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

[Kraztur]

Who, in turn, proceeded to reenact every stupid thing we ever did, only worse.

Like eventually begetting R Moore who made a bad documentary about it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm a little confused by the analogy -- you totally have your options constrained to a limited set of responses by the rules in a Whose Line game (heck, that's half the point -- how well can you obey these arbitrary and ridiculous rules?).

Apologies. I'm hesitant to use the mathematic terms: "finite" or "countable" on a nonspecialist board.

So in a game like...I dunno chess...you could actually sit down and count each of your specific options (which piece and which legal square) on any given turn. Even in computer RPGs, there are only so many actions the player can take. Although in some crpgs some categories of action may seem to have infinite choices (movement, commonly), they usually don't at any given point of play.

However, in an both improv and ttrpgs, you have an infinite (i.e. uncountable) number of possible responses, even if you say...have to start your sentence with the letter "z" or what have you.

IF "your character can do anything you can imagine" is the defining

Hopefully those asserting this are wise enough to say that a character may attempt anything you can imagine. Otherwise, I imagine my first level fighter can fly without magical aid. but yeah.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hopefully those asserting this are wise enough to say that a character may attempt anything you can imagine. Otherwise, I imagine my first level fighter can fly without magical aid. but yeah.

The significance of the line between attempt-but-automatically-fail and not-able-to-attempt eludes me. The difference I can see is that the former would waste an action, and possibly have minor consequences - like falling to your death when 'attempting' to fly.

 

[Lalato]

The significance of the line between attempt-but-automatically-fail and not-able-to-attempt eludes me. The difference I can see is that the former would waste an action, and possibly have minor consequences - like falling to your death when 'attempting' to fly.

I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Apologies. I'm hesitant to use the mathematic terms: "finite" or "countable" on a nonspecialist board.

So in a game like...I dunno chess...you could actually sit down and count each of your specific options (which piece and which legal square) on any given turn. Even in computer RPGs, there are only so many actions the player can take. Although in some crpgs some categories of action may seem to have infinite choices (movement, commonly), they usually don't at any given point of play.

However, in an both improv and ttrpgs, you have an infinite (i.e. uncountable) number of possible responses, even if you say...have to start your sentence with the letter "z" or what have you.



Hopefully those asserting this are wise enough to say that a character may attempt anything you can imagine. Otherwise, I imagine my first level fighter can fly without magical aid. but yeah.

Let me test this theory...

Hastur Hastur Hastur!



It worked! It really, really worked!

OH CRAP! IT WORKED! RUN!

 

[Rygar]

I'm just pointing out that one complaint - be it phrased as realism, dissonance, dissociation or whatever - /was/ addressed. And the /same complaint/ kept coming up, anyway.

There were other complaints that were addressed in the same changes, and did drop off, I'll happily admit.

The wiggle-room's still there, it's just in how you describe the power rather than how you resolve it, mechanically. Which is nice as it makes the mechanics clearer and the balancing of them more robust.

I don't see why not. There's a resolution mechanic that takes into account the ability of both the attacker and defender. If the initial Will attack hit, the trick worked - if it missed, it didn't. You can't RP 'not falling for a combat trick' anymore than you can RP 'not falling in a pit.' You can't go "nah, my character would never fall in a pit, he caught himself on the edge, instead, even though he failed the save that would have let him do so." You can stay away from the edge of a pit - or out of range of CaGI - pretty easily, though.

If the same complaints kept coming up, then it is a fairly safe bet that the complaint wasn't addressed for many people.

 

[Kraztur]

The significance of the line between attempt-but-automatically-fail and not-able-to-attempt eludes me.

I'll try to be serious for a moment, if I can easily and concisely make myself understood: The difference is that the former enables it to feel like a traditional interactive story RPG where I'm pretending to be a character in a dynamic imaginary world. Part of roleplaying a fully realized relatable character is the freedom to attempt anything that seems plausible or likeable for me to attempt.

"Not able to attempt" would impinge on that fantasy. There are various forms of "not able to attempt" in various media. I prefer games that minimize "not able to attempt".

If there is the wrongly extrapolated counterargument (which I loathe to get mired in) that some player/PC actions ARE limited for social contract or genre trope or other pragmatic reasons, then my counter-counterargument is that I never asked for 100% freedom to do absolutely anything. The illusion or suspension of disbelief should be incentivized just enough (by the rules and gaming table) that I feel like I *could* try anything if I wanted to.

If the counter-counter-argument is that other systems do it better than D&D, my counter-counter-counter-argument is that, so far, 5E suits me fine in its design philosophy, so I'm fine, I'm not complaining, I'm just hoping to address the signficance of the difference that you say eludes you, and this is my reply in good faith.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I'll try to be serious for a moment, if I can easily and concisely make myself understood: The difference is that the former enables it to feel like a traditional interactive story RPG where I'm pretending to be a character in a dynamic imaginary world. Part of roleplaying a fully realized relatable character is the freedom to attempt anything that seems plausible or likeable for me to attempt.

"Not able to attempt" would impinge on that fantasy. There are various forms of "not able to attempt" in various media. I prefer games that minimize "not able to attempt".

If there is the wrongly extrapolated counterargument (which I loathe to get mired in) that some player/PC actions ARE limited for social contract or genre trope or other pragmatic reasons, then my counter-counterargument is that I never asked for 100% freedom. The illusion or suspension of disbelief should be incentivized just enough (by the rules and gaming table) that I feel like I *could* try anything if I wanted to.

If the counter-counter-argument is that other systems do it better than D&D, my counter-counter-counter-argument is that, so far, 5E suits me fine in its design philosophy, so I'm fine, I'm not complaining, I'm just hoping to address the signficance of the difference that you say eludes you, and this is my reply in good faith.

