Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6069514" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I think possibly the most difficult gap to bridge is the difference in the way 4e advocates and 4e detractors/advocates of other systems (3.x/PF specifically) interpret/perceive the gray areas in the abstractions inherent to D&D combat.  This is, of course, all related to game theory; creative agendas et al.   However, that makes some folks twitch so I'll just stay away from  trying to communicate in that manner.  It seems to me that the expectations of the mapping of the mechanics to the fiction are widely divergent.  One side seems to interpret/perceive and then expect something much, much closer to a 1:1 relationship.  The result is, naturally, a constrained narrative that tightly follows that interpretation/perception.  Diverging too far from that 1:1 mechanics:fiction relationship and the resultant interpretation/perception/expectation/narrative accompaniment causes them extreme discord.  A round of combat (the movement, location and actions of the participants) should be as explicitly conveyed by the mechanics as possible...and table interpretation should be constrained by fealty to that.  A melee attack shouldn't have a rider that forces movement of a foe.  That makes no sense.  That forced movement needs to be a secondary, explicit, construct (repositioning) with its own contest check and its own weight on the overall action economy of the round...and the contest's mechanics and the narrative interpretation have to be tight...as granular as possible without being too much of a pain in the neck.  If it comes to pass that the action economy allocated to the rider effect is a little wonky, and therefore not leveraged very often (if at all), then so be it.  That is probably the way it should be anyway.  Give them a system whose primary design vision supports that and they are happy.  Give it not, and something is rotten in Denmark.The other side is considerably further away from that interpretation/perception and resultant expectation of a 1:1 mechanics:fiction relationship.  Diverging far enough away from that 1:1 mechanics:fiction relationship and the  resultant interpretation/perception/expectation opens up the diversity of narrative accompaniment/fictional rendering...and they are happy to have it; lack of that  causes them extreme discord.  A round of combat (the movement, location  and actions of the participants) is not nearly as explicitly conveyed by the  mechanics as the former group sees it...and table interpretation and the rendered fiction is relatively unbound as a result.  A melee attack with a rider that forces  movement (slide) is great.  For them, its fun, thematically and tactically deep and a designer's miscalculation of the potency of a rider's effect (versus doing damage) won't result in a scenario where its always better to just do damage (rather than spending their action economy on the rider instead).  It opens up the thematic fictional and the tactical variance.  Give them a system whose primary design vision supports that and they are happy.  Give it not, and something is rotten in Denmark.*** EDIT - This is not a dissociative mechanics statement.  This is an "interpretation of the abstract combat engine of D&D" statement and how preconceived expectations, tastes, and creative agendas influence that interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification