Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5495453" data-attributes="member: 82106">Basically what I would say is that pemerton (as well as others too numerous to mention, though they have expressed it in various ways) has it right. I would just put it a bit differently. The rules of the game, especially 4e, aren't about modeling reality. They are about giving each player a controlled amount of narrative license.So for example when the warlord shifts the other PCs around it is not that he's actually moving his friends like chess pieces. Instead he's constantly yelling tactical advice at them "No Abelard, go around him to the left! That's it, dodge behind him on the backswing!" etc. In pemerton's example of the goblins I would have used a retcon. The dwarf lept up to the veranda with a mighty shout! 2-3 of the goblins turned in fear and while their comrades scuttled down the stairs they stood paralyzed with terror and astonishment. Sure, MECHANICALLY they went down the stairs and got pulled back up. This kind of narrative flexibility is rarely a problem.Finally I simply don't see anything in the 4e rules where it says you have to adjudicate every mechanical effect without reference to the integrity of the narrative (which might involve being more realistic, though I hesitate to call that 'simulating' anything). Sure, CaGI provides the the player of the fighter with a defined narrative 'coupon' and as a general policy the DM wants to allow the players to expend that in keeping with the rules. That doesn't mean utter consistency needs to be adhered to at all times. If you feel like a use of a power etc in a certain way isn't going to convey the situation effectively then the DM has a responsibility to decide if changing it will be more fun than letting it slide. This is situational and group dependent and in many groups can be delegated to the players (my players for instance instinctively do this most of the time and I don't even have to think about it). If nobody can come up with a good explanation of WHY the super clever enemy would run up to the fighter and the player doesn't have a good explanation, then have the power do something slightly different or just have the player use a different power and give them something extra for doing that, whatever. Fundamentally there's really no room for complaining on this entire point. People choose to play how they like. If a player comes to a 4e game and is bent about how his CaGI seems silly in application is that really the game's fault? It never says ANYWHERE in the rules that there is a guarantee things will just always work a certain way without regard to the conditions in the game world. There's no such rule. I don't even recall such a thing as a suggestion. There IS a rule that says the DM gets to decide how EVERYTHING works. That's actually there. The other thing is a canard, and one that doesn't fly at that. As for jumping in a non-straight-line... WTF? Anyone who expects ANY RPG to spell out the ordinary laws of nature which are presupposed will be sorely disappointed. There's no law of gravity spelled out in 4e either. Game designers have always and will always expect the rules of an RPG to be interpreted within the boundaries of the sensibility of the genre in which it is played. That usually means you can only jump in a straight line, barring magic, or parkour, or whatever. If those things are going to come into play the player is going to need to invoke them into the narrative. He may have to pay a price for that (make a skill check for instance).</blockquote>

Verification