Does performing Trip attempts every round ruin Suspension of Disbelief?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So you can "try" to trip every round, knowing with absolute certainty that it cannot work. Splendid. Problem solved.

Player != Character. The player narrates the character trying to trip his opponent. The character inside the game-world tries it every time. He doesn't know he can only succeed if his narrator, the player, chooses to use the power required to do so. Of course, sometimes the character sees "this is the perfect opportunity for a trip attempt, it should work!" but what happens outside the game is that the players says "I'll use the trip power".

It's all handled in a very meta-game fashion, which some people obviously don't mind, but others mind quite a bit.

That is true. I can never forget that I am just playing a game, so this works fine for me, and not so fine for others who prefer a more "immersive" game experience. In fact, I think I like such meta-game mechanics. I like to see the game unfolding into a story, and this sometimes requires manipulation to achieve the desired results. Combat, of course, is a pretty abstract aspect. And I won't claim that I focus on such mechanics, since I certainly wouldn't play D&D then.

 

[Rechan]

My disbelief is permanently suspended so I don't have a problem with the spiked chain uber-tripper on that basis. My objection to the build is far stronger - it's boring. One trick ponies always are.

This issue reminds me of watching BattleBots. Battlebots had two styles of robots. Those that tried to do direct damage, and those that were "wedges"; the plan was to get someone against the wall and pin them.

Similar to UFC fights, where you have "strikers" (Tae Kwon Do, and other attack styles) versus Grapplers. Grapplers were just as they sound: you grab, you take down, you pin.

Or in Boxing, where you either have two guys duking it out, or one opponent takes the other to the ropes, while the other relies on a lot of blocking and "Rope a dope".

In every one of these instances, I find myself saying: The first one is more fun to watch. The second, while it is both realistic and an efficient way of trying to win, is utterly and completely boring to watch. The same could be said for playing in a game with someone who does the trip-trip-trip-trip-trip procedure.

Furthermore, the person who plays the Tripper or Disarmer has a huge, stinking flaw: What happens when you're not fighting humanoids? The large creatures that get fat bonuses to their trips (or creatures with multiple legs)? Or worse yet, what if you're fighting an incorporeal undead? A beholder? Or a multitude of other monsters that you could face in a D&D game? An akido master is useful against people, but not against an ooze.

And what happens in that instance? Everyone in the party has to work harder to compensate for Trippy McDisarm's gaping Achilles heel. And I daresay that Trippy McDisarm's not going to be having all that much fun.

 

[mmu1]

Similar to UFC fights, where you have "strikers" (Tae Kwon Do, and other attack styles) versus Grapplers. Grapplers were just as they sound: you grab, you take down, you pin.

(...)

In every one of these instances, I find myself saying: The first one is more fun to watch. The second, while it is both realistic and an efficient way of trying to win, is utterly and completely boring to watch. The same could be said for playing in a game with someone who does the trip-trip-trip-trip-trip procedure.

Well... not quite.

First, these days, you have more and more people who really are multi-discipline fighters, so the "striker vs. grappler" thing is more of a feature of the old UFC. (though it's not gone yet, by any stretch)

Second, you actually have at least two primary types of grapplers: The wrestlers who shoot for a takedown, get on top of their opponent and try for a knockout, and the BJJ guys who'll take the fight to the ground any way they can (including ending up on their back, often enough) and try for a joint lock.

The fights generally end up being boring when one or both of the fighters are completely one-dimensional: When the wrestler doesn't have enough of a striking game to finish the fight despite successful takedowns (the much-derided "lay-and-pray" approach), when the BJJ guy has no standup and not enough wrestling ability to force the fight to the ground, or when a striker gets taken down at will and isn't able to fight on the ground well enough to get back up.

Fortunately, in the better promotions, that sort of thing is getting less common. Unless you're EliteXC on CBS...

...not really that relevant to the thread, but it happens to be an interest of mine, so you get to listen to me ramble. Well, unless what you take away from it is that the trips themselves are not bad in and of themselves - they're just bad if they're implemented in such a way that they stop the flow of the fight.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Trip
At-will * Weapon
Standard action Melee
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is knocked prone.

Disarm
At-will * Weapon
Standard action Melee
Target: One creature wielding a weapon
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: The target drops its weapon in the square its standing.

