Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Nemesis Destiny]

First off, they differ very significantly from narrative control cards in that they have to be played at a particular time by a particular character and cause that character to lose their standard action.

That makes complete sense. It is still a game, after all. If you are granting a player temporary narrative control, then logically, you must establish limits for that control, or it quickly degenerates into, "I win," or, *bang-bang* "I shot you!," "no, you didn't!" nonsense.

Secondly, I would not at all approve of a narrative control card that said "At one point you can force any enemy whatsoever to move towards the fighter regardless of whether or not it makes any sense for that enemy to move towards the fighter at that time"

Again, there are limits. And what makes sense is largely determined by the narrative, which can accomodate these things. Some people aren't very good at that, or find it jarring, and that's fine. Nothing forces them to allow or to use such things.

CAGI works against creatures regardless of their size, will, intelligence (including non intelligent vermin), whether or not they can currently move voluntarily, etc

Regardless, apparently it was enough of an issue that it is no longer automatic - it's been errata'd to include a roll. So what you point out here is no longer completely correct.

Though it still does break the condition of moving voluntarily, most conditions in 4e should not be interpreted literally, at least not all the time. The other things can all be accounted for within the scope of the narrative.

I am not trying to force anyone to change their ways here - by all means, play however you like. I enjoy the narrativist approach though, and any new edition will have to take that into account, or it will fail to capture a significant portion of the gamers out there.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How's so? Why do you find it difficult?

And as for narrative, I find it has quite a bit to do with roleplaying. Acting in character has little meaning without a narrative provide context and to give a character's action meaning.

Quite simply because when narrating begins, roleplaying stops. At any given time you are doing one or the other.

Sometimes. Sometimes a group's DM will adjudicate what happens. In either case, using such an ability is the player saying how they'd like to see things unfold, but by shorthanding it into a power that is fairly specifically defined, is arguably less immersion breaking than, say, an open ended thing like Drama points, or whathaveyou.

" how they'd like to see things unfold" is yet another observation from a storytelling perspective.

I don't think it's that simple. Binary thinking doesn't encompass the whole of the situation. Why can't a game's mechanics provide options to account for narrative constructs while leaving them optional for those who don't care to use them?

There are games that can do so. It is not impossible. GURPS can be played ultra gritty or super cinematic depending on what options are plugged in. The problem is that D&D is not generic, it is fairly specific with its traditions. It would be difficult to manage and still keep the " D&Dness" intact.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Quite simply because when narrating begins, roleplaying stops. At any given time you are doing one or the other.

You can have narrative, in the sense of "story elements" that isn't explicitly narration. Maybe my group is just odd, but we often explore the story, the narrative, through roleplaying and roleplaying encounters.

There are games that can do so. It is not impossible. GURPS can be played ultra gritty or super cinematic depending on what options are plugged in. The problem is that D&D is not generic, it is fairly specific with its traditions. It would be difficult to manage and still keep the " D&Dness" intact.

I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time then.

I think the core of your statement remains true, to a point. What "D&D-ness" is, is different for different people, or at very least it can be perceived differently.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You can have narrative, in the sense of "story elements" that isn't explicitly narration. Maybe my group is just odd, but we often explore the story, the narrative, through roleplaying and roleplaying encounters.

Story elements are added to the story, which can be told after play is concluded.

I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time then.

Impossible. I was referring to the design of a theoretical D&D game that provided mechanics and options for both styles of play.

 

[Dausuul]

Fighter Daily Powers: On the other hand, years later I still see complains about this one. Why?

First of all, Dnd culture has known for years that one primary difference between Wizards and fighters is that wizards have limited spells, and a fighter can fight all day long. That convention has been around a long time, and still affects our expectations.

But even with that people are generally comfortable with encounter powers for fighters. So the idea that the fighter isn't at full strength every moment has been generally accepted. So why encounter powers and not dailies?

