Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6051448" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's not my experience at all. I'm constantly surprised by the things my players have their PCs do (both in and out of combat).I could link to any number of actual play examples I've posted, but one that comes to mind at the moment is when the PCs were in a town square, in combat with a cultist who was blasting them through a window overlooking the square. The PC wizard used Arcane Gate (or something like that) to teleport up into the room with the cultist, and then proceeded to use Thunderwave to blast the wall off the house (taking the wizard with it).That surprised me. And it was easier to achieve in 4e then any other system I've GMed, mostly because the ease of adjudication in 4e (due to standard damage expressions and standard DCs).My own approach to this sort of situation is have a successful skill check (with skill depending on context) trigger "minionisation" of the enemy. Thus, on a success, the PC can cut down the NPC with a single blow/magic missile/whatever; on a failure, the PC is now in combat with a full-hp enemy and has to deal with the consequences (mostly, that the enemy has a chance to escape and get friends).I think the second line I've quoted is true for any RPG - the GM needs to keep an eye on pacing and variety. Modules like the G-series, for example, don't produce that on their own!I also agree that 4e favoures "set pieces", but I don't see that as a problem - I want the events in my game to be exciting and memorable!You seem to be thinking of "consequences" here mostly in terms of attrition of resources for the players (PCs?), and attrition of the enemy (which is attrition of the GM's resources).4e does have attrition (healing surges, daily powers) but I don't think that's the most interesting part of the game - at least in my game, these mostly play the role of shaping the tactical context and the stakes of any given encounter, rather than as ends in themselves.But there can be many consequences other than attrition consequences - as in, enduring and significant changes in the fiction. Nothing at all in 4e precludes events having downstream consequences, and in fact skill challenges are about the only example in the history of D&D of a non-combat mechanic intended to play the same role as combat mechanics do in generating enduring and significant changes in the fiction independently of free roleplaying.(1) A skill challenge is an encounter, at least as 4e uses that word.(2) Nothing in the 4e DMGs encourages the sort of railroading you're describing here (of GMs chafing at players destroying their planned encounters), and [MENTION=6690267]Dragoslav[/MENTION] gives an example that shows how 4e is very easy to run without railroading, because it supports rapid generation of mechanically robust content.This very much captures my own experience - can't XP it at this time, sorry!</blockquote>

Verification