kennew142 said:
As long as you lose hit points, it's not necessary that you suffered a wound. That's the point. Each player has some narrative control over his character.
If all I am doing is marking ticks off a character sheet, why is it important for anyone to control the narrative? Hit points are not physical damage, so why describe it at all? The wound, or lack thereof, have no mechanical effect, so how does describing advance my character or the plot?
You think so? I don't. If you'd actually read the post you are responding to, you will note that I said that the rules will provide mechanics for allowing the players some narrative control, encourage that type of GMing and assume it as the default. Bad GMs will always be bad GMs, but providing the tools for good GMing and calling attention to a (IMO) superior style of GMing for those good GMs who hadn't even thought of it are all good things.
So, all the previous incarnations and playstyles are inferior, in your opinion? And simply providing the tools and a note of this superior style will improve DM skill?
Even good GMs have to start somewhere. It would've been nice if this sort of useful GMing advice had been in earlier DMGs.
It also would have been very odd, considering this playstyle wasn't in vogue back then.
Wow, talk about a failure of logic. What are you arguing against here? I specifically pointed out that it was possible in earlier editions. I even called out that good GMs had been doing it all along.
Ah, yes, it was possible in earlier versions. So, simply mentioning it makes things better? Good DMs didn't eat all the Cheetos in previous versions, either. Should that be noted? How much of your One True Way will show up in the books, to insure that even proximity to the DMG will improve their skills?
Purposefully miscontruing what I said in order to try and make a cheap point is misleading at best, but lying would be a better definition. I would suggest that you take the time to read a post before responding. It might save you some humiliation.
Ok, let's go over it.
It's all about sharing the control when it comes to a character's actions or to the consequences he suffers. The GM still has final say, but the default assumption in 4e seems to be that the players should have some input in these instances
So, we have sharing control, as long as the DM allows it. In other words, not really sharing control. Because the DM is still deciding whether or not the players get to have that narrative control.
Secondly, I don't see how the control players currently have over their characters is less than "some input in these instances". What instances? How is describing my character's actions not "some input"?
No one said that this would weed out non-excellent GMs. It may improve the skills of weaker GMs.
Oh, it
may improve skills. Or, it may not. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for change.
I would argue that there is a qualitiative difference between a GM dictating all game effects to the players and the players having some control over the narrative. IMO the latter provides a better and more satisfying gaming experience. YMMV. It's hard to argue that the latter example isn't a more shared interactive experience.
All game effects? All of them? The rules don't have anything to do with that? I mean, if you get hit with a fireball for minimal damage, you are saying that the DM describing singing and slight burns is
ruining your game? Or that players necessarily have a better time describing the exact same thing, simply by dint of the DM not doing it?
What you are describing isn't a failing of rules, it's a failing of a particular DM. There are no rules anywhere that will insure a DM and a group will be on the same page about everything. What you are talking about with 'narrative control' isn't a rules issue, it's a group dynamics issue. 4e can't address that.
