D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Savage Wombat]

The dissociation problem happens when the decision to cast the spell is made and not when he is granted/prepares it. This would indicate that the cleric is clearly unaware of what spells he has in his payload, or that he is mad.

I admit that that seems to go against the consensus interpretation of spell slots, etc. But its not my theory/proposition.

Yeah, your description doesn't make sense to me. I don't think we're working off the same definition here. Unless you're talking about 5th edition, where I was referring to 1e "classic" vancian?

 

[Derren]

In all fairness, the fluff side of powers, the text that described what's going on, as opposed to the rules mechanics that determine what the end results are, were explicitly changeable at the option of the player. So if the rules say you can do something, and you don't like the description of how you do it, you can change it. So a 4e power could really only be dissociative if you decide to /make/ it dissociative.

That reminds me of a big argument about it happening here on Enworld.
A power, I do not know the name, stunned a creature by making it believe it was falling down a cliff.
The question was if a naturally flying creature was also affected.

One side argued that only the effect of the spell, namely the 1 round stun, mattered and thus the creature would be affected. The other side argued that a flying creature would not be stunned by a cliff appearing under it thus the spell should fail.

In the end it comes down to what it more important. The mechanical/math part of the game or the imaginative/fluff part of the game.
And in my eyes, 4E made it quite clear where it priorities were which was not the same side I was one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The dissociation problem happens when the decision to cast the spell is made and not when he is granted/prepares it. This would indicate that the cleric is clearly unaware of what spells he has in his payload, or that he is mad.

One alternative way of describing the Cleric I used to hear back in the day was that the Cleric didn't memorize spells, he just prayed for miracles. The Vancian spells per day were just how the game managed that in a bookkeeping sense.

Not fair claim to me on two counts: 1) the "fluff" description isn't generally the problem for those afflicted with a feeling of dissociation, so your suggestion isn't solving their problem AFAICT,

It's the disconnect between what the character knows/how the power appears in the narrative, and what the player knows/what happens mechanically, that /is/ the dissociation.

So, yes, changing the description of the power to something that matches the mechanics (in the mind of the player suffering the dissonance) should clear it right up.

and 2) "decide to make it" dissociative is unfairly presuming (wrongly IMO) that a conscious purposeful decision lies at the foundation of the dislike in question.

Not at all. The dislike is precedes the rationalization. /Making/ the disfavored mechanic dissociative is part of the rationalization, not the dislike.

[/quote]In a way, your argument feels like a kid is having some ice cream and doesn't like that flavour, and the father is admonishing the kid "If you don't like the taste of your ice cream, it's because you've decided to make it not tasty!"[/quote] In that analogy, the ice-cream would have to have been mixed with flavorings to order. If you don't like pistachio, why did you order it instead of vanilla.



A good way of summing this up is that the whole issue is really about what certain sorts of characters can do.

A game can be balanced & playable with very different types of characters being able to accomplish many of the same things in very different ways. However, that might not fit a vision in which certain sorts of characters should be less capable, effective, or versatile. The /reason/ it can't fit that vision is because it's meant to be fun for everyone - even those who have a vision of an effective character type someone else wants to be inferior. One player may want wizards to be supremely powerful and fighter to be disposable pawns in their subtle maneuverings. Another may want fighters to be mighty heroes who shape the destiny of worlds with bold deeds, while wizards are just their advisers, and have no chance of mumbling off a spell in combat. The compromise between those extremes (in a game like D&D) is class balance.

If you feel that one sort of character should be inferior, you probably have trouble visualizing it doing anything interesting or effective, so, by definition, any mechanic it gets that does have an interesting or effective result is going to be 'dissociative' to you. It still boils down to not wanting to let others play the character they'd like to.

 

[Kraztur]

In that analogy, the ice-cream would have to have been mixed with flavorings to order. If you don't like pistachio, why did you order it instead of vanilla.

I don't really understand the analogy or the gist of your claim of illegitimacy, to be honest. Are you sure you've understood the issue at hand? For starters, see post #272 and the spoilers under "Well, it's been 6 years, but sure" under post #267. They're rationalizationing why they don't like pistachio, and you seem to be calling that illegitimate? To what end?