For the record, I have a problem with both encounter and daily powers for fighters. My problem is that they use the Vancian "use it and lose it" model; you get to use each of your encounter powers exactly once per encounter. You can use Attack Power X once and Attack Power Y once, but you can't use Attack Power X twice, or Attack Power Y twice. This makes no sense. It was bad enough when it was just wizards and clerics who had to deal with that crap.

(This is a source of some bitterness for me, actually. I've disliked Vancian casting since I started playing in 1987. When 4E was under development, they promised me non-Vancian wizards. But when the game finally came out, not only were wizards still Vancian, every other class was Vancian too! Until Essentials came out, I was stuck with the Vancian mechanic no matter what, and I still don't have a non-Vancian spellcaster option.)

 

[Incenjucar]

Fighter powers are usually reliable, so they can actually use them over and over and over again until they hit.

Once they hit, doing it AGAIN is going to start making the fight boring, so they do something else.

 

[Dausuul]

Once they hit, doing it AGAIN is going to start making the fight boring, so they do something else.

I know why the mechanic works the way it does in a metagame sense. My point is that it's incomprehensible in terms of what's going on in the game world. You don't stop using a winning tactic because it's boring.

(I should also add that from a metagame perspective, it's lazy design. It's an attempt to impose variety by fiat; you want people to not use the same power over and over, but instead of putting some thought into designing powers that are useful in different situations, you just disallow using the same power twice.)

 

[billd91]

I know why the mechanic works the way it does in a metagame sense. My point is that it's incomprehensible in terms of what's going on in the game world. You don't stop using a winning tactic because it's boring.

Encounter powers for martial characters don't really bother me, at least not all of them do. They can be seen as special moves that, once used, leave the rest of the witnesses wise to that trick. Of course, based on the fluff and general behavior of the powers, that rationale doesn't always make sense.

It also does absolutely nothing to indicate why dailies can only be used once/day.

 

[pauljathome]

Regardless, apparently it was enough of an issue that it is no longer automatic - it's been errata'd to include a roll. So what you point out here is no longer completely correct.

I'm definitely refering to the original CAGI. I stopped tracking 4th ed changes in any detail well over a year ago

I am not trying to force anyone to change their ways here - by all means, play however you like. I enjoy the narrativist approach though, and any new edition will have to take that into account, or it will fail to capture a significant portion of the gamers out there.

I'm most certainly not trying to convince anybody that their way of gaming is BadWrongFun. Just trying to point out why I think that 4th ed went too far for personal taste.

I think that you've nailed the problem on the head with this last, however.

For better or for worse I think that the split between 3rd (including PF) and 4th has made the age old differences between gaming styles far more visible than before. Trying to make a 5th edition that will be a sufficient compromise to make me want to adopt it while also making it one that YOU will want to adopt is going to be very, very difficult. And trying too hard could easily alienate both of us.

 

[Pour]

I think 4e actually relies a lot less than past editions on the mechanics informing the in-game. During real play many, many powers across classes are not described, and certainly not tyrannized, by the flavor text or mechanics. I think a lot of non-4e players are looking for direct correlations between mechanics like encounter/daily, or half damage on a miss, or losing healing surges and the game world, and I'm not sure many 4thers really play that way.

The encounter/daily business with a martial character is just a mechanically better move that is in a character's arsenal, which, at some point in the game, the player decides to use- maybe during a difficult fight, or when the condition or benefit is ideal. No one in any table, Encounters session, Maptool, or VT game that I've seen has stumbled over this notion that the fighter can no longer swing his sword in a 'daily power way'. I mean it doesn't even cross into player minds why they can't do it again. Players know that there is an allotted amount of game resources- but, unlike past edition wizards memorizing spells and that, then, being described directly in-game as a fusion of mechanics and game world (and in doing kind of forcing a setting assumption into every core game)- 4e mechanics have whatever in-game affect you want them to. 4e is huge on reflavoring and personalizing. I really believe it a strength.