4e A different type of disconnect??

[Doug McCrae]

As an example, is this a cool stunt or exploit?

It's up to you, the DM, to decide. Page 42 gives a lot of leeway. The PCs could be making cinematic actions every round, like in Feng Shui, doing more damage than they can with their dailies *if* that's the sort of thing your group likes. Otoh cinematic action could be nonexistent, if a group prefers something more grounded.

Personally I wouldn't let it work at all. Medieval lamp oil didn't burn anything like as well as petrol (I dislike how effective it is in 1e too, turning the game into Mazes & Molotovs) and I would think it would be pretty easily detected as it spreads.

<- Simulationist

 

[Filcher]

Tumbling once per encounter is a failure of 4e.

I think I must be in the minority but I rationalize martial powers as a shared storytelling moment, where the player gets to say, "The bad guy leaves himself exposed to XXXXXX, and I try to take advantage of it!"

The player, in his role, only gets to do this once an encounter (or day, etc) but when he does, I can't contradict him. Yup, the ogre *did* leave himself open to the Conan Decapitation Attack --- roll the dice and see if it works.

I'm sure plenty of folks will shoot this down as flimsy, but that's fine. It works for our game and doesn't need to work for yours.

 

[Jasperak]

I think I must be in the minority but I rationalize martial powers as a shared storytelling moment, where the player gets to say, "The bad guy leaves himself exposed to XXXXXX, and I try to take advantage of it!"

The player, in his role, only gets to do this once an encounter (or day, etc) but when he does, I can't contradict him. Yup, the ogre *did* leave himself open to the Conan Decapitation Attack --- roll the dice and see if it works.

I'm sure plenty of folks will shoot this down as flimsy, but that's fine. It works for our game and doesn't need to work for yours.

What I hate about this no edition war BS is that it assumes that we cannot have logical discourse about different gaming systems or different gaming styles. Your response (highlighted for effect) sums up why I feel open and mature discussion only benefits the community. Because I like your rational. It works for you and your group. That's all that really matters. I may use it if the time should come.

The next question is why does the PC only get to use it once a day?

 

[Filcher]

Jasperak,

For me, for our game, it's not a question of PC ability (how often can I trip a foe). It's a question of player input --- "how often does a player have the ability to tell me, the GM, what is happening on the battlefield."

Ala, the Conan Decapitation Move: the player says, "ha! You didn't know it, but your BBEG finally left himself open to my fighter. A critical mistake that my PC will attempt to take advantage of with Power XXXX."

It's not simulationist in the slightest (a much as a game about dragons can be a simulation). But it is cinematic for the players. They get to direct a bit of the action, on a very limited basis.

I'm not sure, but I want to say that Feng Shui might have had a similar mechanic. At least, that's the game the springs to mind when I look at the direction that 4E takes.

Anyhow, the rational doesn't stand up when you get to "magic" powers. "Ha ... your BBEG left himself open to my ... magic missile. ???" But for us, it does solve the problem of limited martial powers.

Furthermore, we amp up the "story telling" aspect. Not only does the BBEG "leave himself open", but he usually does so in a dramatic way. Slips on the blood of his foes, drops to one knee and then the fighter hacks the crap out of him. That's all player input --- they're expected to describe how and why they get this one shot per encounter/day/whatever.

 

[Serin_Marst]

Basicly, the explanation in the narritive control model is that, the PC (i.e. the character) is trying to use their uber attack at every oportunity, but the setup has to be so precise that they will only get one opening per day where it has a chance to connect.

In a way, you can think of it like the double-20's insta-kill crit optional rule in 3.x (i.e. roll 2 20's in a row, your target dies), except instead of hoping for the 1 in 400 chance to play out when you need it to, you can dictate that you just "rolled your double 20."

 

[Filcher]

Basicly, the explanation in the narritive control model is that, the PC (i.e. the character) is trying to use their uber attack at every oportunity, but the setup has to be so precise that they will only get one opening per day where it has a chance to connect.

Exactly. And the player gets to tell *me* when it happens. That's "Fate" weighing in on the side of the heroes.

 

[Filcher]

And please don't get me wrong, I *would* like to see a well done simulationist game. Feint, parry, duck, dodge, etc. But it would have to be so elegant not to slow play to an utter crawl:

"Okay, the sun is behind you, so it is in your foe's eyes. That's -1 to his defenses. But you've been fighting in the hot sun in heavy chain for over 10 minutes, so give me a Con check to make sure you aren't exhausted. Also this is the 15th attack you've chosen to block with your sword, so your blade is dull, that's -1 dice to damage, but you can aim for the rift in his chain mail for +2 dice ...."

