Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[pemerton]

It's the most tactically sound (though not necessarily the most interesting or exciting narratively) action available.

Not when it's based around interacting with them on an optimal tactical level as opossed to an organic or narrative level.

What I feel is missing here, based on my own experience, is that unlike many combat-focused fantasy RPGs 4e allows the player to signficiantly dictate tactical soundness by choices made both in PC building and in play, with the result that the play of combat can be very expressive of the character of the PC.

If others find it more constraining in this respect than in other versions of D&D or other classic fanatsy RPGs, that's quite interesting, and quite a different experience from mine.

 

[Imaro]

What I feel is missing here, based on my own experience, is that unlike many combat-focused fantasy RPGs 4e allows the player to signficiantly dictate tactical soundness by choices made both in PC building and in play, with the result that the play of combat can be very expressive of the character of the PC.

Before I comment on this I want to make sure I understand you properly. When you make the claim that play of combat can be very expressive of the character could you please give an example of this?

If others find it more constraining in this respect than in other versions of D&D or other classic fanatsy RPGs, that's quite interesting, and quite a different experience from mine.

I've found it more constraining in the sense that character's actions tend to affect the group as a whole in 4e more than they seemed to in 3.x and thus doing something sub-optimal... even if it is expressive of the character... is more likely to hurt not just you, but the group as well, and the other players aren't usually too forgiving of this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I tend not to enjoy games where the in-game outcome of an action doesn't have an influence on resolution of any future actions. If I use my spear to push back a kobold with a rusty dagger, and the fact that I pushed him back and should have some kind of reach advantage doesn't change future resolution, I stop describing what I'm doing in-game.

Yet 4e is blessed with an excellent system in this regard, almost too good.

However I'd just like to point out one thing. RPGs are fairly abstract. Remember the post about the guy with all the detailed rules for fighting with greatswords, only to find out when he talked to someone knowledgeable on the subject that his theories were simply wrong. Likewise, who's to say that jabbing your spear at a Kobold is going to prove advantageous? A lot of things could happen. A character who's a real expert on using a spear (Maybe Using say Polearm Momentum to depict this) might well be expert enough to guarantee the result you describe. Other characters? Not so much. For instance what stops the player of the Kobold (the DM presumably) from describing his action as grabbing your spear and moving inside your reach to gut you with a nasty uppercut?

Nor does it seem to me that using powers precludes or inhibits one from using them in creative ways. It seems to me that the powers simply give you a baseline of things the player understands his character is good at. He can still undertake other actions. I'd also say that hit points are a big thing here. The example of grabbing your opponent's sword arm illustrates this. You're simply not going to neutralize a skilled and determined (IE non-minion opponent with substantial hit points) THAT easily. Again, the DM would be perfectly reasonable to describe the response "Your opponent skillfully shifts the sword to her other hand, jabbing at your face!"

I'm coming to understand that people have certain ideas about the style of description being used at a table. Yes, it is more colorful to describe your attacks in detail. In a sense this comes back to the earlier "immersion" thing. Colorful descriptive language is not RP. Ryan's actors can no more improve a bad plot than a player describing a creative use of his sword is RPing his character better than the player of the other character who's dwarf unleashes a daily because he hates orcs even if it isn't the most clever thing he could do.

Mostly I just don't see this hypothesized decoupling thing at all. That gets really at the heart of LostSoul's position. I guess we probably talked this through a few threads ago though

Anyway, carry on...

 

[LostSoul]

LostSoul, I think your description of the 4e variant is, perhaps, a little sparse - because of your footnotes in your first description, it's a bit hard to tell how much of the original narative is essential to the resolution and how much colour - for example, why does Martial Awareness cause the hairs to rise on the back of the neck when a successful roll is made, but Passive Perception not? And presumably the grappling hook can appear out of nowhere, Kronos be a wily mage and so on in regular 4e. The spider climb would also give a bonus to resist being pulled off the wall in 4e, because it would mean that the climbing target doesn't grant combat advantage.

The main thing that I can see in your hack description that clearly wouldn't come into play in regular 4e would be the description of the grabbing of the sword hand.

The narrative is important to resolution because it determines stats used, modifiers, the DC rolled against, and what happens as a result of success. None of that is pre-set, it's all determined by the description of the action. Powers tend to do what they do but the description of the action is important because it can net you modifiers to that roll and future ones, in addition to changing the fictional situation, allowing you to do something you may not have been able to before.

