Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5638666" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know. Personally, when I buy what they produce I am relying on them having thought harder than me about how the game will work and what it will deliver in play.I'm not sure what you mean here by "interpretation".In one sense of "interpretation" - namely, constructing the fiction on the basis of the deliverances of the mechnics - it seems to be widely accepted (at least in this thread) that 4e invites the participants at the table to do more of this than does 3E. Some examples that I have given upthread include: the player of the paladin deciding that the ending of the Baleful Polymorph was the result of his god intervening; the use of Come and Get It by a polearm fighter being characterised as deft maneouvring with a polearm.If I understood innerdude's posts properly, they expressed a concern that this sort of interpretation is a lot of - perhaps too much - work.In another sense of "interpretation" - namely, determining the mechanical resolution and consequences of a spontaneous manoeuvre by a PC - it seems to be widely accepted (at least in this thread) that 4e invites the GM to use page 42 to adjudicate that resolution in a flexible fashion but within some pre-established paramters.If I understood Yesway Jose's posts properly, they expressed a concern that this sort of interpretation is "going it solo".Anyway, these aren't interpretations that have been removed from the realm of the participants in the game.Because I don't know what "interpretation-space" is, I don't know how to adjudicate this claim. I gave an example, upthread, of the player of the paladin - apparently without actually leaving Actor Stance as far as his psychology was concerned - making it the case, in the game, that his PC's god had rescued him from transformation into a fog. This is a fairly typical instance of 4e play, at least for me. Where is the breaking of immersion?I agree that this power exhibits typical 4e characteristics - it establishes parameters on narration but doesn't mandate any particular narration, leaving this to be resolved in the course of actual play. And it is a martial daily, and hence has a metagame component.What I thought was distinctively interesting is that it confirms that the 4e desingers have noticed that a "miss", in 4e, needn't represent failure at the task. It only represents failure to achieve the desired goal - but that failure may be the result of succeeding at the task but having someone else's success intervene ("locked swords").So we can't infer, for example, from the fact that I rolled a "1" on my bow shot that my arrow flew wild. Perhaps it went true, but my enemy snatched it out of the air with her yadomajutsu! This is another example of the mechanics establishing parameters for the fiction, but not dictating it.</blockquote>

Verification