D&D 4E 4e and reality

[CovertOps]

No. It goes like this usually:

I swing my sword at the kobold.
Ok, roll your attack.
Ok, I got a 15 + 6. That's a 21. Do I hit?
Yup! You hit. How much damage?
8 damage.
Ok, he's down to 4 hit points.

Agreed. 100%. At a basic level, no. Not much difference (as far as resolution). But, that's if you play that way. The difference comes in that DitV kind of requires you to play that way. 4E doesn't.

So based on these quotes you finally agree with my position. If 4e doesn't "require" said fiction then "I Twin Strike the kobold" is just as good as "I swing both my swords at the kobold" because there is no abstraction. I liken this to martial artists. My apologies if my terms aren't accurate since I'm not one. I would assume that most maneuvers in Karate, Judo, etc. have names of some sort or another. For example "Roundhouse kick" or "Leg sweep". I would imagine that in the game world (fiction) each of the abilities your character knows was given a name. It may or may not be the same text that is the "name" of your characters "power". If we assume that "Tide of Iron" is a specific NAMED ability that your character learned, then when the player says "I Tide of Iron the Kobold" it IS the fiction. This is just the same as the Wizard saying "I cast Fireball on the Kobold". Fireball being the name of the spell he learned in Wizard school.

I get what you are saying about Dogs and I now see (although not completely) that the difference is abstraction. Dogs doesn't play (well) without the fiction because it is too abstract so you are forced to "provide" said fiction. 4e "powers" "provide" the fiction for you so it's not necessary, but you can feel free to narrate (refluff) it if you wish. 4e ALSO supports free form actions (like in Dogs - DMG pg. 42) but this is more abstract and REQUIRES fiction to make it work and to adjudicate it via the rules.

To understand my position you have to think of character power cards as "pre-written fiction". Each power is self-contained and tells you what it does, to how many targets, and where. If you were to get rid of powers all together then every action in 4e would have to use DMG pg. 42 and you'd have a system that plays very much like Dogs does (IMO with this limited exposure). Eventually you'd get tired of narrating the same action over and over and dispense with the fiction OR like 4e did, you make a set of "pre-defined fictions" that some or all players can use.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To understand my position you have to think of character power cards as "pre-written fiction". Each power is self-contained and tells you what it does, to how many targets, and where. If you were to get rid of powers all together then every action in 4e would have to use DMG pg. 42 and you'd have a system that plays very much like Dogs does (IMO with this limited exposure). Eventually you'd get tired of narrating the same action over and over and dispense with the fiction OR like 4e did, you make a set of "pre-defined fictions" that some or all players can use.

Yeah, I think again abstraction comes in here. In 4e each player resource like a power is a pretty small little bit of stuff, so a bit of stock fluff pretty well suffices. Even when you get into page 42 each action is a pretty small bite sized chunk. Powers make sense in a detailed system like 4e because you probably WILL do those little bits over and over. The 'actions' you take in DiTV can be so open ended that you'd rarely do the same exact thing twice. It also seems like it emphasizes character development over action, so you really wouldn't want a bunch of stock moves in that kind of game.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

No. It goes like this usually:

I swing my sword at the kobold.
Ok, roll your attack.
Ok, I got a 15 + 6. That's a 21. Do I hit?
Yup! You hit. How much damage?
8 damage.
Ok, he's down to 4 hit points.

All the mechanical stuff happens after I determine I am swinging my sword at the kobold.
/snip

I'm not explaining well enough.

Anything that is not mechanically determined, the player can narrate in any way he feels, and it will not change things in the slightest.

Move up to an opponent - not mechanically determined (other than distance I suppose). I can narrate that as I move quickly, I move carefully or I breakdance up, it doesn't change anything.

Determine the target of my attack - not mechanically determined. I can say whatever I want, so long as I indicate a target. I can declare that I'm trying to stab him in the eye, but, until such time as the dice are rolled, it doesn't really matter.

Declare my attack power - again, not mechanically determined. I can narrate this however the heck I want and it won't change a single thing.

Then the dice are rolled. Now the narrative is 100% controlled by the dice. No matter how I narrated, in any version of D&D, I have a set attack bonus vs a target number. If I meet or exceed the target number, I hit and do damage.

And, this is why you cannot narrate before the attack. "I try to stab him in the eye! I hit! I do 1 point of damage... Umm..." A stab to the eye should be somewhat more damaging than that shouldn't it? It should have a greater effect. But, the dice and the mechanics tell you that all you've done is remove one hit point and that's it. The mechanics dictate that, even though you hit your target, you succeeded in what you intended to do, it does not have the intended effect. The mechanics narrate that you barely graze him, if you even made contact at all.

And this is true of EVERY mechanically determined event in D&D. And it's true in most RPG's actually. Look at GURPS. In combat, I can't even declare that I stab him in the eye. That's entirely randomly determined. Make the attack, hit, roll the hit location, roll the damage, determine any add on effects. (GURPS combat is a trifle on the slow side ) The only thing the player can really narrate is "I attack him with my _____" and that's about it.

As far as fictional stuff not changing things mechanically in D&D, in some cases it certainly does! I knock him down! Sweet, you get a +2 to attack a guy who's lying down. I get behind him! Sweet, you get a +2 for flanking. I hide! And, then, when he walks by without noticing me, I spring out and attack him! Great! You get a +2 to attack and bonus damage for attacking from concealment.

Those are associated mechanics in D&D. They are fictional things that allow a character to get mechanical advantages.

Fair enough. There are a number of elements that are somewhat tied to the fiction. Note, though, those mechanical advantages don't necessarily have to be tied to concrete examples. "I get behind him" for example, doesn't actually work unless there's another guy to flank with. You can narrate, "I get behind him" until the cows come home but, unless there's another warm body opposite you, you can't.

