D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Neonchameleon]

And again, you have dropped the ridiculous power of teleporting enemies through the power of your commanding presence.

I've no idea what you're talking about here. The only Commanding Presence I can think of is the category name that covers the action point for allies abilities.

They always have been a technical construct, extremely abstract. Read Gygax' perspective on them in AD&D.

Believe it or not they predate AD&D. They were a purely gamist construct when they were made that Gygax attempted to retcon with paper thin definitions. From memory they were literally borrowed from naval wargame rules just to provide the right gamist experience.

It is certainly part of the design. Please tell me where it says that an attack hitting actually causes a wound ?

Please tell me how you can land a solid hit on someone with an axe and not cause a wound.

You hit. And not all armour is axe-proof. Or are we into "skin as tough as steel" or "hits aren't hits" now to try and justify gamist constructs.

The main difference is that, contrary to the absurdity of Commanding Presence, they have multiple in world explanations,

All of which pretend hits aren't hits so far as I can tell. And don't match up at all to anything in the real world.

and these have been provided again and again, in slightly different form over the editions.

And they need to keep being provided because they do not actually work when investigated. 4e is the closest to having a functional model with 5e being second.

Yes, I have, because I can weave a fiction around simple abstract concepts when they have been created with storytelling in mind.

And apparently you can weave a fiction around simple abstract concepts when they are written as a gamist thing - and then given a gloss so that there's an excuse for pure undiluted gamism to fit a story.

Hit points are actually mostly plot protection, if you think about it, making sure that some characters survive things that would instantly kill mooks and unimportant characters, nothing more.

Indeed. But this was necessary for a game where someone gets to keep playing because playing actively is fun.

They are harmful for storytelling. Stories are about consequences. And what hit points do is ensure that things happen without consequences. You don't scar and you don't slow down. It's just a hit that might as well not have happened and there are no lasting consequences at all. It's almost the opposite of a storytelling mechanic.

Whereas 4e attacked this from completely the opposite perspective, making a combat boardgame and trying to justify purely technical powers in terms of story, and utterly failing, I've given you many examples.

On the contrary. 4e powers are storytelling mechanics. They are actions that have consequences. Hit points are an anti-storytelling mechanic because they do precisely one thing and ensure that things that should have consequences don't.

I've given you the name of the power each time.

Commanding Presence as I say is the confusing one. The rest are either fine or Batman-level.

No, temporary hit points serve the narrative by being extra plot protection,

In short they are anti-storytelling.

You ... do realise that "plot armour" is a critique of bad writing that takes you out of the story?

How do oyu translate "quiet the storm of battle" into "gaining a power bonus to attack" ?

Asked and answered.

But they don't, they can use the move to go in any direction, and I guarantee that it is what will happen, I've actually used it.

Asked and answered

Swept ALONG...

You have watched a current? Flow isn't laminar everywhere.

No, I don't. It's good that it's a game, and you can play it whatever way you want. I'm just saying, in the context of this thread, that if you play technically, you stiffle your fiction/narrative game, and 4e pushed that to the extreme, that's all.

If you want to stifle your narrative you put mechanical plot armour in like hit points. The only purpose of plot armour is to stifle narratives.

If you want to enhance your narrative you ensure that actions have consequences. Which most 4e powers do.

Not necessarily: "Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

And how does that mean that a hit isn't a hit? Or how does "resolve" mean that a hit doesn't draw blood?

The "bloodied" only means that you have lost half of your hit points. If all that you have lost is skill, luck, and resolve, you might not even have shed a drop of blood. If you want to implement it as "having shed some blood" in your game, why not, but you will have to be careful because of what follows.

It's far clar

4e shows exactly the same paradigm as the other editions, you fight at peak efficiency until the very last blow,

Nope. 4e hit points show that paradigm - but your character is more than a single system in isolation. Encounter and daily powers mean that you actually, meaningfully tire in the course of normal play but can pace yourself. 5e sometimes does this. Earlier editions almost always don't.

The problem is that you see everything in only one interpretation, but there are many different interpretations, even in 4e, and other editions have many more as it is more open.

It's you who is restricting things to only one possible interpretation regarding 4e powers.

You just evaded the question, again, why should commanding presence actually heal you ?