Free of charge. Have fun!

 

[Janx]

Rechan's last post hits it on the head.

the only counter I have: Is it really true that Trippy McDisarm is ONLY good at trips and disarms?

A normal fighter is good in all sorts of fights, usually has ranged and melee weapon. Heck, I always pack a dagger, just in case of grappling, so I can get an extra stab in (since sword can't be used).

In the same vein, spending feats in 3e, to be the best at Tripping, and grappling, there's still plenty of room to carry a ranged and melee weapon for when trips don't work. And build on a fighter or monk, with high enough combat related attributes, he should be fine just with weapons.

Honestly, if I was playing Trippy McDisarm, I would not stand around with my head up my arse everytime we encountered a non-humanoid that wasn't using weapons.

Since I don't have 4e, I'm not talking about 4e's rules. Tripping is a valid strategy. It isn't the same attack every round. You trip with what your opponent gives you.

Lastly, one must consider the DM. a) ALL attacks should be describe with a reasonable amount of flavor. b) each encounter should be varied, using different skills and comat styles. If your environment is varied, you PCs will optimize to beat the common threat. If it's varied, they will optimize for a variety of problems.

It's that simple.

 

[Rechan]

(snip)

Well, unless what you take away from it is that the trips themselves are not bad in and of themselves - they're just bad if they're implemented in such a way that they stop the flow of the fight.

I... did not anticipate that level of observation in response to a sentence or two I tossed in there.

But I would like to point out something from what you said. Multi-discipline. Or different techniques/tactics.

What does this say? The guy isn't one dimensional.

In game terms, the tripping is not his pure build, but merely a move within his repetoire of abilities. An option, yes, and possibly one that may crop up multile times in a fight. But it is not his only option, and may not even be the one he leans on heavily.

To which I would say: the trips are encounter powers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Rechan's last post hits it on the head.

the only counter I have: Is it really true that Trippy McDisarm is ONLY good at trips and disarms?

A normal fighter is good in all sorts of fights, usually has ranged and melee weapon. Heck, I always pack a dagger, just in case of grappling, so I can get an extra stab in (since sword can't be used).

In the same vein, spending feats in 3e, to be the best at Tripping, and grappling, there's still plenty of room to carry a ranged and melee weapon for when trips don't work. And build on a fighter or monk, with high enough combat related attributes, he should be fine just with weapons.

Honestly, if I was playing Trippy McDisarm, I would not stand around with my head up my arse everytime we encountered a non-humanoid that wasn't using weapons.

Since I don't have 4e, I'm not talking about 4e's rules. Tripping is a valid strategy. It isn't the same attack every round. You trip with what your opponent gives you.

Lastly, one must consider the DM. a) ALL attacks should be describe with a reasonable amount of flavor. b) each encounter should be varied, using different skills and comat styles. If your environment is varied, you PCs will optimize to beat the common threat. If it's varied, they will optimize for a variety of problems.

It's that simple.

I've played a "trip monkey" in 3.5 (Shackled City), and tried to bring in some other tricks, too. I was not a one-trick pony, but couldn't help the feeling that against many monsters, the Weapon Focus route would have been more effective and my focus on maneuvers hurt my overall effectiveness.

But I saw a Weapon Focus fighter as ultimately boring - all I do is hit a little hader, yay!

 

[cangrejoide]

Is it wrong that for the last 4 pages of this thread I've been hearing Yakety Sax in my mind whenever I read the Imaro/Hong debate?

 

[Remathilis]

Trip
At-will * Weapon
Standard action Melee
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is knocked prone.

Disarm
At-will * Weapon
Standard action Melee
Target: One creature wielding a weapon
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: The target drops its weapon in the square its standing.

Free of charge. Have fun!

Why would we want to extrapolate something like this when its more fun to argue

 

[mmadsen]

Player != Character.

Certainly, but I think most people want to make decisions as if they were their character.

In fact, I think I like such meta-game mechanics. I like to see the game unfolding into a story, and this sometimes requires manipulation to achieve the desired results.

I think meta-game mechanics are perfect for things happening outside the reality of the game, like providing our heroes with plot protection, but for things happening within the game, I like a straightforward -- dare I say it? -- simulationist approach.