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

[D'karr]

I see your point, but this still just doesnt work for me.

And that is fine, and I'll leave it at that. It obviously works for me, in both martial arts, and the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And that is fine, and I'll leave it at that. It obviously works for me, in both martial arts, and the game.

And I am not saying it shouldn't work for you. A mechanic that accurately reflects something for one person could spoil immerssion for another and vice versa.

 

[timASW]

In martial arts this is quite a common technique, luring your opponent is commonly done. As a matter of fact it hardly requires Anna to make an attack.

Actually no its not. Manuevering backwards is typically done in very back and forth fighting styles like karate. Its is NOT done because you want your enemy to follow you. its done because you want a little breathing space because your attack style involves leaping in an out like a duelist.

And it always requires your opponent to ALSO want to follow you and keep engaged. Which is why you would see a mauy thai fighter follow the karate fighter back, his style involves staying engaged at medium or close range. But a fight between 2 karate fighters is typically a series of quick back and forth clashes because neither is attempting to follow the other up and stat at those ranges. They both want to engage back and forth at long range.

And thats the problem with Cagi style powers. They determine for the NPC what its style is and what its battle tactics are when the PC has absolutely no business being able to do so.

The way to simulate the karate style is with something like spring attack that lets you leap in, attack and leap back out. Thus forcing your opponent to move to keep up with you rather then being able to plant and focus on attacking only.

 

[D'karr]

The way to simulate the karate style is with something like spring attack that lets you leap in, attack and leap back out. Thus forcing your opponent to move to keep up with you rather then being able to plant and focus on attacking only.

And that could be exactly a game description of what the poster that put the diagram up was showing. The mechanics have completely abstracted the "description." Attack, move, slide enemy adjacent.

Somebody mentioned immersion, which I call the "bridge too far" argument. Which can also be seen in the "thinking too hard about fantasy" argument.

What the argument really says is - I have internalized all the "faults and flaws" of the D&D abstract combat model. I have made them my own. It might have taken me years to do so. Years, to convince myself that the abstract combat model, with all its inherent absurdities, is not absurd. But that abstract thing those guys "over there" are doing that is a bridge too far to cross.

It has nothing to do with the game system. No one needs mechanics to get immersed. As a matter of fact, if you concentrate on the mechanics too much, any of the mechanics, you will be completely drawn out of immersion.

If you look real close at ALL the mechanics involved in D&D's abstract combat model then immersion is completely out the window from the get-go. Some have internalized the "faulty & flawed" combat mechanics of D&D. So much so that hit points, armor class, no death spiral, "extraordinary" abilities, mostly stationary combat, etc., don't break their immersion. In no way does it mean that those things listed are not gamist metagame constructs within a completely ABSTRACT model. Just as much as martial powers are gamist metagame constructs within the same type of ABSTRACT model.

Hit Points are not wounds. Armor Class is not actual armor that "protects" you. Immersion? How is it that you get "hit" but you don't get worse in combat? There is no fatigue per se in the ABSTRACT model. You are completely combat capable at 1 out of 100 HP. Just as you are at 100 out of 100 HP.

Until 3.x there really was not much "movement" during combat. You "sat" there stationary whacking at each other. The "description" might have been that there was constant movement, and shoves, and parries. But the actual mechanical representation within the ABSTRACT model was two "tokens" adjacent to each other, with players rolling dice in some order.

3.x introduced mechanics such as the 5' step, and few penalties for moving and attacking. You would think that you would see lots of movement in combat. However, if you moved you lost all your iterative attacks. It was not, "mechanically", very advantageous to move. So combat pretty much remained "two tokens" adjacent to each other, with players rolling dice in some order.

You could still "describe" it as a series of lunges, and parries, and shoves, and attacks, and ripostes. But the ABSTRACT still remained "two tokens" locked in "deadly" combat adjacent to each other.

