Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Crimson Longinus]

I had a lot of fun with 4e. For most of it I played a fighter with Come and Get It, which I thought was a fantastic power both thematically and in actual play. Whenever I used it, I came up with an in-character rationale for why the enemies were briefly drawn to me. I remember once CAGI'ing some dark elves because I had struck their priest, CAGI'ing some monsters I can't remember by playing possum, CAGI'ing some dire wolves by using my primal barbarian (multiclass) instincts to howl a challenge, and CAGI'ing some sword wraiths by unveiling my sword that hates undead and does extra damage to them.

There were also a couple of times where I couldn't think of a fun explanation, so I didn't use the power. But most of the time it was a creative challenge to come up with a satisfying (not forced) explanation and I was able to do it.

As I say, this is often a PICNIC issue (problem in chair not in computer)

Those certainly are creative, and I get that this can be fun to some people. But this is also the sort of thing I want to avoid. This not a character having a diegetic ability that does something in the fiction, this is the player using a plot coupon and inventing fiction to explain mechanic. It is very mechanics first.

I think this is a sort of thing that is super divisive. Some people like it, some people hate it. There is no right or wrong answer, but this is one of those major faultlines a game designer should be aware of.

 

[pemerton]

I had a lot of fun with 4e. For most of it I played a fighter with Come and Get It, which I thought was a fantastic power both thematically and in actual play. Whenever I used it, I came up with an in-character rationale for why the enemies were briefly drawn to me. I remember once CAGI'ing some dark elves because I had struck their priest, CAGI'ing some monsters I can't remember by playing possum, CAGI'ing some dire wolves by using my primal barbarian (multiclass) instincts to howl a challenge, and CAGI'ing some sword wraiths by unveiling my sword that hates undead and does extra damage to them.

There were also a couple of times where I couldn't think of a fun explanation, so I didn't use the power. But most of the time it was a creative challenge to come up with a satisfying (not forced) explanation and I was able to do it.

The fighter in my game was mostly using a polearm, and was based around reach, forced movement, and multi-/area attacks - so Come and Get It was just of a piece with his Passing Attack, Footwork Lure, etc - he was constantly in motion, wrong-footing his opponents, etc.

CaGI didn't raise any special issues in relation to the fiction. (Also: we never adopted the errata on CaGI. My view is that it was silly.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Your read on that, the one about exclusion, is the issue here. That's a very personal and idiosycratic read, and one you'd need to support idntou wanted anyone to take it seriously.

I don't think my opinion is so unique, but ok.

 

[Micah Sweet]

'No, no, all the edition changes that sidelined other people's playstyles were fine, it's only the one that sidelined my playstyle that was bad!'

Those were just as bad, for those people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those certainly are creative, and I get that this sort of a thing can be fun to some people. But this is also the sort of thing I want to avoid. This not a character having a diegetic ability that does something in the fiction, this is the player using a plot coupon and inventing fiction to explain mechanic. It is very mechanics first.

I think this is a sort of thing that is super divisive. some people like it, some people hate it. There is no right or wrong answer, but this is one of those major faultlines a game designer should be aware of.

I would also add that making light of other people's fun (or not fun) isn't a great take. Everyone's experience is valid.

 

[soviet]

Those certainly are creative, and I get that this sort of a thing can be fun to some people. But this is also the sort of thing I want to avoid. This not a character having a diegetic ability that does something in the fiction, this is the player using a plot coupon and inventing fiction to explain mechanic. It is very mechanics first.

I'm sure neither of us want to re-litigate the Come and Get It wars of 2008-2010, so let's move on soon, but you could argue that the character does have a diegetic ability inside the fiction - they know how to manipulate opponents so they approach them in battle. The form that manipulation takes varies by situation, but that's part of the ability - knowing what to do to sell it in any given fight.

I think this is a sort of thing that is super divisive. some people like it, some people hate it. There is no right or wrong answer, but this is one of those major faultlines a game designer should be aware of.

Sure

 

[soviet]

Ugh having to imagine all those things sounds positively exhausting!!!!

I know, ain't no-one got time for that.

 

[zakael19]

But I've never had a similar experience of gonzo fantasy action in another FRPG. From using cold magic to freeze puddles into ice (Icy Terrain), to blasting demons through upper-storey walls into the street below (Thunder Wave), to pursuing goblin archers and cutting them down before they can escape down a secret hatch (Mighty Sprint + Come and Get It).

I know you're probably quite content with the games you have right now, but you should give Draw Steel! a look sometime. It dials some of this stuff up an extra notch, while I think doing an even better job of fusing Mechanics + Naming to create some of the most inherently fictionally exciting actions I've seen out of a crunchy RPG. One of my personal favorite examples is this ability from the Werewolf, the moment I read the name + took in the mechanics I saw the scene play out:

 

[Scott Christian]

I really don't think so. They specifically leaned the game towards a particular playstyle and thus, away from other playstyles. Therefore, fans of those other playstyles may feel less included. This is practically Newtonian to my mind.

I think that is a fair take. But, it is a "somewhat of a leap" to:

And by doing so telling everyone who didn't play that way that they were less welcome than before, yes

I get the logical step, but it is a bit much to say that it went that far.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that is a fair take. But, it is a "somewhat of a leap" to:

I get the logical step, but it is a bit much to say that it went that far.

Debatable, sure. But I think how far a leap it is depends somewhat on how much the result lines up with your personal preferences.