The mechanics won't let you.

What about your wall example? What if I... go get a ladder? Does that help my chances? What if I... use a grappling hook and tie a knotted rope? Does that help my chances? In my game it does.

No, none of those things actually help you climb the wall. If you get a ladder, you are no longer climbing the wall. Same with a knotted rope actually. You've moved the goalposts here. You've changed the original set up by adding in additional elements that actually change the challenge.

However, you don't actually start climbing the rope (ladders don't require a check so you can narrate it however you like) until you roll the dice.

I can narrate flying up the tied rope all I like, but, until I roll the dice, my narration doesn't mean anything. How far up that rope I go is entirely governed by the mechanics and not my narration.

I'm not sure if most people are actually arguing against description. Well, ok, Hussar did at the start of this discussion, but the person in the actual original example, Tony Vargas, then went to on to note that he did indeed give a description of the scene.

It's been a long discussion. I really can't recall. What was I arguing against?

 

[Hussar]

Just swam WAYYY upthread and spotted where I said it didn't really matter how Tony Vargas described his action.

I'd stand by that actually, for the most part. You don't have to narrate first. Generally speaking I do, and I actually encourage my players to do the same. It makes a better table, IMO. But, I disagree that it's a requirement.

And, obviously, I strongly disagree with narrating any mechanically determined event before the results are known. I have zero problem with "I try to bull rush the swarm. ((Roll)) I succeed. "Biff the Wonderful picks up a board and pushes the rats back through the wall and blocks the entrance!"

Granted, doing it the other way around is fine too. "I try to push them back with a board! ((Roll - Fail)) Oh, no, they ignore my mighty board!"


The dice provide the direction, I provide the script. I find that results in a lot fewer weird moments where the narrative and the dice just don't match up.

 

[AllisterH]

My apologies if my terms aren't accurate since I'm not one. I would assume that most maneuvers in Karate, Judo, etc. have names of some sort or another. For example "Roundhouse kick" or "Leg sweep". I would imagine that in the game world (fiction) each of the abilities your character knows was given a name. It may or may not be the same text that is the "name" of your characters "power". If we assume that "Tide of Iron" is a specific NAMED ability that your character learned, then when the player says "I Tide of Iron the Kobold" it IS the fiction. This is just the same as the Wizard saying "I cast Fireball on the Kobold". Fireball being the name of the spell he learned in Wizard school.

.

This is an aside to the conversation we are having here...but it should be noted that WESTERN/EUROPEAN swordfighting has specific names as well for its moves.

I'm not sure WHY people seem to think that Western swordmasters didn't have specific and sometimes just as flowery/nonsensical as any Eastern/anime sword technique.

"Zornhut" - English translation - "Guard of Wrath" or "Rage-Guard",

 

[Hussar]

This is an aside to the conversation we are having here...but it should be noted that WESTERN/EUROPEAN swordfighting has specific names as well for its moves.

I'm not sure WHY people seem to think that Western swordmasters didn't have specific and sometimes just as flowery/nonsensical as any Eastern/anime sword technique.

"Zornhut" - English translation - "Guard of Wrath" or "Rage-Guard",

Continuing the aside - mostly because it's more fun.

IMO, the reason we don't know the swordmaster names for maneuvers is that sword fighting is a dead art. What we actually know comes from very old texts that have managed to survive down the ages.

OTOH, Eastern martial arts are a living tradition. We know the names because those names are still being taught today.

The ARMA is one of my favouritist time wasting sites on the web.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Continuing the aside - mostly because it's more fun.

IMO, the reason we don't know the swordmaster names for maneuvers is that sword fighting is a dead art. What we actually know comes from very old texts that have managed to survive down the ages.

OTOH, Eastern martial arts are a living tradition. We know the names because those names are still being taught today.

The ARMA is one of my favouritist time wasting sites on the web.

So long as it's understood that the term "dead" is an opinion so long as there are groups which actively teach and transform the artform, then I'm ok with your usage.. otherwise you just created a giant philosophical logic loop with your post.

I've studied forms for a long time both academically and actively and anything I study and adapt into my library of capabilities isn't dead to me.

(yes ARMA does rule)

KB

 

[Hussar]

It's dead because for about three hundred years, no one taught it.

Granted, it's managed something of a ressurection in the past few decades, but, that doesn't change the fact that European martial arts are dead. It's kinda like Latin. While there are some people out there that can speak Latin, it is, for all intents and purposes, a dead language.

It's certainly never the first language of anyone.

In the same way that for about three centuries, no one actively taught European martial arts.

 

[Kobold Boots]

1. Thanks for the explanation Hussar. What follows is meant in good spirits.

2. Because I offer a dissenting opinion to your statement of how things are termed by the majority or historical academia does not mean I need an education on how the term is used. It means I disagree with the majority usage or the term itself in its use.

Look hard enough and you'll find Latin being actively used and taught.

The fact that no one knows whether the European martial arts were taught actively and with no evidence can be assumed not taught is more a sign that the academics don't know if they are or not so instead of being called "ignorant" themselves, they call something "dead".

Of course that assumes they're using the term "ignorant" correctly and not in the negative connotation that society has put on it over the years.



KB

 

[AllisterH]

I think it is dead to the extent that most people AUTOMATICALLY assume "flashy and weird name for a sword technique" with Eastern swordmanship.

I remember a few years back coming across some of the French/German martial arts (not just swordfighting) technique names and I swear to you, when translated to English, they are as bad as

HADOUKEN - "Wave motion Fist"

SHORYUKEN - "Rising Dragon Punch"