Narration isn't exactly essential, you can still just say "I attack" and we're good to go. Since it's a challenge-based game, smart play requires describing what you're doing and taking advantage of the details of the game world.

In 4E the situation would have played out generally the same, but I think that, for me, the picture in my head of what was going on wouldn't be as vivid.

Martial Awareness is used over a general Perception skill because there's no general Perception skill. It adds a little colour to what's going on. Martial Awareness is both narrower and broader than Perception; you couldn't use it to catch the card-shark sneaking an ace from his sleeve, since it doesn't have to do with danger and violence, but you can use it for Insight-related tasks, such as realizing that someone is planning to stab you in the face. Someone with the background skill "Gambler" would be able to spot that card, but not have a clue that someone's lurking in ambush, and would probably know when a card game is going to turn ugly.

Um... so! The colour is important to resolution because without the colour of Martial Awareness I don't know if there's a conflict or not.

I also agree with your comment about earlier outcomes affecting subsequent resolutions - in 4e this tends to be confined to the imposition of conditions or to the resolution of forced movement, which is not all that fine grained.

Agreed.

 

[LostSoul]

Yet 4e is blessed with an excellent system in this regard, almost too good.

Yes, very much so!

However I'd just like to point out one thing. RPGs are fairly abstract. Remember the post about the guy with all the detailed rules for fighting with greatswords, only to find out when he talked to someone knowledgeable on the subject that his theories were simply wrong. Likewise, who's to say that jabbing your spear at a Kobold is going to prove advantageous? A lot of things could happen. A character who's a real expert on using a spear (Maybe Using say Polearm Momentum to depict this) might well be expert enough to guarantee the result you describe. Other characters? Not so much. For instance what stops the player of the Kobold (the DM presumably) from describing his action as grabbing your spear and moving inside your reach to gut you with a nasty uppercut?

Somewhere upthread I mentioned something about aesthetic preferences. I think this is where the come into play. Maybe you want hyper-realism; maybe you want more of a swords & sorcery vibe, or a high-fantasy one. That preference should determine if poking the spear at the kobold is advantageous or not.

It's possible that poking the spear could be a bad move! Kobolds are shifty, so he takes advantage of your reach and slides in and stabs you in the gut! +2 to his attack roll.

I think in D&D the DM is in the best position to make this call, but that's only for a specific style of play. There are other ways to determine if that kobold should get an advantage or not - in FATE, he could use his Shifty trait for a +2 bonus; the DM doesn't have to be the one who makes the judgement call there.

Nor does it seem to me that using powers precludes or inhibits one from using them in creative ways. It seems to me that the powers simply give you a baseline of things the player understands his character is good at. He can still undertake other actions. I'd also say that hit points are a big thing here. The example of grabbing your opponent's sword arm illustrates this. You're simply not going to neutralize a skilled and determined (IE non-minion opponent with substantial hit points) THAT easily. Again, the DM would be perfectly reasonable to describe the response "Your opponent skillfully shifts the sword to her other hand, jabbing at your face!"

Definitely not!

What happened was that the NPC spent that round casting Sleep and Dhalia spent that round forcing the NPC's sword hand to her throat; even though she missed, in my judgement as DM I don't think swapping hands would have been possible because of the position of the sword after Dhalia's action. (Even if the NPC had a hand free - one hand was stuck via Spider Climb to the tower wall so she wouldn't fall to her death. Oh yeah, and casting spells doesn't require gestures, though sometimes they help.)

I'm coming to understand that people have certain ideas about the style of description being used at a table. Yes, it is more colorful to describe your attacks in detail. In a sense this comes back to the earlier "immersion" thing. Colorful descriptive language is not RP. Ryan's actors can no more improve a bad plot than a player describing a creative use of his sword is RPing his character better than the player of the other character who's dwarf unleashes a daily because he hates orcs even if it isn't the most clever thing he could do.

Mostly I just don't see this hypothesized decoupling thing at all. That gets really at the heart of LostSoul's position. I guess we probably talked this through a few threads ago though

Yeah, I'm understanding other people's positions more and more as we talk about this. One thing that happens to me is that I easily shift back into my default assumptions about play, which are biased by my own desires. That's why we go over this so often and I don't "get it"; it can be hard for me to grasp that different point of view, especially when I'm focused on something else and some time has passed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, very much so!



Somewhere upthread I mentioned something about aesthetic preferences. I think this is where the come into play. Maybe you want hyper-realism; maybe you want more of a swords & sorcery vibe, or a high-fantasy one. That preference should determine if poking the spear at the kobold is advantageous or not.

