Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5639951" data-attributes="member: 22779">From my reading of what YeswayJose was saying, I'd say this is pretty close to his position.&nbsp; At least, that's what I took it to be.&nbsp; If a given mechanic is not disociated, then the mechanic must match the in-game effect to a large degree.&nbsp; There must be (as close as possible) a 1:1 relationship between the mechanic and what it's describing.Thus, you get the idea of To Hit.&nbsp; In 3e, this is an associated mechanic.&nbsp; If you hit something, you MUST make some sort of physical contact with it.&nbsp; You can't hit something without actually making physical contact.&nbsp; Which is why you get rules for what happens if an unarmed attacker attacks something that level drains on a touch (a question that was largely unanswered IIRC in previous editions).&nbsp; 4e doesn't bother with that since the concept of &quot;Hit&quot; simply means &quot;successful attack&quot;.&nbsp; And, it goes even further that since the mechanics of &quot;To Hit&quot; in 4e are disociated, that you don't even need to narrate a successful attack as the source of the effects or damage.&nbsp; I use a power which causes targets to fall prone.&nbsp; I succeed.&nbsp; I narrate it as lunging forward, my opponent backpedals, stumbles on the loose ground and falls in a clatter.Barring keywords in the power, that will work.&nbsp; If the power does have keywords, as you rightly point out Pem, then the narrative I construct is a bit more limited.&nbsp; If my power includes the Fire keyword and causes things to fall down (I have no idea if there are any powers that do this, but, work with me here) then the narration would include something about flinching away from the flames, stumbling and falling.&nbsp; Or perhaps the blast lifts them off their feet.&nbsp; Whatever.Where I get tripped up in all of this is the idea that somehow this is more limiting to the players.&nbsp; That having disociated mechanics somehow makes it more difficult to create a narrative in the game.&nbsp; Isn't disociation by definition more liberating?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5639951, member: 22779"] From my reading of what YeswayJose was saying, I'd say this is pretty close to his position. At least, that's what I took it to be. If a given mechanic is not disociated, then the mechanic must match the in-game effect to a large degree. There must be (as close as possible) a 1:1 relationship between the mechanic and what it's describing. Thus, you get the idea of To Hit. In 3e, this is an associated mechanic. If you hit something, you MUST make some sort of physical contact with it. You can't hit something without actually making physical contact. Which is why you get rules for what happens if an unarmed attacker attacks something that level drains on a touch (a question that was largely unanswered IIRC in previous editions). 4e doesn't bother with that since the concept of "Hit" simply means "successful attack". And, it goes even further that since the mechanics of "To Hit" in 4e are disociated, that you don't even need to narrate a successful attack as the source of the effects or damage. I use a power which causes targets to fall prone. I succeed. I narrate it as lunging forward, my opponent backpedals, stumbles on the loose ground and falls in a clatter. Barring keywords in the power, that will work. If the power does have keywords, as you rightly point out Pem, then the narrative I construct is a bit more limited. If my power includes the Fire keyword and causes things to fall down (I have no idea if there are any powers that do this, but, work with me here) then the narration would include something about flinching away from the flames, stumbling and falling. Or perhaps the blast lifts them off their feet. Whatever. Where I get tripped up in all of this is the idea that somehow this is more limiting to the players. That having disociated mechanics somehow makes it more difficult to create a narrative in the game. Isn't disociation by definition more liberating? [/QUOTE]

Verification