Part of me wants to play that game. But it sure wouldn't be D&D.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What I hate about this no edition war BS is that it assumes that we cannot have logical discourse about different gaming systems or different gaming styles. Your response (highlighted for effect) sums up why I feel open and mature discussion only benefits the community. Because I like your rational. It works for you and your group. That's all that really matters. I may use it if the time should come...

Most people have an emotional investment in the game and unfortunately, the mature and open discussion that you wish for quickly turns into attacks and defence of one system or the other.

Whilst the OP has highlighted his groups disconnect between rules focused (3.5) and cinematic focused (C&C) play and the fact for them that 4E seems to be stuck, hybridized in the middle, the discourse is slowly unravelling as the pro or anti voices on one side of the other start introducing different issues (including the one that you were highlighting and finding useful).
Ruin Explorer has intimated that the problem is more with Imaro's group than the rules, zen_hydra has picked up on a bit of anti 4e vibe and thrown in a "I don't like 4e because...", that is unrelated to the OP commentary, Mustrum_Ridcully has commented that he really likes 4e and that his group have moved all their 3.x campaigns over to the new ruleset (with a side reference to Torg and implication that they do not have the issues of the OP), MrGrenadine raises some excellent points of why he has several issues with 4E (which you yourself have found cogent), despite this being primarily unrelated to the OP's issue, and then some comments back on track regarding stunts, p42. etc. before Filcher then starts a small but useful defence of the off topic issue that was raised.

My point is, threads like this always seem to stray from the specific issue being raised by the OP to more general ones of why 4e, 3.x or whatever version of the game one plays is good, bad or indifferent. It is then up to the posters to be mature about it (in which case, some good ideas can be exchanged) but in reality, most of these threads end up with someone going too far and then the mods come in to clean up the mess.
I suppose what I'm saying is, try to stay on topic people otherwise threads like this which raise a good point worthy of discussion end up becoming edition bashing which just lower the tenor of the great place EN World once was.

Does the original post cross the line setting up conflictive discourse? Maybe. But that's where the maturity part comes in.

And...

In terms of being stranded between rules-focused and cinematic focused, I actually concur with the original poster. Our group has come from a rules focused point of view in 3.5 and our several attempts of 4e have been enjoyable but at the same time different from what we are used to and enjoy. Given time and effort, we could most probably shift our group position to being "more in the middle" but dissatisfaction with other issues in 4e most probably means we are not going to get enough 4e game time under our belt to make the perspective shift. At this stage, we are most likely going to stay with the ruleset we know.
I think given time, most people would not find this hybridized issue a problem, but at the moment some of us are too stuck at one pole or the other to settle in the middle just yet.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Jasperak]

Jasperak,

For me, for our game, it's not a question of PC ability (how often can I trip a foe). It's a question of player input --- "how often does a player have the ability to tell me, the GM, what is happening on the battlefield."

Ala, the Conan Decapitation Move: the player says, "ha! You didn't know it, but your BBEG finally left himself open to my fighter. A critical mistake that my PC will attempt to take advantage of with Power XXXX."

It's not simulationist in the slightest (a much as a game about dragons can be a simulation). But it is cinematic for the players. They get to direct a bit of the action, on a very limited basis.

I'm not sure, but I want to say that Feng Shui might have had a similar mechanic. At least, that's the game the springs to mind when I look at the direction that 4E takes.

Anyhow, the rational doesn't stand up when you get to "magic" powers. "Ha ... your BBEG left himself open to my ... magic missile. ???" But for us, it does solve the problem of limited martial powers.

Furthermore, we amp up the "story telling" aspect. Not only does the BBEG "leave himself open", but he usually does so in a dramatic way. Slips on the blood of his foes, drops to one knee and then the fighter hacks the crap out of him. That's all player input --- they're expected to describe how and why they get this one shot per encounter/day/whatever.

That is an excellent and reasoned response.

 

[Jasperak]

snip
My point is, threads like this always seem to stray from the specific issue being raised by the OP to more general ones of why 4e, 3.x or whatever version of the game one plays is good, bad or indifferent. It is then up to the posters to be mature about it (in which case, some good ideas can be exchanged) but in reality, most of these threads end up with someone going too far and then the mods come in to clean up the mess.
I suppose what I'm saying is, try to stay on topic people otherwise threads like this which raise a good point worthy of discussion end up becoming edition bashing which just lower the tenor of the great place EN World once was.
/snip

Very true. I believe moderators should ban immature posters and unlock threads worthy of healthy discourse. I think the majority of us are mature enough to not allow a few punks (from both sides) to ruin our community.

As for the disconnect that the OP talks about. If you don't want to be offended, don't read.

Spoiler

$e seems to be the politically correct version of D&D, the kind that the demonless 2e could never be. My disconnect comes from my perception that everyone has to be equal at all times. Everyone has roles but in my experience no one really shines. I sure hope this doesn't get this thread locked.

I tried to add spoiler tags, but alas my forum-fu failed