All these ABSTRACT mechanics when looked at as true to life combat, are absurd! If you look at them at all, they break under most scrutiny. They are not immersive, they are completely the opposite. They are game constructs designed to "organize" the chaotic environment of combat, and we accept them. But if someone dares add some mechanics, to that already ABSTRACT model, that somehow move those "two tokens" around; stop the presses - that's a bridge too far. It's baloney.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And that could be exactly a game description of what the poster that put the diagram up was showing. The mechanics have completely abstracted the "description." Attack, move, slide enemy adjacent.

Somebody mentioned immersion, which I call the "bridge too far" argument. Which can also be seen in the "thinking too hard about fantasy" argument.

What the argument really says is - I have internalized all the "faults and flaws" of the D&D abstract combat model. I have made them my own. It might have taken me years to do so. Years, to convince myself that the abstract combat model, with all its inherent absurdities, is not absurd. But that abstract thing those guys "over there" are doing that is a bridge too far to cross.

It has nothing to do with the game system. No one needs mechanics to get immersed. As a matter of fact, if you concentrate on the mechanics too much, any of the mechanics, you will be completely drawn out of immersion.

If you look real close at ALL the mechanics involved in D&D's abstract combat model then immersion is completely out the window from the get-go. Some have internalized the "faulty & flawed" combat mechanics of D&D. So much so that hit points, armor class, no death spiral, "extraordinary" abilities, mostly stationary combat, etc., don't break their immersion. In no way does it mean that those things listed are not gamist metagame constructs within a completely ABSTRACT model. Just as much as martial powers are gamist metagame constructs within the same type of ABSTRACT model.

Hit Points are not wounds. Armor Class is not actual armor that "protects" you. Immersion? How is it that you get "hit" but you don't get worse in combat? There is no fatigue per se in the ABSTRACT model. You are completely combat capable at 1 out of 100 HP. Just as you are at 100 out of 100 HP.


3.x introduced mechanics such as the 5' step, and few penalties for moving and attacking. You would think that you would see lots of movement in combat. However, if you moved you lost all your iterative attacks. It was not, "mechanically", very advantageous to move. So combat pretty much remained "two tokens" adjacent to each other, with players rolling dice in some order.

You could still "describe" it as a series of lunges, and parries, and shoves, and attacks, and ripostes. But the ABSTRACT still remained "two tokens" locked in "deadly" combat adjacent to each other.

All these ABSTRACT mechanics when looked at as true to life combat, are absurd! If you look at them at all, they break under most scrutiny. They are not immersive, they are completely the opposite. They are game constructs designed to "organize" the chaotic environment of combat, and we accept them. But if someone dares add some mechanics, to that already ABSTRACT model, that somehow move those "two tokens" around; stop the presses - that's a bridge too far. It's baloney.

I find this pretty dismissive. You might not have any trouble buying into some of these 4E mechanics. But a huge swath of the gaming community does. And many of them site issues it presents to immersion. You can try to define it away, or make arguments like "but if you accepted one abstraction in 2E you have to accept a bunch of them now" but it doesn't change the fact that these things can be problematic for some gamers. I have no problem with it not being a problem for you, but I do find it annoying when posters question my own experience of the game or try to discount something like immersion (which for a lot of people is really important).

It is also worth pointing out that immersion does not equal realism. Few people advocating immersion n D&D want a realistic combat simulator.

Until 3.x there really was not much "movement" during combat. You "sat" there stationary whacking at each other. The "description" might have been that there was constant movement, and shoves, and parries. But the actual mechanical representation within the ABSTRACT model was two "tokens" adjacent to each other, with players rolling dice in some order.

In 2E you were able to move ten times your movement rate in feet in a round. The kind of moves you could make were also detailed: move up to an opponent, charge, retreat (which included fleeing and withdrawiing), ranged movement. Withdrawing was a bit like the five foot step, where you moved 1/3rd your movement rate. Moving your full move was fleeing and that exposed you to attacks from adjacent foes (a bit like attacks of opportunity).

 

[Argyle King]

But Anna is the one who successfully made the attack, not the orc. I think you run into issues like "if Anna takes a step back, why does the orc have to do the same".

