Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5986717" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Not that I want to get in on this argument.I don't actually think that this is a FitM problem. Without hard narrative constraints, (older-school) D&D can be played as FatE (the default) or FitM. For instance;FatE: Player: I try to lop his smug head off! DM: If you're actually trying to decapitate him, its a -10 to hit. Player: Sure. <rolls> Player: Yes! His head bounces away! FitM: Player: I attack him. <rolls> Player: Crit! <rolls> Sweet 28 damage! DM: Wow! (thinking: that's way more than he had left) You twirl around past his blade and your sword neatly removes his head from his shoulders. I think this conflict arises from the specificity of 4e's powers and their attendant flavor text. I feel that 3e actually had a similar problem to a lesser degree with feats ("I can't do that until I have Improved Electric Boogaloo). I think, with the lack of abstraction, people feel far less empowered to add that narrative tweak on their own. So, since a 4e Fighter's "Crack the Shell" power says "You break through you enemy's armor and deal a painful bleeding wound." and its a Daily, many people think they can only crack their opponent's armor once a day. People feel like they can't narrate that with another attack (even if it had no mechanical impact). Its sorta the reverse of 4e fighter fans not feeling like they could narrate anything cool at all in older editions (thus "spamming I attack!" being boring.)Of course, I could be wrong. I'm kinda guessing what's going on in other people's heads.</blockquote>

Verification