Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5323561" data-attributes="member: 87792">Hit points/healing.&nbsp; Standing around on the battlemap.&nbsp; In both these cases, 4e has taken disassociated mechanics and reassociated them.&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm not.&nbsp; I'm pointing out that if you run skill challenges as presented they aren't disassociated.&nbsp; And if you run them as dice rolling excercises then you can do the same in Dogs in the Vineyard.&nbsp; It's just 4e will have its combat left, which will still be playable.&nbsp; But Dogs won't have anything left.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html" target="_blank">Nice recommendation, thanks.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;If minis have no bearing on the fiction we are imagining, then We Are Doing It Wrong.&nbsp; Because the minis show at a glance the physical proximity we have to each other, allow far more specified (as opposed to unspecified) complexity in the setup and to be clearly and unambiguously be visualising the same situation and elements.&nbsp; Which of course feeds into the fiction we are imagining.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes.&nbsp; This, however, has no resemblance to the 4e I know.&nbsp; 4e is much more integrated into the immediate physical game world than most other RPGs.In 4e I find myself interacting with the terrain (and hence an integral part of the game world) far more than in any other edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Or GURPS.&nbsp; Or...&nbsp; This is because with all the push and forced movement I bring camp fires into play as hot things by forcing people into them rather than have them just there.&nbsp; It matters whether a camp fire that was burning earlier in the night was doused or was left to burn down to embers.&nbsp;If in 4e I am on a 5 foot wide bridge without handropes and am trying to make it to the far side past someone else, I expect us to try to throw each other off almost as a matter of course.&nbsp; If playing 3e I'd be impressed to see a bull rush (not that it would help unless the bridge wasn't straight) or gust of wind.&nbsp; And so the actual terrain would mostly be there for backdrop.&nbsp; In 3e if we know it's there, it doesn't matter whether something is a pit trap, an area with poisoned spikes sticking out of it, or anything else.&nbsp; It's just a hazard square that everyone is going to avoid.&nbsp; In 4e fights get centred around such things.&nbsp; And it absolutely matters which one the combatants are trying to drive each other into.&nbsp;If anything I'd call DiTV more disassociated than 4e here.&nbsp; In 4e I use the pre-existing world as represented by the battlemat and minis (i.e. the fiction) to gain the benefit (i.e. the mechanical benefits) and the effect of what I do then flows into the fiction which then justifies the mechanics.&nbsp; In DiTV we jump straight to the mechanics being justified by the fiction.&nbsp; Rather than the fiction first feeding into the mechanics and then being justified by the fiction.&nbsp;&nbsp;That's stylistic.&nbsp; First, I'd be very unhappy with someone who said &quot;I shoot him in the face&quot;.&nbsp; Or &quot;I trip him.&quot;&nbsp; (At least until the dice are rolled.)&nbsp; Pure godmoding.&nbsp; I can't react without cancelling your action to some extent.&nbsp; Second, if you tried to duck a leg sweep and I was DMing I'd just ask if you were sure about that (and if you were I'd give a 2 point penalty).&nbsp; If you tried to duck a polearm in Dogs in the Vineyard I'd again ask if you were sure about that.&nbsp; And throw an additional &quot;free&quot; d4 onto the attack roll.&nbsp;But there's nothing inherent in Dogs preventing non-sensical counters.&nbsp; Just the play expectations which you don't seem to be forcing onto 4e but do onto DiTV.&nbsp; Special pleading all the way.&nbsp;That is utterly irrelevant.&nbsp; Very few characters have grab powers other than the basic grab attack.&nbsp; And anyone who tries to use the core grab attack on the swarm deserves their darwin award (grappling a swarm is not normally wise).&nbsp; The only Homeric Grapplers are the Brawler Fighters.&nbsp; It's pulp, not supers here.&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm not aware that Tolkein ever had a gargantuan swarm of humanoids.&nbsp; And certainly didn't have a grappler.&nbsp; But think, for instance, of the Death of Smaug for using your big trick wherever you can.&nbsp;&nbsp;See the PHB and DMG extracts.&nbsp; The core difference here is that there's still a lot left of D&amp;D if you reduce the skill challenges to dice rolling excercises.&nbsp; There's nothing left of Dogs in the Vineyard so no one would play it that way.&nbsp; &nbsp;There are times when &quot;I roll nature&quot; is fine.&nbsp; Monster knowledge.&nbsp; As a DM, my answer is always &quot;What are you doing?&quot;&nbsp; Same as it would be in DiTV.&nbsp; &quot;I roll spirit + guns&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;Yes, but what are you doing?&quot;&nbsp;Me as DM.&nbsp; &quot;What do&nbsp; you say?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp;Advocating that that's (a) the way I find most fun and (b) is the method indicated by the rule books is fine.&nbsp; Claiming that people don't do this despite it being coded into the rules makes the rules disassociated is a completely different matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sometimes it is.&nbsp; &quot;I roll perception.&nbsp; What do I see?&quot; is absolutely fine (I'd have used passives there, myself).&nbsp; As is &quot;I roll history/nature/dungeoneering.&nbsp; What do I know about that?&quot;&nbsp;However, some people wish to take this further.