Being that combat rounds in D&D are 6 seconds long, I've always been of the impression that characters do not stop fighting between turns. The game (I believe) makes some assumptions about what is going on within that time. For example, when you make a ranged attack, you do not need to draw from your quiver; nock the arrow, and then release the arrow. The game assumes you do all of that within the 6 second span. (It's worth noting there are games which do not have 6 second rounds, and they do require someone firing a bow to go through the motions involved.)

With that in mind... I just noticed Dragoslav's post, so... well, what he said. In addition, go back to my previous post. I'd say Anna was using some manner of 'soft' technique.

Really; to be quite blunt, if you're going for some kind of consistent sense of realism, the hypothetical rule about being able to move your opponent one space is somewhat abstract already; adding extra verbage to the rule which modifies to movement seems unnecessary. There would also need to be a lot of changes in the assumptions of D&D combat to render one method of moving the enemy more believable than the other.


If your assumption and interpretation of the rules is that only one attack happens every 6 seconds, then I suppose that explanation doesn't work. Personally, I'd find it curious that everyone in the D&D fought so slowly if I looked at it in the context of 6-second stop motion. Though, to be fair, there already are a few fundamental assumptions about D&D which bug me; notably, I've come to dislike the 1" = 5' scale. It also seems to me that if you're saying the orc should be able to resist being moved toward Anna, he should also be able to make some sort of fortitude or strength check to resist being pushed back since what you're describing is similar to a bull rush. Does an ooze get pushed back when you stab it?

While it may sound strange that I would defend Anna's tactical retreat as an option while also briefly mentioning some of the issues I personally found with CaGI, I do not view the two as being equivalent. I have (and do) use similar ways to narrate what is going on with CaGI; the fact that I sometimes have issues with CaGI doesn't stop me from narrating it. I've also narrated it as one of my multi-class characters using magic to pull the enemy to him, using a harpoon similar to Scorpion from Mortal Combat, and various other things. The issue I sometimes had with CaGI wasn't that enemies came toward me; it was more that those enemies were quite often somewhat suicidal in their efforts to get to me.

To an extent, I think you have to embrace a certain narrative style for 4th Edition to make sense. Part of that style includes that the PCs are more important than pretty much anything and anybody else in the game world. I think Abdul and a few others have mentioned "player agency" and the idea that NPCs have no agency. By default, I don't necessarily agree with that outlook, but it does make a certain amount of sense in the context of how 4E works. Still, it's worth noting that I personally find that there are many times (enough that I no longer view them as corner cases) in which even 4E doesn't really make sense in the context of 4E.

That does bring up the question of how things are viewed when CaGI is used on the players. What about important NPCs which should have some amount of 'agency'? I don't know... really, overall, I think CaGI is getting way too much attention. It's too small of a piece to paint the entirety of the game a certain color. If you look at 4E, and the only problem you see is one power, I have to question whether you honestly have a problem with the game or not.

Me?

I've mentioned a few things in previous threads and on various fora. Even in light of the problems I have, I still find that I can (and do) enjoy the game. My relationship with 4E is best described as love/hate. There are a lot of things about the game I find highly enjoyable. If I had to pick one thing in particular that I disliked, I'd say it was the mentality behind the design. The design itself wasn't necessarily bad, but I feel as though the designers play rpgs far differently than I do, and that lead to them putting things together in a way which I didn't always agree with.

I know this is off topic, but I think that disconnect is going to be an issue to overcome for 5th Edition. I say that because I feel as though the design team and WoTC as a whole have a lack of understanding about why I disliked some of the parts of 4E. It wasn't because I saw the design as bad, and it wasn't because I missed 3rd Edition. That being said, there most certainly are things about 3rd Edition that I missed, and I'm having a lot of fun with a Pathfinder character right now, but I also do recognize that there are problems with the system which are readily apparent, and 4th Edition did fix some of those.