It's possible that poking the spear could be a bad move! Kobolds are shifty, so he takes advantage of your reach and slides in and stabs you in the gut! +2 to his attack roll.

I suppose it could partly be a genre convention, yeah. I hadn't really thought too much about that kind of thing in those terms, but it could definitely help set the mood of the story depending on the kind of results you'd get.

I think in D&D the DM is in the best position to make this call, but that's only for a specific style of play. There are other ways to determine if that kobold should get an advantage or not - in FATE, he could use his Shifty trait for a +2 bonus; the DM doesn't have to be the one who makes the judgement call there.

Right, it could be up to the players and mediated with story mechanics. Oddly I prefer either way of doing it, lol. I think the more action focused type of mechanics like 4e can be more hard edged, and a more FATE-like style tends more towards the dramatic (or even silly at times, but we like silly).

Definitely not!

What happened was that the NPC spent that round casting Sleep and Dhalia spent that round forcing the NPC's sword hand to her throat; even though she missed, in my judgement as DM I don't think swapping hands would have been possible because of the position of the sword after Dhalia's action. (Even if the NPC had a hand free - one hand was stuck via Spider Climb to the tower wall so she wouldn't fall to her death. Oh yeah, and casting spells doesn't require gestures, though sometimes they help.)

Right, I see it as just a style difference. My answer would be "well, I'm no close combat expert, so I'll just use the mechanics as an inspiration for whatever happens next" (but a player can for example use page 42 or maybe a specific power to create a situation). So, I'd assume the NPC can get free, at least potentially, enough to say switch hands, the description of the action will come out OK. I think there's room to use either technique.

Yeah, I'm understanding other people's positions more and more as we talk about this. One thing that happens to me is that I easily shift back into my default assumptions about play, which are biased by my own desires. That's why we go over this so often and I don't "get it"; it can be hard for me to grasp that different point of view, especially when I'm focused on something else and some time has passed.

Oh, it is a common condition, lol. We all tend to stick to our habitual ways of working these things out and thinking about them. I think though with playing 4e pretty much straight for 3 years I'm getting restless. Going to work on a Lovecraftian/reincarnation/time travel mini-campaign with 4 co-DMs, lol. BRP isn't exactly a 'story telling' system, but it is a little looser than 4e, and it will be good to just get away from the whole forensic analysis of 4e and WotC that has been going on for the last 3 years too, lol.

 

[pemerton]

doing something sub-optimal... even if it is expressive of the character... is more likely to hurt not just you, but the group as well

My contention - and it's based primarily in my own experience, which may well be atypical - is that 4e lends itself to building a PC, and then playing that PC, in such a way that being expressive of the character is not suboptimal.

A simple example is the AC rules, that guarantee that ACs are in a pretty narrow range compared to earlier editions (where a starting MU might have AC 10 - 50%+ chance for NPCs/monsters to hit - while a starting fighter have AC as low as 2, meaning a 20% or less chance for monsters to hit). This means that choices by players as to the sorts of risks to which they expose their PCs are less constrained by considerations of "will this kill me" and more open to considerations of "what would it be like to try this?!".

Page 42 damage expressions, which aim at keeping the damage from stunts on a par with encounter powers, are a similar example.

So what I see in 4e is things like the drow sorcerer from time to time taking the front line (especially if the dwarf polearm fighter is in poor health or down) while muttering to himself about the unreliability of dwarves. Of course the sorcerer isn't a defender, and so can't do this for a whole combat, but he has sufficient resources (a range of defensive and aggressive close bursts) and the AC and hit points that mean this is not the death sentence that it would be in RM, RQ or classic D&D.

My experience with issues like focus-fire vs failures of coordination, choices as to who to heal, and the like are similar - the system seems to me to be very tolerant of player choices, meaning that an interesting range of options is available without the mechanics pushing always in a single direction.

When you make the claim that play of combat can be very expressive of the character could you please give an example of this?

I posted some upthread - the conflict between the chaos sorcerer and the imp Twitch, the ranger taking control of the Behemoth, and the tiefling paladin charging through the wall of a burning house to rescue the dwarf fighter.

Another example that come out in the play of my game is the contrast between the dwarf fighter and the tiefling paladin - the first the party anchor, a polearm melee controller who can hold the frontline against a huge number of foes (about 7, at one stage, in the combat described in my earlier post), the second a servant of the Raven Queen and much more of a lone wolf in combat, moving about to lock down and potentially pick off indiviual foes that he regards as to great a threat for anyone else in the party to handle.

