Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[P1NBACK]

Just to clarify: I am not "anti-4E". I'm here checking up on, discussing the game because I dig a lot of things 4E brought to the table (pun intended). I play in a bi-weekly 4E campaign, I've ran numerous 4E campaigns, and I'm a current D&D Insider subscriber (I think that's just about the most "fanlike" you can become, subscribing to the poor quality of D&DI [it has potential I tell ya!]).

However, I am criticizing what I see as faults in 4E's core design ethos. I'm not saying "you can't roleplay 4E" or any of that diatribe. I'm saying, "some mechanics in 4E are antithetical to inspiring creative and imaginative gameplay, which I feel is one of the most powerful aspects of tabletop roleplaying games."

That's a far cry from what I gather some of you are interpreting my posts as.

It's all good. There's a ton of baggage in this forum. I get it. And, I'll politely refrain from further discussion as to omit this perception of "edition-warring".

I'll take my observations, opinions, thoughts, ideas, etc. elsewhere, dudes!

Thanks for the insightful discussion, particularly, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], [MENTION=23977]Scribble[/MENTION], [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION], [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] (despite our ardent disagreements), etc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Herschel, we're going to have absolutely agree to disagree here. I don't think we have much to talk about if you think system is irrelevant to the outcomes at the table.

For once we agree.

Nah, that's not true.

You need to do something in order to roll damage right? You can't just say, "Ok, I roll damage."

The GM will look at you like, "Wtf? No. What are you doing?"

Of course the GM will. That's because you haven't rolled to hit first. "I attack him, hitting AC -3. Five damage." Works.

Even though, when I DM 4E, I always ask, "What happens? How are you doing that?" etc. Unfortunately, it's largely irrelevant to the resolution of said mechanic.

Just like any description at all of what you do with your weapons in 1E unless you are attacking something that isn't the enemy. 4e has, however, some of the description baked into the rules.

I disagree. Components alone tell you something about the fiction occurring. Verbal? You're chanting then yeah? What happens when you're gagged? The rules lead into the fiction. And, vice versa.

Oh, they do. (I just wish they weren't terrible puns). But why on earth do you claim that little details like components tell you something about the fiction occurring when you seem to think that large details like where someone moves, how they move (a casual or fast move is different from the more careful shift is different again from flying and is different again from teleporting), whether they push someone back or knock them over, and much much more doesn't?

And for that matter components don't say much about who the person using them is (with the exceptions of ones like brain of infant). The difference between a puff of sand to put someone to sleep and a tin piece to give them a penny for their thoughts (not the exact components but certainly in the spirit) isn't more than a curlicue. On the other hand where someone is and how they move says a lot about their character in ways that following a preset recipie from a recipie book does not. I don't care whether the recipie calls for feather of duck or eye of newt - it's just a recipie I'm following. And whether spells have verbal or somatic portions is simply binary and is just part of the recipie. It's something to interact with but says very little about the person following the recipie.

OTOH, from numerous reports of those who played with Mr. Gygax, Gary didn't use minis.

Believe it or not, most of the time Gary Gygax didn't play by the book 1e AD&D. He played what he chose to at the time and what he wrote down was only a loose approximation of what he played (or in some cases explicitely conflicted with it).

Moreover, examples in 1e do not assume the use of minis,

And this is actually a good point.

 

[Scribble]

How is that possibly true? You need to know how you are attacking to determine damage die, no? You can't just say, "I attack" without some sort of description, like, "with my axe..." and get a damage result.

Not true. See above. The DM needs that information in order to resolve the attack. "How are you attacking? Are you using your axe, or your bow?"

It's necessarily information to resolve the attack.

Sure... I still fail to see the difference you're making here.

I attack with a sword is no different then I attack with Phoenix blast.

Yup. Exactly. It's completely disassociated from what you are actually doing.

Again only if YOU want it to be.

If you have all the necessary information, "I attack with my sword." Sure. That's fiction though, right? Then we go to rules... "Roll d20. Roll for damage."

4E can occur like this: "Footwork Lure, Roll d20, Slide 1, Roll for damage." Success! "Oh, cool, I attack him with my sword and he falls forward."

Or, it can be any other description you want to make up. "Oh, I swing my sword in the air and it creates a whirlwind that blows the guy toward me and I slap him in the face with my sword blade..."

It doesn't really matter what you say, does it?

Just like I could say I dive forward desperately swinging my sword in a graceful arc toward his chest... Which ultimately boils down to rolling ad20- it doesn't matter what you say.

