Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Raven Crowking]

"in world" in the sense of "game rules = physics of the world", yes. Assuming that logic tells us that the physics must be identically to our own, except where it's explicitly not, like effects labeled as magic/supernatural.

The lengthy thread about whether fighter exploits are magic or not offer good examples of how 4e breaks down in terms of "in world" logic. "In world" logic doesn't have to mean that physics must be identical to our own, but that there must be some "physics" out there from which one can rationally extrapolate corner cases.

Are fighter exploits magic? Um, "not in the traditional sense". But, are they magic? Um, er, maybe yes maybe no.

I think it is safe to say that, when the most common response to "What is this meant to represent?" is "Don't think about it that hard", that the game fails to have a strong "in world" logic.

Every game requires some idea of "this is what we want the game to do", and one's enjoyment of a game is based on (1) whether or not you want a game that does that thing, and (2) how well it does that thing. It is when one examines question (1) that it is clear that 4e was meant to model mechanics; if it was meant to simulate anything other than mechanics, it is a truly dismal failure on (2).

(For me, this makes it a truly dismal failure on (1), but YMMV. )

RC

 

[Fenes]

"in world" in the sense of "game rules = physics of the world", yes. Assuming that logic tells us that the physics must be identically to our own, except where it's explicitly not, like effects labeled as magic/supernatural.

I think the point was that 4E is only concerned with the game effects, not with any logic based in physics, not even "setting-physics". Ideally, the flavor, logic and mechanics overlap to some degree, but if they clash, mechanics win. Flavor, or "logic" does not result in additional limits or options for a power.

If a power lets you do X, you can do X, period. If it doesn't let you do X (you used up your daily, for example) then you can't, period.

 

[Cadfan]

Oh, look! Another thread where people make up homebrew material for 4e, point out that their homebrew material is flawed, and analogize to a larger flaw in the game system!

For the record,

1. The game actually says, explicitly, that the DM can declare that a power doesn't work in a particular instance if the DM feels that the power doesn't make logical sense in the given context.

2. Per the rules, ammunition is tracked. I wish it were otherwise, but I didn't get what I want. Arguing that the game has flaws like a lack of ammunition tracking is silly, because the game doesn't lack ammunition tracking. If many people ignore ammunition tracking, it takes a serious leap of logic to then complain that the system doesn't require it. Because it does. The most abstract ammunition tracking practice in the game is probably the artificer, who, for many powers, has an ammunition limit of "one," which he recrafts during every short rest. So even that one has a justification given. If you don't like that justification then criticize it, but don't just assert that ammunition comes from thin air.

3. Each class has a distinct flavor. You may not like it, but its there, and its built right into the class powers. The ranger, for example, has a lot of abilities that let it move and make multiple attacks at the same time. The warlock has none. The warlock has lots of abilities that let it teleport. The ranger has none. This can go on for a while. While the overlap isn't 0% (both classes have attacks that boil down to "hit for more damage than usual and inflict status effect X"), that doesn't make their flavor the same anymore than the 3e fighter and paladin had the same flavor because they both made melee attacks in exactly the same manner.

 

[Fenes]

Oh, look! Another thread where people make up homebrew material for 4e, point out that their homebrew material is flawed, and analogize to a larger flaw in the game system!

For the record,

1. The game actually says, explicitly, that the DM can declare that a power doesn't work in a particular instance if the DM feels that the power doesn't make logical sense in the given context.

2. Per the rules, ammunition is tracked. I wish it were otherwise, but I didn't get what I want. Arguing that the game has flaws like a lack of ammunition tracking is silly, because the game doesn't lack ammunition tracking. If many people ignore ammunition tracking, it takes a serious leap of logic to then complain that the system doesn't require it. Because it does. The most abstract ammunition tracking practice in the game is probably the artificer, who, for many powers, has an ammunition limit of "one," which he recrafts during every short rest. So even that one has a justification given. If you don't like that justification then criticize it, but don't just assert that ammunition comes from thin air.

3. Each class has a distinct flavor. You may not like it, but its there, and its built right into the class powers. The ranger, for example, has a lot of abilities that let it move and make multiple attacks at the same time. The warlock has none. The warlock has lots of abilities that let it teleport. The ranger has none. This can go on for a while. While the overlap isn't 0% (both classes have attacks that boil down to "hit for more damage than usual and inflict status effect X"), that doesn't make their flavor the same anymore than the 3e fighter and paladin had the same flavor because they both made melee attacks in exactly the same manner.

If there is a class that has an ammo of "1", then you can recreate the warlock with a poison/gimmick-based rogue almost perfectly, substituting shadow step/hide/smoke bomb based "flavor" for the teleport powers' flavor.

As far as flavor goes, it is interchangeable. You can have a "warlock rogue", or a "ranger warlock" by taking the mechanics and reflavor them - easily. Any logical problems are taken care of already as seen by the martial "magic" powers.

You may wish it was different, but in its essence, 4E has the mechanical function trumping flavor anytime, anywhere.

Some people would actually call this added flexibilty, and not feel it was a bug.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You may wish it was different, but in its essence, 4E has the mechanical function trumping flavor anytime, anywhere.

Oh, look! Another thread where people ignore "flaws" in the game system by claiming that, effectively, the DM can overrule the "flawed" rules!

