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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Argyle King

Legend
BTW this thread has convinced me not to let CAGI drag enemies through obviously damaging spell effects, should that ever come up! :D It's pretty unlikely but a theoretical corner case.


I wouldn't worry about it too much. There are combos which are far more potent than CaGI and a damaging effect.

One which comes to mind is one I was party to. In a past 4E campaign, both my character and the character of another player had access to Thunderwave. He was a wizard, and I was a half-elf; I had gotten to a level where I was able to turn my Dilettante power into an at-will. A potent tactic of ours was to put up a damaging wall between us and then proceed to play Thunderwave ping pong.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Upon further reflection, I wouldn't say it necessarily bothered me. However, I would say it added some amount of comedy to how I envisioned the 4E world.

In a similar comedic vein, I remember using Mirror Sphere and causing an enemy with a swallow whole attack to eat itself.

It is interesting, there are a number of powers in 4e (mostly martial ones, often rogue powers, but some others) that lend themselves quite well to a rather comedic tone. Bowl Over is a good example. CaGI can do it too, and there are plenty of other powers that can be fluffed that way. Honestly I think 4e is the easiest edition to make that sort of slapstick game in. I don't know if the designers deliberately thought about it that way, though I suspect a few powers are hard to interpret any other way. Of course older editions had some stuff along similar veins. Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter and Otto's Irresistible Dance certainly fall into that category.
 

Again, if that works for you, then I encourage you to continue doing so. In no way am I saying you ought to share my concerns about the power. But for me, the problem here is, in effect, the npc has no choice about lunging either....the lunging arises as an after the fact explanation of the use of come and get it.

I've heard this stated by a few people before. I'm curious about what the reasoning is. I mean an NPC doesn't exist, and doesn't have free will, and nobody is exercising their agency in the game via an NPC (the DM can be, but has limitless agency, its not like he's LOSING something). So I have not been able to get what is going on here. An NPC is "scenery" effectively, is it really that bad if a player can decide to move a bit of the set around now and then? He's still obliged to narrate it, and the DM could always say "no" if he wants.
 


I've heard this stated by a few people before. I'm curious about what the reasoning is. I mean an NPC doesn't exist, and doesn't have free will, and nobody is exercising their agency in the game via an NPC (the DM can be, but has limitless agency, its not like he's LOSING something). So I have not been able to get what is going on here. An NPC is "scenery" effectively, is it really that bad if a player can decide to move a bit of the set around now and then? He's still obliged to narrate it, and the DM could always say "no" if he wants.

That is my problem, it treats npcs like scenery rather than characters in the setting. because the npc is under the control of the GM, he is not an extension of the PC. There is a breakdown for me in terms what the pc is actually doing. To me the ability feels like spme kind of tractor beem or a too powerful social mechanic. I get that others are not seeing it this way. Personally i find it disrupts my immersion. For me it is very important that it feels like NPCs have agency and outside my character (same for the setting itself).
 

That is my problem, it treats npcs like scenery rather than characters in the setting. because the npc is under the control of the GM, he is not an extension of the PC. There is a breakdown for me in terms what the pc is actually doing. To me the ability feels like spme kind of tractor beem or a too powerful social mechanic. I get that others are not seeing it this way. Personally i find it disrupts my immersion. For me it is very important that it feels like NPCs have agency and outside my character (same for the setting itself).

Yeah, I just see it as a plot coupon, the player gets to decide a bit of something about the NPC, that it will be sucked into whatever narrative that the player comes up with for CaGI.
 

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
Some people don't like plot coupons. I don't like much of them in fantasy games, but I'm okay with them in my superhero games (which we play every few months). But that's me. Lots of people are fine with plot coupons in all games, or heavily prefer them. When you say "I'm curious about what the reasoning is" it's a little odd, to me. It's just a preference thing. I mean, we can get into that, but it basically eventually all boils down to "this is fun for me", doesn't it? As always, play what you like :)
 


timASW

Banned
Banned
That is my problem, it treats npcs like scenery rather than characters in the setting. because the npc is under the control of the GM, he is not an extension of the PC. There is a breakdown for me in terms what the pc is actually doing. To me the ability feels like spme kind of tractor beem or a too powerful social mechanic. I get that others are not seeing it this way. Personally i find it disrupts my immersion. For me it is very important that it feels like NPCs have agency and outside my character (same for the setting itself).

Exactly how i see it
 

timASW

Banned
Banned
Yeah, I just see it as a plot coupon, the player gets to decide a bit of something about the NPC, that it will be sucked into whatever narrative that the player comes up with for CaGI.

I loath the concept of "plot coupons" for players and their effects on a game.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top