If hit points include determination (as they do) then why in the name of the little black pig do you have any problem with things done by an inspiring person (or even their presence) making their allies more determined.

You aren't even following through here on what you claim to believe about hit points if you have any problem here.

Once more, the point is that the narrative that 4e forces upon me with its inconsistent powers that create bizarre effects is not the one that fiction supports. I have given you many effects, but you avoid answering the more embarrassing ones...

Literally the only one I've failed to answer is when you say Commanding Presence teleports people. As far as I am aware every single other case has been asked and answered.

And again, you keep telling this with exactly zero support. Please, once more, explain how a simple shout teleports an enemy across the battlefield, and in which cinematic universe you have seen this happen without magic being involved.

Please explain where this comes from. The only name I have seen you give it is "Commanding Presence".

(And if it's an Epic level power then I'm just going to shrug; my big problem with Epic tier in 4e is that it isn't epic enough).

 

[Lyxen]

And no, that's not universally applied....there are plenty of mentions of HP as not being actual wounds, but there are also plenty that do reference them as such. They're both, taking the rules as a whole. Which is pretty much true of all editions; they're all made up of game mechanics related to fiction.

Which is exactly my point. It works well for fiction because it's an incredibly open concept, that supports all types of descriptions, characters and spells that you want to make, as long as you respect the paradigm which is the same as in fiction of the genre, you are not truly affected by things which might be life threatening to others until it's your last hit points.

If they're fictionless, it's because you are doing everything in your power to make them so, while giving other mechanics a pass.

No, it's the other way around, hit points are fiction full for the reasons above, it's the other mechanism, in particular the very gamy ones of 4e which are fictionless.

You should just say "Guys, I can't make heads nor tails of 4E powers" and not "Guys, no sense can be made from 4E powers". Others clearly do not share your failing.

Clearly, 4e was a failure compared to 5e. For me, and for the 5e designers, it has to do with 4e being restrictive. And for me, I add to this the fact that it is extremely boardgamy and the powers are fictionless.

"Sliding" as it's used in 4E is not teleportation, and your description of it as such shows either poor interpretation and grasp of the rules, or an attempt to bolster your argument.

Alright, explain to me how just using your voice "slides" an enemy 10 feet, and where in fiction you have seen such powers, then.

When you Slide a character, you either physically or mentally manipulate them into moving where you want.

OK, but the Warlord is not a magic user, so please explain how his personality incites them, without doing anything, to "slide".

Getting an opponent to misstep or over-commit is a huge part of tactics and one not really well represented in most editions of D&D. In this case, it was some kind of feint or deception that gets an enemy to move in a way they think will be advantageous, but turns out to be the opposite.

And again, this is not what the power said.

Honestly, I haven't been involved in this discussion because I had a feeling it would move toward these areas and would devolve into people swinging their preferences around like fact, and sure enough. But your semantic gymnastics to prove that your opinion is somehow fact are just too much.

You don't like 4E. Everybody gets it.

I am the first one to praise 4e in being extremely well balanced and probably the best technically tactical edition of D&D ever. It had huge qualities from these angles, and introduced a lot of concepts that I found really fine.

HOWEVER, it is indeed not to my tastes as it is extremely restrictive and does not give me the open-endedness that a TTRPG should give me. Moreover, in the context of this specific discussion, the powers are indeed very technical and fictionless, and therefore prevent the narrative from feeling in line with the fiction of the genre. I have given you many examples of this, of inconsistency between the description and what could happen in a narrative in the game world.

You want 4e to be perfect, it might be for you, but for me these were really fatal flaws in my enjoyment of the game, that's all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Alright, explain to me how just using your voice "slides" an enemy 10 feet, and where in fiction you have seen such powers, then.

Right. So you literally made things up about the teleporting. (Teleport is, after all, a keyword - and teleporting lets you move as if intervening objects aren't there). Having problem with fiction you've invented is an interesting one.

And how does yelling at your ally to move get them to move? Is this a serious question.

HOWEVER, it is indeed not to my tastes as it is extremely restrictive and does not give me the open-endedness that a TTRPG should give me.

It gives me plenty of open-endedness.

It's complex, sure. And it's badly presented with a disaster of a launch. But it's open ended and has more fiction than other editions.

But your problem appears to be that you are unable to interpret mechanics. At this point this conversation gets pointless.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, just because you're making things look ridiculous doesn't mean they are inherently ridiculous.

"I move towards the goblin, ready to intercept when it acts" is not inherently ridiculous. Making the conversation explicitly about mechanics in the way you are is like trying to turn hit points into a concrete mechanic that is measurable in the game's universe rather than treating it as a rough, abstracted problem

Not sure why you're responding to me.

I was talking about the difference between what a publisher wants you to believe is true about its game, and what is true about its game.

I'm not ridiculing anything. I'm not trying to take away your fun. I'm not trying to argue your actions can't be grounded in fiction.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Several of you seem to feel now is a good time to re-litigate the edition wars.

Please allow me to disabuse you of this notion. Keep your critique in perspective, and with minimal vehemence, please and thank you.
If you need a veiled threat to convince you - consider this to be one. Okay? Good.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Which is exactly my point. It works well for fiction because it's an incredibly open concept, that supports all types of descriptions, characters and spells that you want to make, as long as you respect the paradigm which is the same as in fiction of the genre, you are not truly affected by things which might be life threatening to others until it's your last hit points.



No, it's the other way around, hit points are fiction full for the reasons above, it's the other mechanism, in particular the very gamy ones of 4e which are fictionless.



Clearly, 4e was a failure compared to 5e. For me, and for the 5e designers, it has to do with 4e being restrictive. And for me, I add to this the fact that it is extremely boardgamy and the powers are fictionless.



Alright, explain to me how just using your voice "slides" an enemy 10 feet, and where in fiction you have seen such powers, then.



OK, but the Warlord is not a magic user, so please explain how his personality incites them, without doing anything, to "slide".



And again, this is not what the power said.



I am the first one to praise 4e in being extremely well balanced and probably the best technically tactical edition of D&D ever. It had huge qualities from these angles, and introduced a lot of concepts that I found really fine.

HOWEVER, it is indeed not to my tastes as it is extremely restrictive and does not give me the open-endedness that a TTRPG should give me. Moreover, in the context of this specific discussion, the powers are indeed very technical and fictionless, and therefore prevent the narrative from feeling in line with the fiction of the genre. I have given you many examples of this, of inconsistency between the description and what could happen in a narrative in the game world.

You want 4e to be perfect, it might be for you, but for me these were really fatal flaws in my enjoyment of the game, that's all.

No, I'm not going to offer examples for you to shoot down, or to omit parts of quotes to address something out of context. I find much of your reasoning to be flawed, but I don't expect you can be swayed or reasoned with. I'm not even a big fan of 4E myself....I just don't assume that whatever issues I may have with it are fact rather than my opinion.

If you're unable to imagine a way in which someone can trick an opponent into moving in a way they wind up not wanting to (and honestly, check out any sport for no end of examples), but you can accept any number of ways for hit points to work, I don't think the issue is with the mechanics. You're picking and choosing what you will accept, and what you won't.

It's as flawed as appealing to the popularity of 5E over 4E as somehow meaningful to the quality of either game. By that token, Keeping Up With the Kardashians is better than Deadwood and The Wire and every Scorcese movie ever made.

 

[Krachek]

Fantasy stories are not realistic.
inspired by those fantasy, we build some rules set, and try to build our own fantasy through a game. The result won’t be more realistic.
The goal is not to keep realism, it is to keep the Fantasy alive.

 

[Lyxen]

Fantasy stories are not realistic.
inspired by those fantasy, we build some rules set, and try to build our own fantasy through a game. The result won’t be more realistic.
The goal is not to keep realism, it is to keep the Fantasy alive.

Exactly, which is the core of my argument. The rules will not make the game more realistic, but it will not make it more fantastic either. All that they will do is make the game more technical, and have players focussing on gaming the technicalities of the rules, rather than having adventures in a fantastic world.

I have nothing against 4e as an edition, it had tons of qualities, but it is clearly the most technical of all editions, the one where the rules constraint the most what can be imagined by players for their characters and by the DM for the world.

There is nothing wrong in playing that way, but if you are looking for fiction and story, in particular in combat where the technical side of things is the strongest (there is a reason 80%+ of the actual rules in D&D are about combat in one form or another), you are making things more difficult for you by playing a technical game, like 3e or 4e, or even 5e if you insist on playing RAW and putting rules on top of every other consideration, that's all.

