D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[robertliguori]

(As I understand, the new paradigmn is fortune in the middle* - the fortune is also represented by the players ability to "manipulate" the game world to give the character an opening.)
He can, if you find some fitting narrative to it.
He won't try to use a martial encounter or daily power again if as already used it, since he never sees the opening. or he sees it, but notices he always misses his opportunity and has to try something else. Which will make him understand that he probably need some rest to regain the ability.
A character having no more healing surges might feel particularly exhausted. Or he just finds out that - despite the Warlords best effort or the Divine Inspiration offered by the Cleric, he just doesn't feel better. "You know, maybe you're right. We can win this. But I don't believe we can win today. Tommorrow, after a good night sleep, sure..."


He might notice that he always reacts to slow (as described above). Maybe he will actually understand that he can't really pull off some stunts multiple times in a row. Though sometimes, the indirection might be even higher. It also depends on how concious the use of a power is. Sometimes, it might be very reactive, and sometimes he might use a power "by accident" - in case of a per encounter trip power, he might have aimed for a strong strike, but it also happens that this blow knocks the opponen off-balance. The decision of the character to actually use a certain technique or trick described by the power might also only be made when the use is really successful. So, while the player tried to use the power, the character might not see it this way - he didn't try to trip the opponent, since there was no way that he would have tried giving the bad situation (low roll in game-mechanics). This would make it actually impossible for the character to notice the game mechanics at work, since for him, there is no way of distinguishing "out of per encounter uses" and "rolling low".


*) Maybe the terms aren't so good after all, at least if you always see "fortune" = dice roll - which we tend to do. The difference might be better described as "dice equals fortune" and "dice plus player decision equals fortune". But in any even, they served as a good starting point for describing it. And with the foregoing, one might also say "character decision = player decision" is changing to "character decision <= player decision".

But in this case, you can't tactically plan at all; if tripping is something that happens, from the character perspective, other character's can't (in character) expect it and prepare for it.

They can cluster around an enemy for no good reason, wonder why they are doing so, and then react when the enemy is tripped, but that requires essentially running two battles; what's actually happening, and what's happening to justify it.

Now, as long as you are fine with characters with selective perception, who know about tripping long enough to position themselves, react, and then forget about it when it's no longer an available option, you're fine. However, once characters start being curious about how things happen in the world, and start experimenting, the fact that the world models certain combat maneuvers as ammo will out.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It is not that they don't know about these things, they have been trying to do them the whole battle, it is just when the power is used is when they actually manage to pull it off.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But in this case, you can't tactically plan at all; if tripping is something that happens, from the character perspective, other character's can't (in character) expect it and prepare for it.

They can cluster around an enemy for no good reason, wonder why they are doing so, and then react when the enemy is tripped, but that requires essentially running two battles; what's actually happening, and what's happening to justify it.

Now, as long as you are fine with characters with selective perception, who know about tripping long enough to position themselves, react, and then forget about it when it's no longer an available option, you're fine. However, once characters start being curious about how things happen in the world, and start experimenting, the fact that the world models certain combat maneuvers as ammo will out.

Well... People "experimenting" with combat is something I highly doubt happens typically. That's most likely not a real combat situation, and I am happy to ignore the normal mechanics for combat then.

As long as a random element like a die roll can affect the outcome of any combat action, the character can never rely on a certain maneuver to work. He can just hope it works and say he wants to try it. Some planning might be moved to the pure meta-gaming level, but since the powers give the player control not only about his character, but also about certain circumstances in the game world (those that allow the powers to work in the game world), you can usually also create a game-world "narration" that makes this planning work out.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i still don´t see real padigm shift. D&D was always more gamey than simulism. (3.5 much more than 3.0) Ths time it is not done halfheartedly.

 

[MaelStorm]

I like the new paradigm of 4E at a proportion of 75%, but there is a 25% that hurts!

The part that hurt is: 4E focus too much on tactical combat+mini IMO, and the push for DDI.

 

[Warbringer]

A lot of these alleged "problems" with 4e healing disappear if start looking at "hit points" as representative of character morale

Then the game designers shouldn't have called a condition 'bloodied', or morale recovery 'healing surge'.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with your ascertion; the designers have left hip points murky and these debates will rage until at least the next iteration of the game (and probalby beyond)

edited so I didn't sound like a complete git

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Then don't call a condition 'bloodied'

That doesn't really matter considering, bloodied means: "harmed but not defeated by an unpleasant situation or competition."

That doesn't mean they are extremely beat up, just they have gotten themselves to the point where it is starting to look grim, have grown weaker, etc.

 

[Warbringer]

That doesn't really matter considering, bloodied means: "harmed but not defeated by an unpleasant situation or competition."

Actually, it does as it implies physical damage, not morale damage, which I took as RCs point. Now since the heady days of 1e, hit points beyond 1st and Con have aways represented 'luck, morale, favor of the gods' (JohnSnow posted an excellent review of this).

Now personally, bloodied it's a game mechanic that triggers new special abilities and helps avoid the Oh Sh*t moment as the character approches death, and as I've been playing something like this for over two years, can't hate it too much

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Actually, it does as it implies physical damage, not morale damage.

That is simply one definition of Bloodied not the only one. Think about in common speech, we use the term bloodied in a variety of ways, such as "*such and such* presidental hopeful came out of last-nights debate bloodied but still determined" I highly doubt there was a fight at the debate.

 

[Warbringer]

That is simply one definition of Bloodied not the only one. Think about in common speech, we use the term bloodied in a variety of ways, such as "*such and such* presidental hopeful came out of last-nights debate bloodied but still determined" I highly doubt there was a fight at the debate.

True, our (incorrect) common usage of the word does point to this, but take a look at a dictionary definition:

to stain or smear with blood...to cause to bleed, as by a blow ..

But your point is well taken...