D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[S'mon]

I think it is fair to say there is a big difference between physically forcing a weapon out of a person's hand and forcing them to choose to walk over to you. It is also choice operating on a much smaller scale than physically moving on the battlefield from point A to point B. that is the sort of choice gamers expect to be in the hands of the person playing the character. Movement is something you normally have control over in the game.

Yes - this is a big problem with many gamers, and their limited understanding of how the world actually works.

4e is a better combat simulation than chess is (or many wargames are) in that regard at least.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes - this is a big problem with many gamers, and their limited understanding of how the world actually works.

4e is a better combat simulation than chess is (or many wargames are) in that regard at least.

I dont think come and get does a particularly good job simulating real life combat.

 

[D'karr]

I dont think come and get does a particularly good job simulating real life combat.

LOL - To my mind, no version of D&D has ever done a particularly good job of simulating real life combat. Hit points? Please.

But CaGI is not simulating real life combat. It's figuratively showing Bruce Lee standing in the middle of a room, and motioning with a flick of his outstretched hand for a horde of opponents to "Come and Get Some."

 

[S'mon]

I dont think come and get does a particularly good job simulating real life combat.

Simulates it better (esp post-errata) than the 'chess piece' approach does, anyway.

 

[Argyle King]

I never had too much of a problem with CaGI on its own. What struck me as being occasionally odd was that I could use CaGI and the enemy would commit suicide by trying to walk through a wall of fire to get to me. In time, it was easier to just accept it as part of how 4E worked and to also accept that maybe I shouldn't limit myself to only D&D if there were aspects of my ideal playstyle that I wanted to highlight. That seemed easier (as well as far more satisfying) than trying to force a game to be something it wasn't designed to be.

 

[D'karr]

I never had too much of a problem with CaGI on its own. What struck me as being occasionally odd was that I could use CaGI and the enemy would commit suicide by trying to walk through a wall of fire to get to me. In time, it was easier to just accept it as part of how 4E worked and to also accept that maybe I shouldn't limit myself to only D&D if there were aspects of my ideal playstyle that I wanted to highlight. That seemed easier (as well as far more satisfying) than trying to force a game to be something it wasn't designed to be.

The general rules for hindering terrain should not have been invalidated by CaGI. No enemy should have ever crossed a wall of fire to reach you without at least a save.

In addition, if the wall of fire was enough to block line of sight CaGI doesn't work.

 

[Argyle King]

The general rules for hindering terrain should not have been invalidated by CaGI. No enemy should have ever crossed a wall of fire to reach you without at least a save.

In addition, if the wall of fire was enough to block line of sight CaGI doesn't work.

Errata?

It's been quite a while since I've played 4E, but I was of the impression that CaGI required line of effect; not line of sight. Even then, the only reason I chose wall of fire is because it was an easy example. There are similar effects which don't block sight and aren't considered hindering terrain.

 

[D'karr]

Errata?

Possibly. I only mentioned it because the example you mentioned is not applicable with the rules as they are today.

I understand the issue, I just didn't want to spend countless pages arguing about a mechanic which is no longer applicable.

 

[pemerton]

I think it is fair to say there is a big difference between physically forcing a weapon out of a person's hand and forcing them to choose to walk over to you.

I'm not sure that "choose" is the right word. When you hit someone hard in the stomach, they may double over - I woudn't say they "choose" to, though - even if it might be the case that a tough enough person may be able to control the tendency to collapse in pain.

if you dont have a problem with this mechanic, that is fine. If it doesn't create these issues for you, I can see how you might like it. But it genuinely does create problems for me.

I've never disputed this.

I just find it frustrating that people have trouble accepting 1) 4e is not a fun game for some people and 2) part of the reason is things ike this disrupt some peoples sense of disbelief

I don't know how much of the thread you have read, but if you go back through the first few pages you'll see that this is a thread about GMing 4e, and in particular about how to exploit various features of the game - particularly its orientation towards metagame framing and resolution rather than "organic" extrapolation via process simulation.

In that context, I was responding to two things:

(1) The claim that such a game cannot produce immersion. I know this to be false from my own experience.

(2) The claim that Come and Get It involves the PC dictating (via mind control?) the actions of others, and is therefore objectionable. Which is not really true - it is in the first instance the player, not the PC, who dictates. But also there are many other ways both in real life an in an RPG that a player can describe his/her PC's action in a way that implicates the behaviour of NPCs.

I don't care if someone doesn't like this sort of play. But I am sick of being told that the sort of play I prefer isn't possible, or must have features and consequences that I know it need not.

The argument about it reminds me of people that have stated that they will not play, or even consider game X if it has Y option. How about just not playing with Y option? I know it's all preference, but some arguments take absurd to the limit, IMO.

I agree with your posts over the last two or three pages.

I don't disagree with this one too, but wanted to add a caveat: for some games, adding in the option to do X can require that the chassis of the game be built in a certain way to make room for X. In some cases, I can imagine that the constraints this imposes on the chassis of the game would make it such that it probably wouldn't be for me.

 

[D'karr]

I don't disagree with this one too, but wanted to add a caveat: for some games, adding in the option to do X can require that the chassis of the game be built in a certain way to make room for X. In some cases, I can imagine that the constraints this imposes on the chassis of the game would make it such that it probably wouldn't be for me.

Sure, that's why I'm talking specifically of an optional component. When I see a game that has built in "options" labeled as such, I think that the base chassis can do with, or without the option. I'm thinking about Moldvay D&D with its optional rule for variable weapon damages, for example. The game could use the option, or not, without any issue.

But I do understand when specific options have built-in hooks that would be very difficult to remove/ignore from the base chassis, and I can agree with your comment when it comes to that.