Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5525608" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure I fully follow the contrast in the last sentence - apart from anything else, I think 4e does a better job than many mainstream RPGs of making combats combine tactical sensibleness with thematic appropriateness.In AD&D, the choice of whether to use Fireball or Hold Monster is a tactical one - trading off damage-even-on-a-save against save-or-lose - and to make it a thematic one instead requires bracketing what is a real tactical question. In 4e, because the mathematical/mechanical balancing of powers is (in my view and experience so far) much tighter, these sorts of question can be approached in a much more "theme-first" way - if I decide that my guy will try and pacify the foe, for exzmple, rather than kill it, I don't have to forego tactical rationality to do so, becaue I can be fairly confident that the mechanics support me either way. (This came up for me in actual play not so long ago, and was discussed <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5463925-post23.html" target="_blank">here</a>.)As for the broader issue of whether 4e supports or hinders interesting play, I opt for the former - page 42 (ie DC tables, damage tables, a general structure of skill check for outcome) gives me a strong support for all sorts of stuff that I would have found harder to resolve in other systems (eg the paladin cursing a wight in the name of the Raven Queen in order to get combat advantage against her, or the wizard using an Arcana check to "minionize" an NPC so he could kill him in one Magic Missile while the other PCs were distracted by a temple collapsing all around them).I'm on AbdulAlharzed's side here. And it's not just about fluff. Fireball, Flame Spiral etc have the fire keyword and deal fire damage. Straight away that mechanically differentiates them from other area attacks, in a way that has relevance for action resolution. For example, when the wizard PC in my game was using Flame Spiral (? a low-level wizard enemies-only encounter power) in a library, Arcana checks were required to avoid setting books on fire. Whereas the fighter using Sweeping Blow in the same situation was doing something different (Acrobatics maybe?) to avoid knocking over cases of scrolls.I've also had the wizard use Twist of Space (7th level wizard teleporting encounter power) to resuce an NPC from being trapped inside a mirror. (Details of some of these episodes in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/299440-exploration-scenarios-my-experiment-last-sunday.html" target="_blank">this actual play thread</a>. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/301282-actual-play-examples-balance-between-fiction-mechanics.html" target="_blank">This one</a> has some more, including improvisation using Come and Get It to plug a spring which was powering a water weird.)As for LostSoul's question about Spider Climb, I think it is trickier. Most improvisation in my game plays on mechanical effects of the power that express the fluff (the fire or teleportation keywords, for example, or the fact that a power allows forced movement or an area attack of some sort). Because Spider Climb doesn't have the polymorph keyword (I don't think) I would be disinclined to let it play out in the mooted fashion.I'm a big fan of Come and Get It - as opposed to an embarassment for 4e, I think it puts the game's understanding of the relationship between fiction and mechanics front and centre for all to see - and AbdulAlhazred's discussions in this thread, especially about how to interpret the pull as in fact a "movement negation" for fleeing NPCs, has only made me a bigger fan.This fits my experience. Different effects with different keywords, and with interactions between different choices for each class that only compound those differences over the course of play. In my session yesterday, for example, the dwarven halbedeer stood in a narrow doorway and held two stone golems trapped inside the next room, while the wizard cast Bigby's Icy Hand and a Wall of Fire over his shoulder. As the golems would try to escape, the dwarf would use his forced movement powers to push them back into the fire again, or into range of the hand. (And in the spirit of improvisation, he also spread some oil he had found in an earlier adventure over the floor of the golem's room - before the oil got burned up the wall of fire, he managed to use it to increase the distance of one of his slides on a golem from 1 two 2 squares, thereby triggering his Polearm Momentum feat and knocking it prone. I resoved the oil pretty straightforwardly from the DC charts: Acro check of 13 down slide to solid obstacle (the walls were 3 or 4 squares away), 14 to 17 slide +1 square, 18+ and no effect. It required a standard action to place it - which the player spent an action point to do.)I like 4e monster design a lot, and myself find that the mechanical design supports description. (The first creature power that really drove this home for me was the wight's Horrid Visage, which really gave me a feel for what a wight is and how to present it in the game.) I think I'm in a minority, though, in favouring the MM1 approach to flavour text over the MM3 approach.I also like the wishlist system, but I'm not quite sure what your criticism of it is.I agree with this, and think it's a good thing. As has been discussed a bit on the Wizard vs Warrior in Literature thread on General, once you make the sociology and economics of the gameworld another part of the game mechanics that the players are expected to engage, all the sorts of concerns that Balesir has been expressing really come to the fore - not to mention other nonsense like using Decanters of Endless Water to make fortunes out of the inhabitants of deserts, or discovering that castles are highly vulnerable to rationally trained and equipped flying armies.To get a mainstream fantasy experience, you need to keep the setting in the background. Which is not to say that it's irrelevant - the world of LotR is background, but hugely relevant - but it's not itself another mechanical lever for play. To try and illustrate - the notion that Tolkein's Shire - a small, autarkic community - could enjoy, as it appears to, the same material standard of living as 18th or early 19th century England, which was a centre of world commerce and production, is from the economic or sociological point of view absurd. But as long as the setting remains background rather than another mechanical lever for play, the absurdity can be disregard. Build in domain rules of the AD&D/Expert sort, however, and exactly these sorts of absurdities, and others (like the Decanter) are brought very prominently into the foreground.</blockquote>

Verification