit Points here? Something with no actual plausible justification, just a technical effect. And not even an interesting one.

This one: Thunderous Fury: "The ferocity of your blow quiets the storm of battle for a moment" Until the end of your next turn, your allies gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to your Intelligence modifier. How is the effect even remotely linked to the description, is actually the opposite !

You mean that there's less confusion round the enemy so they are easier to target? This is not the opposite.

Or this one: Warlord's Rush "Like a wild, terrible storm, you hurl yourself at your foe. Your allies are swept along on the force of your wrath."
Allies who have line of sight to you can move their speed, how does this work when they can actually move in any direction they want ? It's not cinematic, it's just purely technical.

Nope. That's cinematic. Rushing towards the enemy and having the team rush.

I don't know if you have ever watched water move, but if you rush forward the whole thing can be laminar or turbulent - and this is turbulent. You give everyone speed to go where would do most good. Sweeping isn't always in a straight line.

Temporary hit points are not a force field. For an example of a force field, see the abjurer's Arcane Ward, but these are not Temporary Hit Points. Like other hit points, you can interpret them in any way you like, divine protection, luck, stamina, the only thing that they protect are not you, but your other hit points which are just as abstract.

So what you are saying is that temporary hit points are neither more nor less than a gamist construct?

Also note that there are 4e powers that give you temporary hit points, but in this case, no, you don't complain about it being a force field:

No I don't. They are far less grounded in reality and far more gamist than moving around the battlefield. I consider that there are gamist elements to 4e - and hit points and temporary hit points are among the biggest. The G in RPG stands for Game - and I don't consider this a problem. You apparently do.

And 4e is the single version of D&D where hit points are the least abstract and gamist. In every other version of D&D hit points are a purely and completely gamist construct where you belly up to the enemy and mechanically play patty-cake while your abstract gamist hit points go down the way they do in a computer fighting game. You hit each other (and the rules say you hit) like unfeeling, untiring robots who are completely as mechanically capable on 1hp as full hp.

4e on the other hand is a game where you explicitly get blooded. It's a game where you tire (using up encounter powers and even dailies) over the course of the fight. It's a game where stamina management is a thing - and where you actually need time to recover properly from a fight. You aren't an effectively untiring robot able to fight all day at peak efficiency even if you don't get "hit" (whether or not those hits mark you).

Heart of the Titan "You level your weapon at your enemies and utter a grim threat that leaves them fearing for their lives. With great words, you turn yourself or an ally into a battle-hardened juggernaut." The target gains temporary hit points equal to his orher healing surge value + your Charisma modifier. Until the target loses as many temporary hit points as he or she gained from this power, the target adds your Charisma modifier to damage rolls and can’t be dazed, immobilized, pulled, pushed, restrained, slid, slowed, stunned, or weakened

So, does that grim threat to an enemy create a force field around you or your ally or not ? And then please explain how threatening an enemy creates a force field... Come on, it does not mean anything cinematically, especially if you bestow it on an ally.

It's definitely "Batman has no superpowers while in the JLA, honest" level.

Wrong, it says: "that ally also regains hit points equal to one-half your level" and the 4e rules say "Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing."

"Are known as healing". If I were being pedantic I'd point out that you wouldn't need to say "they are known as healing" if they actually all caused physical healing. From a gamist mechanic they have similar effects - but bandaging wounds doesn't immediately make them closed. It does cover them and leaves them less vulnerable but that's not instant healing.

No, 4e has nothing of the kind. Sorry, but most of the powers read as purely gamist in their perspective.

Sorry, but all editions of D&D combat by your description is purely and completely 100% gamist by your standards. You are "schrodinger hit" - hit but not hit in a way that costs you hit points but might not even mark you. And the effect is precisely the same as in a video fighting game; you belly up to each other and exchange attacks with some getting through until one of you reaches 0. At that point that person falls.

Again, regaining hit points is healing, 4e writes it plainly, so please explain how me hitting someone heals a comrade watching.

Again "are known as" is different words from "are the same as" and claiming they are plainly the same thing is simply wrong.

You can't have it both ways, interpreting hit points one way when it suits you and the other way when it does not.

So stop doing so. And stop doing that with hits and claiming that you can be hit hard and not even marked. Or is having your cake and eating it only a problem with hits and hit points only a problem when someone else is doing it? Or is the real problem here that as far as hit points are concerned 4e is less gamey and gives you something concrete to hold on to rather than simply being a hacked tabletop wargame with almost no concessions to reality?

oD&D was a hacked tabletop wargame, called itself a wargame, and the combat is purely gamist. The hit point model used is precisely the same as that in a video fighting game where things are called hits, have the same effect as hits, may even call themselves critical hits, and may even show x-rays of bones breaking in Mortal Kombat. But the effect is absolutely nothing until the last sliver of that health bar vanishes.