 

[Alzrius]

True, but have we really nailed down the goals of this discussion? My point is that 4e has perfectly coherent explanations for its designed abilities, and that many of its design goals don't serve the interest of exactly defining what a character's abilities are, and how they should be narrated. Rather, they serve the interest of generating a certain kind of story, and leave defining the process of how it happened to the player and DM.

I understand the point you're making, and I have little doubt that 4E had reasons for embracing dissociated mechanics as much as it did; likely they're the reasons that you laid out. However, as I noted, one of the fundamental natures of an RPG is that "anything can be attempted." 4E, with its encounter and daily limitations on non-mystical physical abilities, violated that concept, which was a major problem for a lot of people.

Now, you've outlined a method whereby you can "fix" that, but that seems to work backwards (at least from a place where it wasn't broken to begin with), and in doing so begin to smudge the line of "generating a certain kind of story via funneling a character through their available options," which strikes me as an inelegant attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

Some people prefer a design goal that does define exactly what a character's abilities are, and leaves the process of generating the story to the player and the DM.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. Most powers work in the trad framework, some don't is the main point.

I'm not sure what the "trad framework" is.

By artificial, you mean not flowing from the setting's physics, correct? There's no explicit "fatigue" or "divine providence" explanation for why the effects occur with the frequency they do?

I mean artificial in that it's dissociated, with no in-game explanation or mechanism for why your ability to make an attempt should be curtailed.

So I suppose that's a yes.

But the rules do work in that way. I've done it. You simply have to be aware of it.

The rules, per se, do not work that way. You've houseruled a solution to try and allow limited powers to be used unlimited times, with some degree of diminished efficacy and/or lesser chance of working. Ironically, the question of why they suddenly are less likely to work and/or work less well is itself dissociated.

Regardless, your solution is the Rule 0 Fallacy in action. You're suggesting this isn't a problem because you can fix it.

Yea, but I get the feeling you don't want to accomplish that anyway. Do you feel that seeing a variance of martial techniques in a fight is a worthwhile design goal?

If it comes at the expense of limiting what a character can do "because the rules say so," then no, I don't.

It's not the DM's imposition, it's the system's imposition by creating encounter powers in the first place.

It's still a degree of co-option of the player's agency for their character, save that it's been hard-coded into the rules instead of happening via GM fiat. This is arguably worse.

And again, you're confused by conflating a "power" with "its mechanic of resolution". Which is understandable, because that's how previous editions do it. But "Spinning Hurricane Slash" is something that occurs in the fiction. The fact that sometimes it does more damage and knocks somebody down is something the player chooses, by using the power of the same name.

You're mistaken in thinking that merging a "power" with "its mechanic of resolution" is either confused, or a conflation. That's what associated mechanics are. Hence why previous editions did it that way - they placed a primacy on what the character could try to do. Under your scenario, the player may choose for a power to suddenly work more or less well, but that's not reflected in the actions the characters take, which is problematic.

Look at the 4e Slayer as an example. He doesn't have weirdly named abilities. He just attacks. Once a fight, the player says "I'll use Power Strike to do more damage". You can view that as the Slayer decided to hit much harder that turn, or it could be that he just got a lucky hit in, or maybe he attempted a Spinning Hurricane Slash. Up to you, as the player. The 4e Slayer simply possesses a generic version of what the 4e fighter has as more specific named powers, the ability to narrate in an extra effect by cashing in a limited resource.

The problem isn't contextualizing what the power does; it's in contextualizing why this physical power can't be used more often than once per fight. None of your flavor text descriptions answer that. Why can't he hit harder a second time?

Well, since my viewpoint makes the game coherent and run smoothly, and your viewpoint makes the game run poorly and incoherently, might I suggest my vantage point has certain benefits?

I'm not saying that your viewpoint is utterly valueless. I simply believe that you're gaining very little in exchange for sacrificing a lot (earlier editions had coherent and smoothly-run games, without the need to artificially restrict character agency).

Without a character in front of me, I extrapolated from the rules as I know them. I know there are fighter encounter powers that let you do 1[W] and knock prone. 8+ seems fairly typical for a non-minmaxed fighter facing a level-equivalent enemy.

As for the Spinning Hurricane Slash attempt with no encounter power, I typically allow at-will level effectiveness for stunts with a medium check. 14+ might be a little high, it's probably closer to 11 or 12. Or, if they wanted to do damage, that would be a basic attack, narrated as a Spinning Hurricane Slash.