(I put "flaws" and "flawed" in quotes because I believe that these are not "flaws" in the sense that they cause problems with what the game designers wanted the game to do. I believe instead that they exist as a direct result of what the game designers wanted the game to do. In my "1 & 2" post earlier, these things may cause problems with some folks, such as myself, re: "1", but they are not a problem with "2". I.e., they are what the game is intended to do, but are not a failure of doing what the game intended to do.

This is a reverse of 3e, where what the game intended to do was [mostly] aces in my books, but where the execution of that intent was sometimes problematic.)


RC

 

[GlaziusF]

You may wish it was different, but in its essence, 4E has the mechanical function trumping flavor anytime, anywhere.

Some people would actually call this added flexibilty, and not feel it was a bug.

4E? Take a six-year old child and ask him to make up a story to justify anything, up to and including A not being A, and he can pull it off. You can paste your own contrasting flavor on top of anything, including other flavor.

4E bases class powers around an underlying theme. Rogues control enemy movement and perception and move around quickly. Warlocks pile on different badstats depending on what pact they take and can more easily stay unseen than even rogues, since their damage doesn't depend on it.

Sure, you can easily describe any warlock power so that a rogue's pulling it off through martial means, but that doesn't mean you can actually use it as a rogue power. You can call it a "poison rogue" or even a "trap ranger" if you really want, but it still attacks with the same stat and uses the same tool. You can even call your "fey pact initiate" feat "rogue poison training" and your "pact blade" a "dagger of venom". But you can't just cast eyebite without investing a feat or a progression choice in it, and you can't get a bonus to it from a dagger without the pact blade enchantment on it.

 

[apoptosis]

For the record,

1. The game actually says, explicitly, that the DM can declare that a power doesn't work in a particular instance if the DM feels that the power doesn't make logical sense in the given context.

Doesnt this just revert back to the "sneak attacks dont work on monsters without vital parts" type of dilemmas that the game designers were trying to avoid.

I think the designers specifically wanted a game where character powers were not nullified by encounter specifics.

I think most people who like the 4E paradigm would not like DMs that keep nullifying abilities because of encounter specifics (eg "The dragon is too big you cant move him"; "The critters are deaf or the battle is too loud and you cant taunt them" etc.

I think they wanted the mechanics to be pretty inviolate which I think really agrees with Fenes analysis.

 

[Cadfan]

I think they wanted the mechanics to be pretty inviolate which I think really agrees with Fenes analysis.

I think they wanted DM judgment to be involved. So, for example, a DM might permit you to use Crushing Blow with your maul against a locked door (its description is nothing more than a really hard hit), but not permit you to use Gryphon's Wrath against the same door in order to penalize its AC (it describes your attack as forcing your opponent's guard off center, doors do not have a guard, etc).

I think the designers realized quite well that by making many different martial and melee attacks available, they were multiplying possible combinations of setting, terrain, foes, and tactics. And rather than write out all the possible situations, they just gave that power to the DM (explicitly, actually) and urged him to "say yes" as much as possible.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Doesnt this just revert back to the "sneak attacks dont work on monsters without vital parts" type of dilemmas that the game designers were trying to avoid.

I think the designers specifically wanted a game where character powers were not nullified by encounter specifics.

I think most people who like the 4E paradigm would not like DMs that keep nullifying abilities because of encounter specifics (eg "The dragon is too big you cant move him"; "The critters are deaf or the battle is too loud and you cant taunt them" etc.

I think they wanted the mechanics to be pretty inviolate which I think really agrees with Fenes analysis.

Exactly.

If you agree that this is what the game designers intended, then (whether it is to your taste or not), I believe that 4e wildly succeeds in that goal. If you disagree, and believe that the 4e mechanics were intended to directly simulate anything outside of the mechanics themselves, then I would argue that 4e fails dismally.

IMHO, 4e says, "Here are some mechanics, with a bit of flavour tacked on. Mangle the flavour as you like, but think twice about mangling the mechanics."

Earlier rulesets said, in effect, "Here is the flavour we are trying to achieve. Here are some mechanics that we feel help to achieve that flavour. If you want to change flavour, you should probably change the mechanics to match. If you think a mechanic is inhibiting flavour, ditch it or change it." This is the reason, btw, that the 1e DMG drips flavour, but is hard to grip on the basis of mechanics, and why it is such an excellent resource to dip into from time to time. Random prostitute charts, laughable as they may be, are an attempt to inject flavour. The Gygaxian Fantasy World duology (Troll Lord Games) are all about flavour.

While I would certainly agree that it is harder to construct a playable ruleset from the "flavour -> mechanics" paradigm, I would also argue that such games are emminently more fun to play. IMHO. YMMV.

I think that this may also be why I enjoyed so many 3pp materials more than WotC materials, even when the same designers were involved (especially in WotC's late 3.5 period). The design goals were different. WotC is very good at setting, and achieving, design goals IMHO. They are just not the design goals that I prefer.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

If you disagree, and believe that the 4e mechanics were intended to directly simulate anything outside of the mechanics themselves, then I would argue that 4e fails dismally.

I would argue that it succeeds just fine.

Shall we argue about this? Perhaps in another thread?