To add onto this with my viewpoint:

Part of what irks me with this discussion is something that irks me in general: People seem to confuse "uncountable" with "infinite." That gets troublesome because it provides a basis for arguing the person is wrong, since there is a vast difference between the two concepts; in particular, the number of grains of sand on Earth. Despite the fact that it is uncountable, it is not infinite; if it was, the entire planet would be nothing but sand.

And, no, RPGs are not intended to allow infinite options. In fact, they're often intended to work against unlimited options; if they were not, there wouldn't be any need for dice in the first place, and definitely no need for half the rules the typical RPG book contains. Nor a need for the massive books the typical DnD-style RPG has. Plus, there wouldn't be a caster disparity because anyone could cast a spell.

So, by default, we are playing a system that tells us we do not have infinite options every time we pick up a DnD book. That isn't a bad thing; it stops people from playing Robocop in ancient Japan.

 

[Rygar]

I'll try to be serious for a moment, if I can easily and concisely make myself understood: The difference is that the former enables it to feel like a traditional interactive story RPG where I'm pretending to be a character in a dynamic imaginary world. Part of roleplaying a fully realized relatable character is the freedom to attempt anything that seems plausible or likeable for me to attempt.

"Not able to attempt" would impinge on that fantasy. There are various forms of "not able to attempt" in various media. I prefer games that minimize "not able to attempt".

If there is the wrongly extrapolated counterargument (which I loathe to get mired in) that some player/PC actions ARE limited for social contract or genre trope or other pragmatic reasons, then my counter-counterargument is that I never asked for 100% freedom to do absolutely anything. The illusion or suspension of disbelief should be incentivized just enough (by the rules and gaming table) that I feel like I *could* try anything if I wanted to.

If the counter-counter-argument is that other systems do it better than D&D, my counter-counter-counter-argument is that, so far, 5E suits me fine in its design philosophy, so I'm fine, I'm not complaining, I'm just hoping to address the signficance of the difference that you say eludes you, and this is my reply in good faith.

I would phrase it by stating, one of the fundamental building blocks of an RPG is that it accepts arbitrary input and returns logical and reasonable output. As someone said earlier, "I believe I can fly", if a character asserts that and then states he is trying to fly by jumping up and down, this is arbitrary input, logical and reasonable output is "It doesn't work. Humans don't fly". Allowing the attempt of anything under any circumstances is a necessary factor for an RPG. I would permit a Fighter to attempt to cast a fireball spell from a scroll, it wouldn't work because he lacks necessary knowledge to do it, but he could try, and I would likely let him roll the dice for a chance at a roll on the Wild Magic tables or something as it is a reasonable output that while he almost certainly won't cast a fireball it is possible something could happen.

"Not able to attempt" breaks this fundamental RPG component, it suddenly becomes a game with defined boundaries instead of an RPG with arbitrary input and logical/reasonable output. At that point, some significant number of possible events become blocked because of a game rule instead of a game ruling. Which moves it increasingly further away from an RPG and much closer to a boardgame where people are acting out certain expectations instead of crafting a world or narrative.

To put it even more specifically: In Dragonlance's Dragons of Winter Night Tas states (Paraphrased) "Raistlin threatened to turn me into a newt if I looked at his spellbook (With my magical glasses of true seeing)". This is "Won't succeed but can attempt" type arbitrary input, in "Not allowed to attempt", Raistlin wouldn't make that statement, because there'd be 0 chance of Tas casting any spells as he has no magical knowledge and couldn't channel the magical energy.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I would phrase it by stating, one of the fundamental building blocks of an RPG is that it accepts arbitrary input and returns logical and reasonable output. As someone said earlier, "I believe I can fly", if a character asserts that and then states he is trying to fly by jumping up and down, this is arbitrary input, logical and reasonable output is "It doesn't work. Humans don't fly". Allowing the attempt of anything under any circumstances is a necessary factor for an RPG. I would permit a Fighter to attempt to cast a fireball spell from a scroll, it wouldn't work because he lacks necessary knowledge to do it, but he could try, and I would likely let him roll the dice for a chance at a roll on the Wild Magic tables or something as it is a reasonable output that while he almost certainly won't cast a fireball it is possible something could happen.

"Not able to attempt" breaks this fundamental RPG component, it suddenly becomes a game with defined boundaries instead of an RPG with arbitrary input and logical/reasonable output. At that point, some significant number of possible events become blocked because of a game rule instead of a game ruling. Which moves it increasingly further away from an RPG and much closer to a boardgame where people are acting out certain expectations instead of crafting a world or narrative.

To put it even more specifically: In Dragonlance's Dragons of Winter Night Tas states (Paraphrased) "Raistlin threatened to turn me into a newt if I looked at his spellbook (With my magical glasses of true seeing)". This is "Won't succeed but can attempt" type arbitrary input, in "Not allowed to attempt", Raistlin wouldn't make that statement, because there'd be 0 chance of Tas casting any spells as he has no magical knowledge and couldn't channel the magical energy.

And yet, by rules, fighters are still not allowed to attempt to cast spells from memory. That has been in every edition, and even 5E is continuing it. Wizards, on the other hand, have had it as a core mechanism of how spellcasting works for numerous editions.

Also, let me point out that your use of the Wild Magic tables is a houserule; you are altering the core mechanics to give an effect. That you have done it does not mean the core rules themselves allow it.

Now, let me ask you this: How much of your argument is based on your personal houserules, and how much of it is based on RAW? Because if everything you have said is based on the former, then nothing you have said about how the rules actually work in relation to roleplaying is legitimate because you are having to alter the rules themselves to allow some outcomes. And, in turn, the fact you have to alter the rules at all just to have the fighter's attempt have any results goes on to show that the rules themselves are too restrictive for roleplaying in your mind.