I wasn't asking about the specifics per se. I was asking if your paradigm of "allow for limited-use powers to be used at will, but set up so that further uses are less effective and/or more difficult to do" was something invented by you, rather than being in the 4E rules.

Well sure, hard to argue with a mostly tautological definition. I just think of most of the crazy martial powers as player resources, not character ones. The fighter doesn't attempt CaGI, it just happens.

I'm not sure what CaGI means, but if it's a character action, then it very clearly doesn't just happen - it's something (as Jim Moriarty said) they do.

[video=youtube;7dLg0uIhBXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dLg0uIhBXU[/video]

I don't think the character has any indication he can do three things in a turn, and he has a limited selection of options for each one. I think from the character's perspective, he just acts.

It's pretty intuitive for a character to have an understanding of how much they can accomplish in a given span of time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One side argued that only the effect of the spell, namely the 1 round stun, mattered and thus the creature would be affected. The other side argued that a flying creature would not be stunned by a cliff appearing under it thus the spell should fail.

In the end it comes down to what it more important. The mechanical/math part of the game or the imaginative/fluff part of the game.

The 'correct' answer to that debate was that 1) the flying creature is stunned, but, 2) the illusion may be different for it. Maybe the illusion is that it's lost the power of flight, as well; maybe it's disoriented so it believes it's flying straight down; maybe the illusion is of a vortex that's sucking it towards some other sort of doom entirely. Whatever works for you.

Because it's /not/ about whether mechanics or imagination or more important, it's about the role of each in an RPG. Mechanics are used for resolution. Mechanics are things that are (if they're any good), clear and basically impartial (balanced), so you can resolve what happens without getting into a long or acrimonious debate. Imagination is how you visualize and create in that context. If you create an illusionist, you might have a spell like Phantom Chasm (which doesn't stun, I'm not sure what spell you're talking about). Mechanics describe what the spell accomplishes. If that doesn't match how you imagine the spell, you can choose a different spell, or imagine it differently.


For a very clear example:

Say you imagine that a fireball spell should instantly vaporize anyone caught in it. 21 damage, 10 DoaM, is not going to vaporize a whole lot beyond minions, and you might even miss some of them. What's "more important," your imagination, that says you should be able to vaporize Orcus with a relatively low-level spell, or the game mechanics that keep the game balanced and playable?

Or, conversely, say the DM imagines that an Orc Warrior should be able to leap over your Wall of Fire and cut your wizard in half lengthwise. Wouldn't you like him to use the Athletics rules that make clearing a 20' obstacle impossible, and the attack & damage rules that make it very unlikely you'll be killed in one round? Because the DM will be at least as justified in saying a cut-in-half wizard is dead as he would saying that a flying creature can't be affected by an illusion of falling.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know, man. People keep telling me that, but I simply don't find it that hard. And I've gotten pretty immersed. But, as you say, what works for player A doesn't work for player B.

It's not necessarily hard to swap between the two quickly, moment-to-moment, but they don't happen at the same time. Let me put it this way: When you control the story itself (like, you decide as a player what treasure you find in the dungeon, a la 4e wishlists) you are necessarily thinking out-of-character, because people don't control the events around them, they only control their own actions (that character doesn't decide what treasure is there).

Well, that's a pickle, there. I would say the RPGs n general benefit from knowing their audience and targeting players who like the playstyle they want to present. But that isn't necessarily a benefit for D&D, which needs to be a bit of everything to everyone. It's why 4e tends to be either your favorite edition or your least favorite, I know very few people for whom it's their second or third favorite.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, though I feel a bit of an odd duck again because for me it is both my favorite and my least favorite.

 

[Nagol]

<snip lots>

I'm not sure what CaGI means, but if it's a character action, then it very clearly doesn't just happen - it's something (as Jim Moriarty said) they do.

CaGI refers to the martial power Come and Get It with which the fighter has the opposing creatures move into melee range and then hits each one. The player moves the creatures within the constraints of the effect.

 

[Alzrius]

CaGI refers to the martial power Come and Get It with which the fighter has the opposing creatures move into melee range and then hits each one. The player moves the creatures within the constraints of the effect.

