Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5209635" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think of it as a sort of glass half empty/half full kind of situation. Its true that players who are just into the mechanics can sail through a combat (and some other situations perhaps) paying attention only to the numbers, but on the flip side a player that is very narrative can hang a pretty darn good story on the mechanical framework.The DM holds a lot of responsibility for how all of this goes of course. First of all since they're in charge of the narrative element of at least half of the cast in any given scene they have an input that in that respect that is at least equal to that of all the players (though obviously NPCs are mostly less developed so it tends to be simpler, you don't need to get too fancy with an orc most of the time). On top of that of course they have the added dimension of constructing the environment, which can have a big impact by providing more or less tools for narrative creativity. Bare rooms and such don't do a lot for the narrative, but lots of really engaging environmental elements can provide a real bonanza there.Its funny, even something small can make a huge difference. I was running my group through an underground dungeon-like setting the other day. First they ran into various orcs in a couple of rooms/corridors that were fairly barren. The tactical situation was engaging but it was pretty mundane hack-n-slash. Then they came to a room with a table in it, and an orc jailer that was menacing some prisoners. Wow, the dynamic changed. The dwarf leaped off the steps leading in to the room onto the table and let out a mighty battle cry, the jailor used a power to knock him prone, hurling him to the floor! The other players were suddenly energized and a really interesting little skirmish developed around the table. It was a totally simple mundane prop that I added to the room with little thought to any tactical significance and the jailer was just some orc that I dropped in off the Compendium that had a couple oddball powers, but just that minor amount of extra fluff made the whole encounter amazingly more fun. Obviously the players did the work of rising to it and I've set up other situations that had equally interesting possibilities where it didn't quite gel. Atmosphere and group dynamics play a large part. I guess one thing I like about 4e is it tends to give you a lot of tools in that direction. If the battle had been a fight in say 1e then chances are I wouldn't have thought to have the orc knock the dwarf down (and there's no mechanism ready at hand to adjudicate it). The wizard probably would have dropped a spell that decisively resolved the situation on his turn too. It might well have turned out equally interesting and there would surely have been something cool happening during play but 4e did a good job and with either system players can still be lazy and just work the mechanics and not bother with the narrative.Out of combat I think 4e works well too. I always had certain frustrations with earlier editions. There was no real foundation for ritual sorts of magic for instance. You could make up powerful spells that had huge casting times or whatnot, or just make something up from whole cloth, but it was totally on the DM's shoulders and it was hard to give the PCs that sort of stuff. Even with NPCs the system really assumed powerful = high level = all the other stuff that goes with high level (if the evil wizard has a spell that can destroy the world then its obviously a 9th level spell, so where are his other mega powerful spells?). It also always irritated me that there was for instance no way for lower level PCs to make weak magic items. Nope, to make even the most measly +1 dagger you HAVE to be a 13th level magic user or cleric! (I guess 3.x maybe changed that, I'm not sure).It seems to me 4e's design really does pay a lot of attention to constructing a solid framework for that kind of narrative freedom. So far I haven't actually run into those situations where I dream up something and then have to wonder how the heck I can arm twist it into the game in a logical fashion. 1e/2e always seemed to be intent on throwing up obstacles. 4e seems to me to say "yeah, here's a way to work that in". It may be legitimate for people to object that 4e balance considerations can be somewhat restrictive. Certainly if you want to play a character that is say a werewolf or something then you'll immediately have DM concerns about how that character compares to the others, but then if it was a 1e game the consideration wouldn't really exist, but only because the magic user was already 92x more useful than the fighter, so why bother to even think about it? At least things like PPs and EDs exist to provide some level of support for doing that stuff in a way that lets the PC evolve into it (though it may require a bit of home brew to get the mechanics for that). Mostly I think 4e's drier presentation of player mechanics (and maybe exposure to 3.x's simulationist bent) has gotten people into a mind set that they should just treat the rules as a codification of elements of play and style too much. It really does need to be "Fiction First" but personally I just see that as an attitude, not something that 4e actually works against. It could have encouraged it more stylistically, but I'm not real sure how the rules need to change to do it.</blockquote>

Verification