The chaos sorcerer and the tome wizard, despite both being multi-target arcane casters who use a range of damage types and exercise quite a degree of control, also play very differently in ways that are expressive of their personality - brash, quick, brutal vs cautious, deliberate, sometimes subtle.

Very obviously this is not great literature (hence my reference to Marvel Comics above!). But it's not nothing, either. And it's supported by and expressed via the mechanics in a way that I find quite different from classic D&D, RM, RQ etc.

 

[pemerton]

The narrative is important to resolution because it determines stats used, modifiers, the DC rolled against, and what happens as a result of success. None of that is pre-set, it's all determined by the description of the action. Powers tend to do what they do but the description of the action is important because it can net you modifiers to that roll and future ones, in addition to changing the fictional situation, allowing you to do something you may not have been able to before.

<snip>

The colour is important to resolution because without the colour of Martial Awareness I don't know if there's a conflict or not.

Makes sense.

Your descriptions make me think back to the conflict between Jett the sorcerer and Twitch the imp:

Jett the drow chaos sorcerer, finding himself surrounded by bugbear assassins, summons the winds of change, pushing the bugbears away and flying to the top of a nearby building [the fly and push are part of the spell; the fact that it is a wind spell is colour that didn't affect resolution]. Landing on the roof, he sees that the building is on fire. He focuses on the chaotic energy coursing through him to repel the heat and flame [uses a paragon path feature to change his resistance from acid to fire] and makes his way along the beams beneath the thatch so that he can aid his comrades in the battle raging on the other side of the house [Acrobatics check to avoid falling off the roof or through the thatch].

As Jett blasts the hobgoblins below with psychic energy [using Chaos Bolt] he is shocked to see his old nemesis, the imp Twitch, appear from nowhere next to him. "Have you mastered the chaos yet, Jett?" taunts Twitch as his stinging tail pierces Jett's side [I place a token to represent the imp, and his attack from combat advantage beats Jett's AC]. At the same moment, Tillen - Jett's paladin ally fighting hobgoblins down below - calls out words of support to Jett (I can't remember exactly what, but something like "I can help if you want") and a beam of light strikes Twitch - his stinger does not go all the way in, though the poison still starts coursing through Jett's veins [Ray of Reprisal meaning half damage, though full ongoing poison damage - the fact that I had described Twitch's attack as a stinger in the side makes no difference to the resolution of Ray of Reprisal].

etc, etc - Twitch turns invisible again, flies off, comes back and tries again but Jett thwarts him by using some sort of defensive interrupt. Twitch then escapes invisible with 5 hp lef.​

I've tried to indicate in square brackets where the colour mattered to resoultion, and where not. There are obvious limitations on 4e's richness, and some of the colour in my account is mere colour, but by no means all of it. At the time it didn't feel like a boardgame, and writing it up has not made me feel differently.

 

[LostSoul]

Thanks for that account of play, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. I think that can provide good evidence that what I am looking for in terms of fictional content in action declaration doesn't mean that others need that same level of detail in order to include fictional positioning into action resolution - and that 4E doesn't necessarily need that level to provide a vivid account of play.

This whole discussion has been enlightening, because I now see that what I think is a necessary level of fictional material is a personal preference, not a required element of play. That ties into what [MENTION=27583]yeloson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6674918]andy3k[/MENTION] were saying about fictional positioning in their own 4E games.

 

[LostSoul]

My contention - and it's based primarily in my own experience, which may well be atypical - is that 4e lends itself to building a PC, and then playing that PC, in such a way that being expressive of the character is not suboptimal.

<snip snip>

Very obviously this is not great literature (hence my reference to Marvel Comics above!). But it's not nothing, either. And it's supported by and expressed via the mechanics in a way that I find quite different from classic D&D, RM, RQ etc.

This is my point of view as well. I think that 4E is especially well-suited (in terms of D&D) to deliver the type of play that pemerton is looking for. The choice of powers, when one uses said powers, how those interact with the other powers - there's a lot of fertile ground for that kind of play.

I am not so interested in that kind of play at the moment with 4E - I want more "challenge-based" play, where the players are expected to step on up to the challenge that the game provides; but I can see how the selection of powers and when to use them provides that kind of choice to players during the game.

Personally I think that the new "monster math" has enabled that sort of play even more; I'd like to hear more from [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] about that.