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

[Balesir]

"How realistic should an RPG be" is a topic that deserves its own thread. I want my games to be as realistic as possible while still being a good game. If realistic isn't possible then I at least want it congruent to game fiction. You can get a lot of mileage from "it's magic." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that since not everything can be realistic in an RPG then it's not important to make anything realistic. For me on the other hand, realism, or at least verisimilitude is a lot more important than things like class balance for my fun. So it's hardly surprising we prefer much different games.

Wanting verisimilitude is fine, but you can get that quite easily by having rules that define outcomes and the players then, either joinly or individually, imagine the in-game causality in any way they please. This way, everyone's personal verisimilitude criteria are met!

I've always wondered, why didn't 4e go all the way with this?

We have a dozen different powers that "stun" a foe. Couldn't there have just been one that let the PC define how he did it? He creates an illusionary pit, or fills his head with images of porny slave girls, or uses his deepest fears to shock him, or makes him contemplate the universe and its vast, cold emptiness for 6 seconds. Why call it "Illusionary Pit" and give a sentence of italic flavor text if none of that matters?

It's a good question why they weren't more transparent about it, but to my mind this is exactly what they did! The rules - powers, skill challenges, etc. - determine outcomes. This leaves it wide open for the players to decide exactly how that outcome happened (with appropriate influences from keywords and such). To me, this spell is "an illusion effect that stuns an enemy for 1 round"; the way that happens is "however I want to envision it and see it as plausible".

 

[Nagol]

I've always wondered, why didn't 4e go all the way with this?

We have a dozen different powers that "stun" a foe. Couldn't there have just been one that let the PC define how he did it? He creates an illusionary pit, or fills his head with images of porny slave girls, or uses his deepest fears to shock him, or makes him contemplate the universe and its vast, cold emptiness for 6 seconds. Why call it "Illusionary Pit" and give a sentence of italic flavor text if none of that matters?

Though I am reminded of one issue of the New Mutants. The mutant could throw your darkest fears at you -- she didn't know what they were, but figments were summoned that effectively shut the opponent down for the duration. Until she turned the power on some trolls. Their darkest fear was their queen who had ordered the capture of the mutants. The trolls redoubled their efforts now that the queen was present and watching!

 

[Tony Vargas]

How do you sell splat books after you do that?

Same way Hero does.

Which, to be fair, is not all that well. Hero's like D&D but moreso in that a new core book will sell like gangbusters, but supplements /really/ drop off. It's kinda like how it's in the best interest of a manufacturer to sell products that break really fast so you have to buy new ones. There's a sweet spot between the perfect product you can only sell once, and the crap one you can't sell at all, where you can move a whole lot of really mediocre product.

 

[Remathilis]

I think there's a stance that does something like that. But it doesn't do the cool stuff that CaGI does, which is make the enemies flip out and try to kill your character.

Yea, don't love the fluff text for it. Ah well. Flavoring it as a taunt is pretty common, I suppose. Like I said, I prefer the image of the silent badass fighter walking up the hill, three orcs see him and immediately charge, and he cuts them all down. Seems like a scene out of a samurai anime, to me, which is fantastic.

I ask again. Why? How?

Should it not be the pervue of the DM to decide if the orcs want to flip out and charge? Isn't that what the DM is there for? Sure, the orcs might be stupid enough to try it, but what about a "intelligent" wizard? A demon? Orcus?

And?

Because it takes away control of a creature's actions from the creature's player. This is as valid for an NPC as it would be for someone's PC (and I never hear anyone agree that a monster should have a CaGI-like power).

 

[Balesir]

Sure. The game is called Champions or GURPS. Build a power construction framework. An at-will gets this many points to spend, encounter this much and a daily that much. Extra damage costs this much, going prone this, ongoing save vs. immobilisation this. Build your own abilities.

Easy-peasy.

OK, but GURPS (I don't know Champions) does this only at character generation/advancement. 4E does it on the fly, in media res. Within fairly relaxed limits you can define how exactly the character using a power achieved the outcome that the power defines in this particular case. That's both different from GURPS and extremely powerful as a game technique.

 

[TwoSix]

I ask again. Why? How?

Should it not be the pervue of the DM to decide if the orcs want to flip out and charge? Isn't that what the DM is there for? Sure, the orcs might be stupid enough to try it, but what about a "intelligent" wizard? A demon? Orcus?