I think it basically boils down to the fact that I don't feel that the design team for 4th understood the reasons behind why I (and maybe other gamers... I can't say) disliked/like certain things about 3rd Edition. Some of the things they changed did need changed, but I'm not so sure they understand why they were changing it, and I believe that lack of understanding translated into some of the negativity toward 4th Edition. Now, heading into 5th edition, I'm still not sure they understood why I liked/disliked certain aspects of 3rd; they recognize the problem areas, but not why they were problems for me, and -on top of that- the same can now be said for 4th; I'm not sure they fully understand why I liked/disliked certain aspects of the game. I'm sure that -objectively- it will be a good game, but I have some doubt concerning whether or not I fit into the target audience. What I've seen of the playtests are a mixed bag, and, while there are some things I feel are good ideas, there are a few areas in which I feel as though the things I liked about both 3rd & 4th are cut, but the things I disliked about both are being blended together and kept. To some extent, I point to Essentials as evidence of that; I feel as though some of those books had the layout problems of both 3rd and 4th, but without any of the benefits of either.

All things considered, this is how I see it:

1) While I may not necessarily agree with all of 4E's style, I've gotten to a point where I understand it, and I can have a lot of fun with it.
2) If I want a style that's different and clashes with the mindset behind 4E design, there are tweaks I can make to the game, but I personally feel I'm better off playing a different game.
3) By a different game, I don't mean a different edition; I think too many people are stuck on the brand name of D&D. Yes, it is the industry leader, but that doesn't make it automatically fit your style. Some editions may lean way way or the other, but -overall, D&D (especially modern D&D) is its own animal. If you want a horse, you don't buy a dog; however, you may benefit from owning both a horse and a dog. I've met a lot of people who say they don't play different games because they cannot find players, but that's something of a self-defeating problem. If you never play a game, how do you ever get a group started? How did you get a D&D group started?


In trying to close this post back on topic, I'll simply make the following statement: I think 4E is a good game, but it caters to a playstyle and a fantasy style which aren't my preference when it comes to rpgs. I can still have a lot of fun with it though. I certainly do have my problems with CaGI, but those problems involve more than one power and they touch upon other issues I have with the game.

 

[Argyle King]

Actually no its not. Manuevering backwards is typically done in very back and forth fighting styles like karate. Its is NOT done because you want your enemy to follow you. its done because you want a little breathing space because your attack style involves leaping in an out like a duelist.
.

I strongly disagree with this statement. My earlier post about hard and soft styles was with a mind toward techniques I would use, and there most certainly are times when you do want your enemy to follow you. Even in a broader scope, if we're talking army level strategy, there are times when you want the enemy to commit to something. In a one-on-one confrontation or a skirmish involving a small group, some of the same concepts can be used. That doesn't require leaping around or being a duelist; some of the techniques I'm familiar with (and have used) involve grappling and using your opponent's momentum and strength against him.

 

[Storminator]

This thread used to be fantastic. Can we get back to that?

 

[Dragoslav]

I've met a lot of people who say they don't play different games because they cannot find players, but that's something of a self-defeating problem. If you never play a game, how do you ever get a group started? How did you get a D&D group started?

I imagine it's hard to get people who aren't already your good friends to try an RPG they've never heard of. It's probably much easier to get a group that starts with D&D as an "RPG gateway drug" so you can potentially lead them to try more and more indie RPGs.

 

[D'karr]

I find this pretty dismissive. You might not have any trouble buying into some of these 4E mechanics. But a huge swath of the gaming community does. And many of them site issues it presents to immersion. You can try to define it away, or make arguments like "but if you accepted one abstraction in 2E you have to accept a bunch of them now" but it doesn't change the fact that these things can be problematic for some gamers.

I understand that it might be problematic for some. That is completely understandable. Then why don't those gamers continue to play something that they do enjoy, and let others that enjoy other "stuff" do so too? Why don't they go talk about the things they do enjoy instead of constantly complaining about the things others enjoy? Why do those gamers feel like it's not dismissive to continue making these complaints in threads that are clearly labeled 4e.

