Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5628816" data-attributes="member: 6679265">I read the Arcanist playtest where they want to modify powers to stop players from sliding opponents back and forth thru walls of fire. Now mechanics are generally "dumb" things that aren't cognizant of fiction unfolding around them. Depending on your playstyle, it's up to the designers, players and/or DM to fill in the fluff. So the wall of fire power may not be "disassociated", and any one use of slide/push/pull power may not be "disassociated", but how about the interactions between those mechanics as wielded by the players? Do I want to tell a story where wizards are putting up walls of fire, and the fighters are knocking/chasing/scaring/taunting opponents back and forth thru it? I get that a metagame/tactical/board-game-y level, that kind of tactic is loads of fun. I play all sorts of games where I love that stuff. However, in an RPG, narratively or, better yet, cinematically, can I picture it as plausible? Sure, if it happens rarely, depending on the context. Otherwise, is it a plausible movie where creatures are repeatedly taunted/scared/knocked back and forth like a ping-pong ball thru a net of flames? Not to me, that seems like a comedy/parody movie. Let's say my assumption is wrong, and the above is purely hypothetical and the comedic "ping-pong scenario" was NOT being played out repeatedly in game sessions... then why did the designers feel compelled to modify all those powers in a playtest? That is, did those playtest modifications come about because players *could* do that, instead of *are* doing that? If so, isn't that trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist? Then going back to the Crazy Jerome's question of shallow vs deeper immersion and do "we stay shallow to metagame, or metagame and it keeps us shallow?" Do we stay shallow to play out the (hypothetical or not) ping-pong scenario, or play out the ping-pong scenario and stay shallow, and is it a self-reinforcing cycle? Now take a scenario where a wizard sets up a wall of fire, and then uses telekinesis to slide an opponent back and through the wall of fire. Do I can picture that as a plausible movie scene? Is that the kind of story I want to tell? Yes, and yes! Except then the wizard dominates the battle, and the other characters have less to do. Yet that's a separate issue -- it's not "disassociation", that's fun and game balance. The above didn't seem to be an issue in 3E though. Partially, because there wasn't a plethora of push/pull/slide powers, and partially because there was less focus on game balance between magic vs mundane. So, yes, I do think that 4E paradigms are unique for inducing a certain *quality* of "disassociation" and shallow immersion that is not present in prior editions -- IMO YMMV and correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, that's not a judgement value, but merely positing that it's the result of a unique combination of factors.</blockquote>

Verification