4e by contrast is the least purely gamey version. Rather than just about the whole thing being abstract gamist mechanics it's far closer to cinematic fiction.

 

[Lyxen]

OK. So you're a mind reader now. You were actually sitting round the table when 4e was created.

No, I'm just reading the books. Look at Commanding Presence, pure gamist effect, no description of how it happens. And again, you have dropped the ridiculous power of teleporting enemies through the power of your commanding presence.

Oh, so what you are saying is that hit points are a purely gamist construction with no actual in-universe description, just a technical effect.

They always have been a technical construct, extremely abstract. Read Gygax' perspective on them in AD&D.

You are also by the same token saying that a to hit roll is a purely gamist construction that does not have an in-universe justification, just a technical effect. You roll to hit and you succeed in hitting but you do not actually hit or produce any marks on the foe's body, merely taking away their divine favour or luck despite the mechanics saying you hit. And this is entirely and completely expected.

It is certainly part of the design. Please tell me where it says that an attack hitting actually causes a wound ?

At this point how do you not think that the entire thing is purely an excercise in gamist abstractions?

The main difference is that, contrary to the absurdity of Commanding Presence, they have multiple in world explanations, and these have been provided again and again, in slightly different form over the editions.

Since your version of D&D has combat where neither the hit points nor the to hit rolls have any resemblance to what is actually happening and are merely the abstract numbers produced by pieces on a board where do you have a problem with 4e making what those pieces on a board do interesting?

Yes, I have, because I can weave a fiction around simple abstract concepts when they have been created with storytelling in mind. Hit points are actually mostly plot protection, if you think about it, making sure that some characters survive things that would instantly kill mooks and unimportant characters, nothing more.

Whereas 4e attacked this from completely the opposite perspective, making a combat boardgame and trying to justify purely technical powers in terms of story, and utterly failing, I've given you many examples.

Which power was it? I genuinely didn't notice the named powers.

I've given you the name of the power each time.

You're talking about Temporary Hit Points here? Something with no actual plausible justification, just a technical effect. And not even an interesting one.

No, temporary hit points serve the narrative by being extra plot protection, you can get them from divine powers or inspiration or luck or spells, they are not typed and have limited effect, but can be weaved in the description of what happens: "the sword should have skewered you, but thanks to the blessing of the gods, the blow is deflected and you are unharmed / it's barely a scratch / a dent in your armor".

You mean that there's less confusion round the enemy so they are easier to target? This is not the opposite.

How do oyu translate "quiet the storm of battle" into "gaining a power bonus to attack" ?

Nope. That's cinematic. Rushing towards the enemy and having the team rush.

But they don't, they can use the move to go in any direction, and I guarantee that it is what will happen, I've actually used it.

I don't know if you have ever watched water move, but if you rush forward the whole thing can be laminar or turbulent - and this is turbulent. You give everyone speed to go where would do most good. Sweeping isn't always in a straight line.

Swept ALONG...

No I don't. They are far less grounded in reality and far more gamist than moving around the battlefield. I consider that there are gamist elements to 4e - and hit points and temporary hit points are among the biggest. The G in RPG stands for Game - and I don't consider this a problem. You apparently do.

No, I don't. It's good that it's a game, and you can play it whatever way you want. I'm just saying, in the context of this thread, that if you play technically, you stiffle your fiction/narrative game, and 4e pushed that to the extreme, that's all.

And 4e is the single version of D&D where hit points are the least abstract and gamist. In every other version of D&D hit points are a purely and completely gamist construct where you belly up to the enemy and mechanically play patty-cake while your abstract gamist hit points go down the way they do in a computer fighting game. You hit each other (and the rules say you hit) like unfeeling, untiring robots who are completely as mechanically capable on 1hp as full hp.

4e on the other hand is a game where you explicitly get blooded.

Not necessarily: "Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

The "bloodied" only means that you have lost half of your hit points. If all that you have lost is skill, luck, and resolve, you might not even have shed a drop of blood. If you want to implement it as "having shed some blood" in your game, why not, but you will have to be careful because of what follows.

