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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 5957865" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Excellent thoughts.That's not exactly my understanding of fortune in the middle. I'd interpret one example of FitM to be more like this:1. Determine likelihood of action occurring. 2. Roll to determine provisional result.3. Dramatize action, providing potential statistical alterations of provisional result, to create the final result.Example:Player: "I swing my sword at the ogre."*Rolls poorly*GM: "The ogre leans back, increasing the distance between him and your sword, it doesn't appear that you'll make contact."Player: "I leap forward, throwing myself off balance as I attempt to carve into him with my sword."*GM adds statistical bonus to previous provisional result*GM: "Your gambit pays off, as your sword carves a shallow wound across the ogre's chest before you crash into the ground at his feet."And there are a variety of other ways I'm sure it could be manifested.However, I really like the distinction you bring out. While I love FitM as I explained it above, I dislike 4Es version of whatever it is we're talking about here. This discussion truly encapsulates the issue a lot more directly and clearly than most other posts have regarding why some of us don't enjoy 4Es techniques in that area.A looser interpretation of FitM would apply to most versions of D&D that I've played. It's usual in my experience to give a broad description of what we're attempting to do, ie, "I attack," or "I stab at his face," followed by a die roll, and then a dramatization by the DM connecting the result of the die roll to the initial descriptions. "You hit" or "Your spear misses his face, but scrapes across his shoulder for X damage." On the other hand, I'd probably refer to that as a fortune at the end scenario, since the narration of action resolution no longer has any game effect after the dice are rolled.4E seems like more of a dual-channel action resolution. You have a mechanical resolution and then a dramatic description that can be entirely unrelated to the mechanical resolution. An example would be for those who prefer to have hit points be totally disconnected to whether or not attacks cause injury (a hit can cause no injury, and a miss can cause injury).One interpretation would be to call 4E a fortune at the beginning model, since you get the best results if you just roll to see what the mechanical effects are, and then do *all* your description afterwards--even deciding whether or not your hit is a hit.As referring to this topic, 4E appears to try to wed a strong gamist approach with a strong narrativist approach, with very minimal simulationism. I don't care for that uneasy alliance myself, but a lot of people like it, and that's good for them.</blockquote>

Verification