There's a difference between ignoring the fiction, and not requiring the fiction.

If someone says, "I hit AC. I do 10 damage." I'm going to say, "Huh?" Because it makes no sense. Did you attack with your axe? Or, did you use a dagger?

"I attack with my axe" is sufficient. But, "AC, hit. 10 damage" is not. How do we know to apply 10 damage? Where did that come from?

What may be happening there is, a lack of communication. Clearly, the player is drawing the 10 damage and attack vs. AC from somewhere? Right?

Right- the player has done damage. That's the only important part for resolving the action.

Axe or Sword, or Dagger are just variable names.

We could just as easily say I attack with my blazing huffelsnuff for 10 damage, and it would mean the exact same thing.

It's like someone saying, "Dungeoneering. Success."

How do you adjudicate that? What were they trying to do? You simply can't. You need the fiction to resolve it.

What's happening is you seem to be conflating something the system NEEDs with something that helps make it enjoyable to some players.

The system doesn't NEED fiction to resolve anything. That's done through math.

Fiction leads to more enjoyment from some, (most?) players.

For some it's more fun to describe every detail of the dungeoneering check. For others, they just want to know the number they need to roll.

Luckily the system can handle both.

You keep saying this. My response is, no you need details to determine d20 bonuses, damage type, etc.

But those details come from the rules, not the fiction.

If I'm using my +1 sword, that is going to make a difference on my attack. If I'm using my dagger, that'll make a difference in damage.

Again variable names the system uses.

There is nothing inherently d6ish or d8ish about a sword that the fact that I'm using one with my character implies I should roll a d6.

You don't need "fancy words" for fiction. You just need to know what's happening.

"I swing my axe." Is as simple as it goes. But, guess what? It's fiction. And, now we know what rules to apply: d20 attack, using axe damage dice.

By contrast:

"I use Butt Fandom Squeamish Fiery Death!" Cool: d20 attack, axe damage, knock prone, poison ongoing 5.

See? What happened?

Who knows? We don't need to know. Everything is in the real world on dice, minis, character sheets, etc.[/qoute]

And this is where I think you're making a really disingenuous statement.

You're saying that Saying "I swing my ax" and then apply the rules is somehow different then saying I Use Fandom Death and then apply the rules?

In both cases we do an action and then apply the rules connected to it.

I can just as easily say he says he attacked with his axe and did 10 damage- what happened? Who knows?

 

[Herschel]

If you feel that having a lot of the tricks codified for you ahead of time limits your creativity then it generally means either:

A: The powers encompass enough of what you want to do you don't need to look elsewhere. That's good game design.
or
B: You don't have the creative desire and/or capacity to look beyond what's on the page.

That's not a system flaw, that's a personally chosen interaction with the game.

 

[Matt James]

If you feel that having a lot of the tricks codified for you ahead of time limits your creativity then it generally means either:

A: The powers encompass enough of what you want to do you don't need to look elsewhere. That's good game design.
or
B: You don't have the creative desire or capacity to look beyond what's on the page.

That's not a system flaw, that's a personally chosen interaction with the game.

Can't give Herschel XP. +1 buddy.

 

[P1NBACK]

Stuff.

Scribble, we'll just need to discuss it over beer sometime, in person. Maybe over a game.

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[P1NBACK]

If you feel that having a lot of the tricks codified for you ahead of time limits your creativity then it generally means either:

A: The powers encompass enough of what you want to do you don't need to look elsewhere. That's good game design.
or
B: You don't have the creative desire and/or capacity to look beyond what's on the page.

That's not a system flaw, that's a personally chosen interaction with the game.

Awesome. That's not the argument I'm making, though.

Cheers.

 

[Scribble]

Scribble, we'll just need to discuss it over beer sometime, in person. Maybe over a game.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Anytime man! I don't make this stuff personal I just like to debate.

 

[P1NBACK]

Anytime man! I don't make this stuff personal I just like to debate.

Definitely! I'm just getting bad vibes from certain peeps (not you). No need to perpetuate that stuff.

I think you're on my Xbox Live account, actually. We'll talk during a game sometime if I see you on.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you feel that having a lot of the tricks codified for you ahead of time limits your creativity then it generally means either:

A: The powers encompass enough of what you want to do you don't need to look elsewhere. That's good game design.
or
B: You don't have the creative desire and/or capacity to look beyond what's on the page.

That's not a system flaw, that's a personally chosen interaction with the game.

Alternatively C: The system is too big and bulky to tweak. I'd hate to add a new weapon to Rolemaster for example.