&nbsp; I've been in a group that did so.&nbsp; That they do isn't part of 4e; it's actually against the rules as written (see quotes above).&nbsp; But 4e is a big enough and rich enough game that you can play it multiple ways and have a fun game.&nbsp; Not because the mechanics are, as you claim, disassociated.&nbsp; They are explicitely not.&nbsp; But because they can be unhooked and are still strong enough to stand up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5323561, member: 87792"] Hit points/healing. Standing around on the battlemap. In both these cases, 4e has taken disassociated mechanics and reassociated them. I'm not. I'm pointing out that if you run skill challenges as presented they aren't disassociated. And if you run them as dice rolling excercises then you can do the same in Dogs in the Vineyard. It's just 4e will have its combat left, which will still be playable. But Dogs won't have anything left. [url=http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html]Nice recommendation, thanks.[/url] If minis have no bearing on the fiction we are imagining, then We Are Doing It Wrong. Because the minis show at a glance the physical proximity we have to each other, allow far more specified (as opposed to unspecified) complexity in the setup and to be clearly and unambiguously be visualising the same situation and elements. Which of course feeds into the fiction we are imagining. Yes. This, however, has no resemblance to the 4e I know. 4e is much [I]more[/I] integrated into the immediate physical game world than most other RPGs. In 4e I find myself interacting with the terrain (and hence an integral part of the game world) far more than in any other edition of D&D. Or GURPS. Or... This is because with all the push and forced movement I bring camp fires into play as hot things by forcing people into them rather than have them just there. It [I]matters[/I] whether a camp fire that was burning earlier in the night was doused or was left to burn down to embers. If in 4e I am on a 5 foot wide bridge without handropes and am trying to make it to the far side past someone else, I expect us to try to throw each other off almost as a matter of course. If playing 3e I'd be impressed to see a bull rush (not that it would help unless the bridge wasn't straight) or gust of wind. And so the actual terrain would mostly be there for backdrop. In 3e if we know it's there, it doesn't matter whether something is a pit trap, an area with poisoned spikes sticking out of it, or anything else. It's just a hazard square that everyone is going to avoid. In 4e fights get centred around such things. And it absolutely matters which one the combatants are trying to drive each other into. If anything I'd call DiTV more disassociated than 4e here. In 4e I use the pre-existing world as represented by the battlemat and minis (i.e. the [I]fiction[/I]) to gain the benefit (i.e. the mechanical benefits) and the effect of what I do then flows into the fiction which then justifies the mechanics. In DiTV we jump straight to the mechanics being justified by the fiction. Rather than the fiction first feeding into the mechanics and then being justified by the fiction. That's stylistic. First, I'd be very unhappy with someone who said "I shoot him in the face". Or "I trip him." (At least until the dice are rolled.) Pure godmoding. I can't react without cancelling your action to some extent. Second, if you tried to duck a leg sweep and I was DMing I'd just ask if you were sure about that (and if you were I'd give a 2 point penalty). If you tried to duck a polearm in Dogs in the Vineyard I'd again ask if you were sure about that. And throw an additional "free" d4 onto the attack roll. But there's nothing inherent in Dogs preventing non-sensical counters. Just the play expectations which you don't seem to be forcing onto 4e but do onto DiTV. Special pleading all the way. That is utterly irrelevant. Very few characters have grab powers other than the basic grab attack. And anyone who tries to use the core grab attack on the swarm deserves their darwin award (grappling a swarm is not normally wise). The only Homeric Grapplers are the Brawler Fighters. It's pulp, not supers here. I'm not aware that Tolkein ever had a gargantuan swarm of humanoids. And certainly didn't have a grappler. But think, for instance, of the Death of Smaug for using your big trick wherever you can. See the PHB and DMG extracts. The core difference here is that there's still a lot left of D&D if you reduce the skill challenges to dice rolling excercises. There's nothing left of Dogs in the Vineyard so no one would play it that way. There are times when "I roll nature" is fine. Monster knowledge. As a DM, my answer is always "What are you doing?" Same as it would be in DiTV. "I roll spirit + guns". "Yes, but what are you doing?" Me as DM. "What do you say?" Advocating that that's (a) the way I find most fun and (b) is the method indicated by the rule books is fine. Claiming that people don't do this despite it being coded into the rules makes the rules disassociated is a completely different matter. Sometimes it is. "I roll perception. What do I see?" is absolutely fine (I'd have used passives there, myself). As is "I roll history/nature/dungeoneering. What do I know about that?" However, some people wish to take this further. I've been in a group that did so. That they do isn't part of 4e; it's actually against the rules as written (see quotes above). But 4e is a big enough and rich enough game that you can play it multiple ways and have a fun game. Not because the mechanics are, as you claim, disassociated. They are explicitely not. But because they can be unhooked and are still strong enough to stand up. [/QUOTE]

Verification