Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5323195" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with this, in the sense that (as far as I can tell) you and I overlap to a reasonable extent in what we think an RPG is. And it's not improv acting that is independent of the rules.Where we disagree is on the character of the 4e rules, and the way that they produce engagement with the fiction. In particular, I simply don't agree that they produce "dissociation" in the way that you assert. That's why I think it's mistaken to bring out the board game/card game comparison.This may be true. But it's not my view. Hence my objection to you bringing in the comparison. I just don't agree with this.Two reasons - one positive, one negative. On the postive side, 4e combat has a lot of terrain, positioning, movement etc that is both crucial to the mechanical resolution and intimately connected to the fiction. So far from being dissociated, it produces (in my experience) a very rich association with the fictional geography - much more, for example, than Rolemaster. Because position and terrain matter in the mechanics, players think about them in the context of the fiction. Whereas in Rolemaster they are mostly mechanically irrelevant colour until you get to fairly unusual cases like fighting in a swamp or in a gravel pit. And even then the spacial distribution of those terrain features over the whole encounter environment tends not to be taken up into the play.The negative reason - Rolemaster has tactically rich combat, although the tactics are attack vs parry rather than positioning. And there is no requirement to aim at legs vs arms or anything like that, and the rules specify that crit results that make no sense for a given monster (eg leg crit vs amoeboid mass) should simply be reflavoured on the fly. But I've never see anyone object to RM as having dissociated mechanics, or as not being an RPG once combat starts. It therefore puzzle me why the contrary suggestion is so frequently made in relation to 4e. As someone asked upthread, is it just because it's D&D?There is a difference, I think, between mechanics and play. 4e's mechanics bear some resemblance to a boardgame's, in so far as it uses a visual play surface with token on it. Many RPGs have mechanics resembling dice games, because like dice games they determine outcomes via rolling one or more dice. Some RPGs resemble PBMs, because they use turn sheets (The Burning Wheel and Rolemaster are two that come to mind).It doesn't follow from the fact that a RPG uses dice or turn sheets that it's play is anything like craps or a PBM. And in my experience, at least, the play of 4e combat is not especially like a board game. Apart from anything else, there is a fiction, that is relevant to action resolution and other elements of play. Sometimes this relevance might take the form of narrating what "prone" means for an ooze, or "grabbed" for a swarm - ie the fiction is read off the mechanics rather than vice versa - but in my view that does not stop it being an RPG, for two reasons: first, that fiction supports further action (esp skill checks and/or p 42) in a way that is not the case for a board game; and second, that fiction determines the subsequent state of the fiction in a path-dependent and potentially signficant way (eg the character of a PC, and/or what NPCs think of that PC, may depend upon what happened in the course of a combat, as determined by the narration that took place).I keep a handy set of quotes from the DMG and PHB to pull out whenever the suggestion is made that, by the rules as written, the fiction is irrelevent to a skill challenge:From the PHB (pp 179, 259):Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail… Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.From the DMG (pp 72–75):    More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure… Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...     You can also make use of the “DM’s best friend” rule to reward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check. Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action... When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it… In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth… However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.To me, these passages make it pretty clear that the fiction is crucial ("describe your actions", "think of ways you can use your skills", "make sure these check are grounded in action that make sense in the adventure and the situation", "let that player’s character use any skill the player wants [a]s long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge"). They also make it clear that the fiction develops with each check ("describe the consequences and go on to the next action") which - in light of the previous sentence - means that a skill challenge and the fiction unfold dynamically, with the former deeply embedded in the latter.As someone else said upthread, this is an improvised Close Blast 1, push 1. Given that it's strictly better than bull rush, it need some type of penalty associated with it. I don't agree with the suggestion that it provoke an opportunity attack, as close attacks in general don't do this. Following the example on p 42, the need for a successful prior STR or Athletics or Acrobatics or even Thievery check would seem the way to go.</blockquote>

Verification