Oh right. That was mentioned before.

My bad there.

 

[TwoSix]

I understand the point you're making, and I have little doubt that 4E had reasons for embracing dissociated mechanics as much as it did; likely they're the reasons that you laid out. However, as I noted, one of the fundamental natures of an RPG is that "anything can be attempted." 4E, with its encounter and daily limitations on non-mystical physical abilities, violated that concept, which was a major problem for a lot of people.

Now, you've outlined a method whereby you can "fix" that, but that seems to work backwards (at least from a place where it wasn't broken to begin with), and in doing so begin to smudge the line of "generating a certain kind of story via funneling a character through their available options," which strikes me as an inelegant attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

Yea, but I'm not making it up out of whole cloth here. It's written into the rules.

Some people prefer a design goal that does define exactly what a character's abilities are, and leaves the process of generating the story to the player and the DM.

They do, and they should stick to trad RPGs.

I'm not sure what the "trad framework" is.

Trad being "traditional RPG", with all of the characteristics of "associated mechanics", "process first", and "DM Rule 0" that go with it. Contrast with "indie".

I mean artificial in that it's dissociated, with no in-game explanation or mechanism for why your ability to make an attempt should be curtailed.

So I suppose that's a yes.

Exactly.

The rules, per se, do not work that way. You've houseruled a solution to try and allow limited powers to be used unlimited times, with some degree of diminished efficacy and/or lesser chance of working. Ironically, the question of why they suddenly are less likely to work and/or work less well is itself dissociated.

Regardless, your solution is the Rule 0 Fallacy in action. You're suggesting this isn't a problem because you can fix it.

But they do work that way. That's the point I'm trying to make. I didn't "fix" anything. No Rule 0. Powers give authority to the player to have X happen. Anything else is resolved via player-DM negotiation and use of the skill/attribute system and page 42. Full stop.

If it comes at the expense of limiting what a character can do "because the rules say so," then no, I don't.

With the caveat that spells can be restricted to X/day because magic is its own justification.

It's still a degree of co-option of the player's agency for their character, save that it's been hard-coded into the rules instead of happening via GM fiat. This is arguably worse.

All games co-opt player's agency. By genre restriction, if nothing else. I don't know of too many RPGs that let you do anything you want, as often as you want. (maybe Chuubo's?)

You're mistaken in thinking that merging a "power" with "its mechanic of resolution" is either confused, or a conflation. That's what associated mechanics are. Hence why previous editions did it that way - they placed a primacy on what the character could try to do. Under your scenario, the player may choose for a power to suddenly work more or less well, but that's not reflected in the actions the characters take, which is problematic.

Well, yes, if and only if you expect all powers to be "associated". I'm not suggesting that 4e is "associated". It (rightly) didn't make it a priority. So again, it's only a problem if that's you wanted to be the game to be. It's not inherently problematic, which is the point I'm continuing to make.

The problem isn't contextualizing what the power does; it's in contextualizing why this physical power can't be used more often than once per fight. None of your flavor text descriptions answer that. Why can't he hit harder a second time?

Who says he can't? He might get a crit. He might roll high. Maybe his ally inspires him to fight harder. But you (as a player) don't get to make that happen again.

I'm not saying that your viewpoint is utterly valueless.

Don't try to sweet-talk me, I'm not that kind of guy!

I simply believe that you're gaining very little in exchange for sacrificing a lot (earlier editions had coherent and smoothly-run games, without the need to artificially restrict character agency).

I gain exciting battles with badass fighters with a myriad of special techniques, and inspirational heroes who can get even the wounded to fight on. I'll take that over losing chain trippers and disarmers, thanks.

I wasn't asking about the specifics per se. I was asking if your paradigm of "allow for limited-use powers to be used at will, but set up so that further uses are less effective and/or more difficult to do" was something invented by you, rather than being in the 4E rules.

See above.

I'm not sure what CaGI means, but if it's a character action, then it very clearly doesn't just happen - it's something (as Jim Moriarty said) they do.

Come and Get It, the power emeritus of the dissociative discussion. And again, it's not "clear", since I think the action economy is abstract and easy to narrate over. Come and Get It is those few seconds where the fighter realizes three orcs are charging him, and readies his blade for a counterattack.