 

[Lyxen]

No, I'm not going to offer examples for you to shoot down, or to omit parts of quotes to address something out of context.

And I have given you plenty of detailed examples showing my perspective, so...

I find much of your reasoning to be flawed, but I don't expect you can be swayed or reasoned with. I'm not even a big fan of 4E myself....I just don't assume that whatever issues I may have with it are fact rather than my opinion.

At the core, there are simple facts, well known by everyone, 4e is extremely technical (which, to some players, is an advantage) and tightly controlled (again, an advantage to some, and as a personal preference I add that the level of control makes it better than the totally uncontrolled 3e). Do you disagree with this ?

If you're unable to imagine a way in which someone can trick an opponent into moving in a way they wind up not wanting to (and honestly, check out any sport for no end of examples), but you can accept any number of ways for hit points to work, I don't think the issue is with the mechanics. You're picking and choosing what you will accept, and what you won't.

No, I'm just able to make the difference between an open system and a closed one. FYI, I'm not the only one, 5e designers tell it to you themselves. I'm not saying that one is better than the other intrinsically, but they are more or less suited to the type of game that you want to run, that's all.

If you want to run a technical game, 4e is way better than any other edition. If you want to run a game where fiction and story are at the top of your priorities, then, for exactly the same reasons, it is less suited. I'm not disparaging anyone or any system here, but in general I find using the right tool better to get specific jobs done right.

It's as flawed as appealing to the popularity of 5E over 4E as somehow meaningful to the quality of either game.

You are the only one here mentioning the intrinsic quality of a game. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that there is no one-size-fits-all system out there, some systems are better suited than others depending on the type of game that you want to run.

If you want a lot of fiction in your game and in particular in your combats, it's way harder to do with a system that constrains your imagination and forces you in specific pre-determined paths because these are the only ones that are allowed by the rules (for otherwise really interesting reasons if you want to play a technical balanced game).

 

[Ovinomancer]

And I have given you plenty of detailed examples showing my perspective, so...



At the core, there are simple facts, well known by everyone, 4e is extremely technical (which, to some players, is an advantage) and tightly controlled (again, an advantage to some, and as a personal preference I add that the level of control makes it better than the totally uncontrolled 3e). Do you disagree with this ?



No, I'm just able to make the difference between an open system and a closed one. FYI, I'm not the only one, 5e designers tell it to you themselves. I'm not saying that one is better than the other intrinsically, but they are more or less suited to the type of game that you want to run, that's all.

If you want to run a technical game, 4e is way better than any other edition. If you want to run a game where fiction and story are at the top of your priorities, then, for exactly the same reasons, it is less suited. I'm not disparaging anyone or any system here, but in general I find using the right tool better to get specific jobs done right.



You are the only one here mentioning the intrinsic quality of a game. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that there is no one-size-fits-all system out there, some systems are better suited than others depending on the type of game that you want to run.

If you want a lot of fiction in your game and in particular in your combats, it's way harder to do with a system that constrains your imagination and forces you in specific pre-determined paths because these are the only ones that are allowed by the rules (for otherwise really interesting reasons if you want to play a technical balanced game).

Your take is clearly informed by a very specific and narrow approach to RPGing. Much of this is just entirely misaimed -- like the discussion about how 4e is technical which has little to nothing to do with the point about making narrative sense, or the bits about open or closed games systems which really is a proxy argument for how much control does the GM have over the system. It's arguing not from looking a possibilities available but rather from starting with the conclusion and trying to argue from there.

4e's system actually allows more serious divergence in play approaches than 5e does. It does much more strongly restrict the GM's ability to use Force than 5e does, and that does remove some of the ways that D&D is usually played, but it also enables a very strong narrative approach that's just not possible in 5e (or any other edition of D&D) without extensive houserules or just ignoring the system altogether. So your claim about it being more closed is just a clear proxy for an argument that it doesn't align to your preferences. You should stick to making the argument that you don't like it rather than this charade about how there's some objectively discernable weakness to 4e. The former is defensible, understandable, and perfectly fine. The latter is, well, obviously silly and will get you in trouble for edition warring.