Power of awesome, baby! You'd let a wizard use his superpower to take over someone's mind and make them walk over, right? The fighter's superpower is that stuff just happens to him because it's SUPPOSED to.

Because it takes away control of a creature's actions from the creature's player. This is as valid for an NPC as it would be for someone's PC (and I never hear anyone agree that a monster should have a CaGI-like power).

The game isn't there to make the monsters look cool. That being said, there are plenty of monsters that can force movement.

 

[Nagol]

OK, but GURPS (I don't know Champions) does this only at character generation/advancement. 4E does it on the fly, in media res. Within fairly relaxed limits you can define how exactly the character using a power achieved the outcome that the power defines in this particular case. That's both different from GURPS and extremely powerful as a game technique.

Still easy-peasy in either GURPS or Champions. Both offer an advantage (Champions calls it Variable Special Effect) that allows re-skinning on the fly (usually within a larger framework).

As for page 42, still easy-peasy as Champions offers something called a Variable Power Pool that lets characters design powers on the fly. Such a construct would be much easier in my hypothetical 4e version as the points would be lower and not have access to anywhere near the same range of base effects, advantages, or limitations offered by Champions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I ask again. Why? How?

However works for you. Taunting, feigning weakness, positioning between them and something they want to reach, projecting a confidence that suggest that you're the threat that must be dealt with first, out-maneuvering or tricking the enemy so that you can cut them off when they try to get away... or, as suggested, just invoking a genre trope. The mooks all mob the bad-ass warrior because that's what mooks do.

If /nothing/ works for you, don't choose the power - but don't insist no one else choose it.

Because it takes away control of a creature's actions from the creature's player. This is as valid for an NPC as it would be for someone's PC (and I never hear anyone agree that a monster should have a CaGI-like power).

Monsters do have such powers.

 

[Balesir]

I ask again. Why? How?

However you want to imagine it happening in this particular case.

Should it not be the pervue of the DM to decide if the orcs want to flip out and charge? Isn't that what the DM is there for? Sure, the orcs might be stupid enough to try it, but what about a "intelligent" wizard? A demon? Orcus?

To quote your earlier post, "NoNoNoNONO!"

The orcs' action has taken place because of the actions of the fighter; because of their use of deception and/or psychological manipulation.

Because it takes away control of a creature's actions from the creature's player. This is as valid for an NPC as it would be for someone's PC (and I never hear anyone agree that a monster should have a CaGI-like power).

NPC fighters can have CaGI; as such, many skilled and experienced fighting creatures could have it.

The players don't whinge about getting forced-moved by an enemy magician's "Vision of Avarice"-type power or the undead's "cause fear" power - why should they complain about the skilled combatants' "fake out" powers?

 

[Kraztur]

But, even if they point out many, it's still invalid to claim that it started with 4e, when other systems from prior eds fit the same definition. And, really, hps are only one example. Depending on the definition chosen, quite a lot of other classic mechanics fit.

My definition of dissociation is best described as a feeling. The reason for a feeling can be rationalized, but the existence of a feeling cannot be. If you're upset, you're upset. You might not understand why you're upset, or you might give superfluous reasons, but the feeling cannot be denied. If a person plays 4E, doesn't like something about it but can't put his finger on it, and then someone comes with a label of 'dissociation', and this person (for lack of a better term, perhaps) says "Yes, that's what I'm feeling", how do you deny that? They play 5E and don't feel it. They play 4E and they do feel it. You point out that 5E has so-and-so dissociated elements. So what? You haven't invalidated their feeling. It is real. So that's kind of where I'm coming from here. I realize now I'm probably coming in with a different approach, or just articulating it different than others. Given that, no, pointing out that so-and-so exists in 3E or 5E doesn't change anything whatsoever about their feelng that they've labelled (for better or worse) as "dissociation". if you want to argue that dissociation is the wrong term, ya, I'm on the fence on that, but it's part of the lexicon now. That's something that we have to accept until something better replaces it in public forums.

What was your takeaway from post 272, and how does it prove that accusing one edition of using a type of mechanic that's been used in all editions a valid criticism?

I'm not trying to prove anything of the sort. I was trying to call you on your method of criticism. As for my takeaway lesson of 272, I don't mean to sound shy, but I don't see the incentive. AFAIR, this all started because Nagol reluctantly answered someone about his list of dislikes and was roundly criticized. Furthermore, it feels like 6 years of trench warfare where few have budged their positions. What incentive to embroil myself in the dirty details?