I have no problem with it not being a problem for you, but I do find it annoying when posters question my own experience of the game or try to discount something like immersion (which for a lot of people is really important).

I'm not discounting immersion. I'm sure you have, or provide, a lot of immersion in your games. When the rubber meets the road, those games are probably not so different than mine. Even when it's obvious that we might be using completely different mechanical systems/subsystems.

I'm stating my opinion that mechanics are not what provides immersion. The mechanics of the D&D combat model are absurd, to say the least. They don't provide a vehicle for immersion. The only thing they provide is a common ABSTRACT model to "organize" the chaos of combat. If anything, focusing on the mechanics provides a surefire way to drop out of immersion.

When I'm immersed, the mechanics are not even on the horizon. My character is doing what my character does, and the how of the mechanics is irrelevant. How do dragon's fly? How come my attack roll is a d20, instead of 3d6, instead of flipping a coin? How come when I get "hit" I'm still as combat effective as before? Why, why, why? Who cares? That is focusing on mechanics instead of focusing on the immersion.

The people at the table are also what provides immersion. Every time that someone says, "where's the cheetos?, pass the pizza, give me some Mt. Dew" that is purposely breaking immersion. Yet, I'm sure that we all do it without the blink of an eye at the table. Does it break immersion? Possibly, but we have internalized it so much that the comments around the table are nearly irrelevant. How many times has the game come to a stop because someone just made a joke at the table? Then everybody refocuses, and gets back to the game - pretending to be elves, and gnomes in the DM's basement.

When some have complained about immersion breaking because of CaGI, many have provided more than ample "descriptions" that could be used to keep it immersive. Then again just not selecting CaGI from all of the 7th level options is also a viable option.

When somebody at the table describes how they feint to the left, then the right, and expose a "feigned" weak side and the enemies close in to exploit it. Or they describe it as "I'm such a badass that defeating me would be my enemies' greatest achievement. I stand before them, weapon in hand, and motion them to come and get some". Or they describe it as a series of attacks with their weapon that makes the enemies shuffle to avoid the attack, but they end up nearer because of their expertise. None of those are less, or more immersive because of the mechanics. And the mechanics behind the descriptions are no more, or less immersive than for someone that says "I attack, 17 to hit, 6 points of damage." Or the one that says, "I'm wounded, I've taken 6 points of damage." Or the one that chooses to describe it as, "My parry comes short and I'm wounded from that attack." There is no "wound" they just received from an attack. There are no in-combat consequences to that "wound." He might be describing that he's bowled over from the pain, but his attacks and damage are just as effective as 6 seconds before the "hit".

The mechanics are not what provide the immersion. The interplay at the table provides the immersion. They guy that said, "I attack, 17 to hit, 6 damage" is much more disruptive to immersion than someone describing how his enemies crowd around him and he beats the crap out of them.

In 2E you were able to move ten times your movement rate in feet in a round. The kind of moves you could make were also detailed: move up to an opponent, charge, retreat (which included fleeing and withdrawiing), ranged movement. Withdrawing was a bit like the five foot step, where you moved 1/3rd your movement rate. Moving your full move was fleeing and that exposed you to attacks from adjacent foes (a bit like attacks of opportunity).

I'll take your word for it with 2e. My experience is with 1e and before, and it's quite fuzzy as it's been over 20 years since I ran a long term campaign with those games. There was no withdrawal that allowed you to reengage the enemy (5' step). Retreating basically allowed a free attack from the enemy with a +1, no shield, or dex (talk about penalizing retreating). Closing to combat was effectively a full round action. It did not allow melee until the next turn. And charging didn't even go with initiative, longest weapons attacked first, attackers got a bonus (can't recall if +1 or +2).

So IMO, combat was pretty much static until you killed the enemy, and you could reengage, or the enemy killed you. But as I alluded, I might be mistaken as it's been a very long time since I had to actually use those rules consistently.