4e shows exactly the same paradigm as the other editions, you fight at peak efficiency until the very last blow, hence all the previous blows cannot have a real physical effect on you, otherwise they would incapacitate you. It's not a bad paradigm, because it's exactly the one that is used by most of the fiction of the genre. But it's a very specific one that requires specific explanations in terms of weaving the narrative.

It's a game where you tire (using up encounter powers and even dailies) over the course of the fight. It's a game where stamina management is a thing - and where you actually need time to recover properly from a fight. You aren't an effectively untiring robot able to fight all day at peak efficiency even if you don't get "hit" (whether or not those hits mark you).

I'm not sure where you get that using encounter and daily powers tire you and are linked to stamina. For spellcasters, it's actually not the case.

The problem is that you see everything in only one interpretation, but there are many different interpretations, even in 4e, and other editions have many more as it is more open.

It's definitely "Batman has no superpowers while in the JLA, honest" level.

You just evaded the question, again, why should commanding presence actually heal you ?

"Are known as healing". If I were being pedantic I'd point out that you wouldn't need to say "they are known as healing" if they actually all caused physical healing. From a gamist mechanic they have similar effects - but bandaging wounds doesn't immediately make them closed. It does cover them and leaves them less vulnerable but that's not instant healing.

Honestly...

Sorry, but all editions of D&D combat by your description is purely and completely 100% gamist by your standards. You are "schrodinger hit" - hit but not hit in a way that costs you hit points but might not even mark you. And the effect is precisely the same as in a video fighting game; you belly up to each other and exchange attacks with some getting through until one of you reaches 0. At that point that person falls.

And the difference is that in an openended edition with "explainable" powers, I'm free to weave the narrative that I want, whereas 4e forces ridiculous powers that make no sense in any narrative.

So stop doing so. And stop doing that with hits and claiming that you can be hit hard and not even marked. Or is having your cake and eating it only a problem with hits and hit points only a problem when someone else is doing it? Or is the real problem here that as far as hit points are concerned 4e is less gamey and gives you something concrete to hold on to rather than simply being a hacked tabletop wargame with almost no concessions to reality?

Once more, the point is that the narrative that 4e forces upon me with its inconsistent powers that create bizarre effects is not the one that fiction supports. I have given you many effects, but you avoid answering the more embarrassing ones...

oD&D was a hacked tabletop wargame, called itself a wargame, and the combat is purely gamist. The hit point model used is precisely the same as that in a video fighting game where things are called hits, have the same effect as hits, may even call themselves critical hits, and may even show x-rays of bones breaking in Mortal Kombat. But the effect is absolutely nothing until the last sliver of that health bar vanishes.

4e by contrast is the least purely gamey version. Rather than just about the whole thing being abstract gamist mechanics it's far closer to cinematic fiction.

And again, you keep telling this with exactly zero support. Please, once more, explain how a simple shout teleports an enemy across the battlefield, and in which cinematic universe you have seen this happen without magic being involved.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It is certainly part of the design. Please tell me where it says that an attack hitting actually causes a wound ?

The part where the spell Cure Wounds restores hit points.

And no, that's not universally applied....there are plenty of mentions of HP as not being actual wounds, but there are also plenty that do reference them as such. They're both, taking the rules as a whole. Which is pretty much true of all editions; they're all made up of game mechanics related to fiction.

If they're fictionless, it's because you are doing everything in your power to make them so, while giving other mechanics a pass.

And the difference is that in an openended edition with "explainable" powers, I'm free to weave the narrative that I want, whereas 4e forces ridiculous powers that make no sense in any narrative.

Except in the narratives that people are literally telling you about.

You should just say "Guys, I can't make heads nor tails of 4E powers" and not "Guys, no sense can be made from 4E powers". Others clearly do not share your failing.

And again, you keep telling this with exactly zero support. Please, once more, explain how a simple shout teleports an enemy across the battlefield, and in which cinematic universe you have seen this happen without magic being involved.

"Sliding" as it's used in 4E is not teleportation, and your description of it as such shows either poor interpretation and grasp of the rules, or an attempt to bolster your argument.

When you Slide a character, you either physically or mentally manipulate them into moving where you want. Getting an opponent to misstep or over-commit is a huge part of tactics and one not really well represented in most editions of D&D. In this case, it was some kind of feint or deception that gets an enemy to move in a way they think will be advantageous, but turns out to be the opposite.

Honestly, I haven't been involved in this discussion because I had a feeling it would move toward these areas and would devolve into people swinging their preferences around like fact, and sure enough. But your semantic gymnastics to prove that your opinion is somehow fact are just too much.

You don't like 4E. Everybody gets it.