Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5525694" data-attributes="member: 51942">Because 4e's fluff is left open, it's easy to describe a story around the mechanics - changing the in-game meaning of a power from situation to situation to fit well.  I believe AbdulAlhazred refers to this idea as "plot tokens", an apt analogy.  That works well with 4e, and wouldn't if mechanics and fluff were more strongly linked.We're on a 4e forum here - by framing the discussion as being pro vs. anti 4e and putting me in the anti-4e camp you're basically saying that I'm wrong no matter what.    I've got several problems with this already.  First of all, with "fireball, flame spiral, etc.".  That's a problem.  I don't want that etc. - there are too many powers, and that makes each individual power stand out less.  At wills are an example that mostly avoid this issue - there aren't so many (but even there you've got Vicious Mockery and Illusionary Ambush and others), and that makes them more memorable and unique.  The second problem is that they're even less unique than they seem, because "fire damage" means little, which you address as follows....That's a creative solution - respect for pulling that off.  I'm not typically going to manage that.  First of all, there are too many powers; I don't know each and every power the PC's have.  Secondly, respect where it is due - this is a neat idea, but it's your idea; the game doesn't suggest such a thing.  In fact, what with for example the suggestion to allow oozes to fall prone, I'd say the game suggests quite the opposite - to treat combat as abstract and describe the story around it.On the topic of wizard vs. fighter, and that AbdulAlhazred sees great play differences:Nobody's contesting that.  Firstly, since though many classes are very similar, they are mostly those of the same "group" (controller, defender, etc), so not wizard and fighter.  Secondly, even between classes that have powers and effects that are largely identical, small differences can lead to large differences in tactics - the 4e setup ensures that.  That makes the game fun.  But tactical complexity doesn't mean the fluff feels different.  You can have a fun game of close-bursts 1 between story lines, but I just don't feel much difference between one close burst 1 and another (assuming they've similar effects, of course).I don't think what I'm saying here is actually controversial.  4e is unashamedly combat-centric.  To quote the DM-kit's book on modes of the game: "Encounters are the most exciting part of the D&D game. They have tension and urgency about them and a chance of failure.  They involve tactical thinking and rolling dice, and are where most of the rules of the game come into play".The game achieves that.  And with some creative plot-token thinking, you can even make the fantasy somewhat consistent and vivid; but that part depends on the players, and for example doesn't work for me.  I need internal consistency to suspend my disbelief - and many retconned power fluffs raise more questions than they answer, to typically start with "if he can do that now, why not in situation XYZ?".So, I honestly confess that your skill checks to save scrolls+books vs. close bursts with a sword or with fire sound evocative.  (Sounds like a recipe for great recaps, btw, do you have a link to any?)  But if I try that kind of thing I end up more annoyed than happy.  I'd prefer to focus on the tactical challenge in combat rather than face awkward questions of consistency.  Of course I still fluff things, but it's not the focus, and most fluff thus occurs out of combat.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />  That ties back to the consistency thing - they don't make any sense.  Oh, and they're also too much work.  I prefer random loot, with bits of thematically appropriate stuff.   I don't have a problem with that.  I find it's quite doable to construct such worlds, and in any case, there's a difference between in-you-face consistency of the everyday means and possiblities of the characters in the story you're running, and the background consistency - the latter being much less important, and much easier to retconn.  For example, "you don't know" is often a perfectly fine answer to the latter, but not the former.You don't need to work out everything in the background, but those things that you do, should be consistent.It's also simply not very absurd.  Perhaps plants simply grow faster.  Or they lose less to strife - they looked like a peaceful bunch, them.  Or low-level magic, trinkets they don't even consider magical allow greater effectiveness than medieval times would have.  The PC's don't know, so you don't need to work it out to maintain consistency.  Heck, we don't know lots about the world around us, but I still assume it's consistent ;-).</blockquote>

Verification