Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7088784" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this would count as an example of "playing to find out".I'm the one who framed the PCs into a conflict with an Aspect of Vecna. (In accordance with the principle "go where the action is".)The player decided to use the defeat of the Aspect of an opportunity to sever the connection between Vecna and his Eye, thereby allowing the imp to reactivate under the PC's control:This is an example of what I think 4e is very strong at - supporting the combination of mechanically defined story elements (like powers, rituals, items, etc) with player exploitation of fictional positioning to perform feats that are not mechanically defined, with the GM using the DC-by-level table and the skill and skill challenge frameworks to actually manage the resolution of this at the table.The mechanically defined story elements make it less abstract than Cortex+/MHRP, where everything is about linking abstract mechanical systems to fictional positioning, without the intermediation provided by those defined elements. But the abstract resolution system makes it more friendly to improvisation than a system like BW, RQ or Rolemaster, which have more of an expectation that every PC capacity will have its own mechanical representation on the PC sheet (so if you don't have a "Sever connection between God of Undeath and his missing Eye" ritual, then you can't easily do that thing).The player of the invoker/wizard in my game is probably the most adventurous with this sort of thing, but I can't say whether that's a feature of him as a player, or whether that's the result of playing a PC whose build (lots of skills with high bonuses, lots of spells, lots of rituals) is very well-suited to it. When the player explains (both to the table, and in character to the other PCs) that an Undead Ward, suitably powered up using the Aspect as a focus, can sever the connection between Vecna and his Eye, I am not going to contest that statement about the fiction. (Just as, in relation to the episode I quoted upthread with the sealing off of the Abyss, I didn't question the players assertion about what would be possible in the fiction.)My job, with the fictional possibilities established, is to manage the resolution using the processes the game offers. (Which, as I've said, are very strong for this sort of stuff.)A question that might arise here is: What stops the player(s) just making up any old nonsense to get what they want for their PCs? The answer, I think, is one that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has thought about harder than I have: fidelity to the fiction. 4e is good for this, too, at least in its default mode (the three tiers of play, the default cosmology, etc): the whole setting - PCs and antagonists - are infused with colour that tells you what does and doesn't make sense within the gameworld.I'm in the early stages of a new Dark Sun 4e game. Dark Sun departs in several respects from the default 4e setting, and I'm a bit worried that it won't provide quite the same degree of seamless integration between setting colour, mechanically defined story elements, and the page 42/skill challenge resolution frameworks. If I'm lucky, though, then I'm wrong about this! (I know [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] is also running 4e Dark Sun. Any thoughts on this particular issue?)</blockquote>

Verification