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

[timASW]

double

 

[timASW]

I believe I'll simply have to agree to disagree.My opinion is that I can (and have) used leverage and momentum to make an opponent move in a way they didn't want to. Sometimes, the way they didn't want to move has been toward me. It wasn't a contest intended to control their will, but a contest to control the movement of their body.

This isnt an opinion. Its simply physically impossible. You have never, nor has anyone else in the history of humanity used momentum and leverage to control someone 15 FRIGGIN FEET AWAY FROM YOU Nor will that ever happen until a real life stretch armstrong is born. I know all about soft styles, I have 7 years of judo. And unless your judo happened to come with Jedi mind tricks or other sorts of force powers your just as incapable of using leverage against someone your not touching as I am. Now if this power only affected someone in an adjacent square, sure. But then its purpose in the game would be much more limited. It would however, be perfectly acceptable to me and i think most others who find it absurd as its written.

As for the military and the comments about the six second rounds... I'm not really sure what to say other than to say my former profession involved the military and combat arms. Even with not being in nearly the shape I once was, I'm confident that I can generate more than 1 attack in 6 seconds. I'll give you that MMA might function differently; however, I feel it's important to point out that there are some rather significat differences between MMA rules and a combat in which I'm attempting to main, disable, or kill the enemy. Most notably, it's worth mentioning that there are fight ending attacks which are banned from being used in a MMA* contest. Thirdly, what constitutes a meaningful attack can be debatable; a lot of attacks such as jabs aren't necessarily intended to do damage, but they are meaningful because they set up other things (which is actually something that a lot of 4E powers model quite well.)*For some examples, go back and watch some of the classic UFC tournaments before it became more regulated. At one point in time, it was allowable to be able to take your opponent to the ground and nut-punch him into submission. Even then, there were still moves which weren't allowed; moves which would be allowed in a combat environment by virtue of there being no rules.

I was also in the military for several years. And all the combats I was involved in were sharp, abrupt engagements that came fast and ended fast. Combat tends to be quick waves, attack, fall back or move, attack again (ideally from another angle) If anything I found the real serious fights to involve much more caution on the parts of all combatants. When your in a situation where even a simple mistake will cost your life and the lives of your friends people pick their actions with more care and are less likely to just go all out, caution to the wind and hope for the best. While its debatable whether jabs can be meaningful attacks or not (fairly recent George saint pierre fractured an opponents cheekbones, nose, and eye socket with jabs, he required plastic surgery to repair and was out almost a year) Theres no reason to assume that fights with weapons wouldnt ALSO involve many feints, gentle touches etc. There was a video floating around on a shield thread a while back about viking sword and shield work (i believe Balesir had it) where the expert demonstates how the style heavily revolved around keeping your weapons and shields in constant contact and fishing for an openings. Over the demonstrations even against a relatively willing opponent it often took an amount of time that could be reasonably compared to a whole D&D combat round to find that one clean opening, which would be 1 meaningful attack.

 

[Argyle King]

This isnt an opinion. Its simply physically impossible. You have never, nor has anyone else in the history of humanity used momentum and leverage to control someone 15 FRIGGIN FEET AWAY FROM YOU .

The example in question involved an opponent right in front of me. One which was close enough for me to engage in melee and touch; likewise have them touch me.

This thought popped in my head while reading the discussion on CaGI. Imagine a game with the following situation (one dimensional to simplify things):

1 2 3 4
- A X -

A is a PC named Anna, X is an orc. The two are engaged in a sword fight. Now this game has a rule that if a combatant successfully hits an opponent, she can shift both herself and the opponent one square in the same direction, to simulate movement in combat. Now, Anna hits the orc and takes the following shift:

1 2 3 4
- - A X

I think most gamers would be totally okay with this, seeing this as Anna forcing the orc back.

But suppose Anna took the following shift instead:

1 2 3 4
A X - -

I think there would be a significant number of gamers who would object to allowing that shift, that it just does not fit with their vision of how combat should work.

So is the second shift justifiable? Or should the game only allow the first shift?

 

[S'mon]

And how would you take it if someone told you "we know why you like 4e, so if you dont have something negative to say about it why dont you get out of the thread? "

On a thread that I started to talk about what I found to be a good approach to running 4e, for people who are interested in 4e, I would find that stupid and annoying.

 

[Sunseeker]

On a thread that I started to talk about what I found to be a good approach to running 4e, for people who are interested in 4e, I would find that stupid and annoying.

Also considering that flat out edition bashing constitutes edition warring, it probably wouldn't be a great idea to make a thread called "Lets all hate on 4e!"

4e has faults, every edition does. Pointing out faults is all fine and dandy.
Everyone has opinions, this is hardly new. Stating our opinions on the faults or fortes of an edition is also fine.

Attempting to portray a personal perception and the resulting opinion of an edition as anything more than that is not fine.

Furthermore, this continued focus on CAGI is getting plain annoying. I understand the issues people hold with it, but the extreme focus on it beyond all other aspects of 4e is just ridiculous.

 

[pemerton]

Furthermore, this continued focus on CAGI is getting plain annoying. I understand the issues people hold with it, but the extreme focus on it beyond all other aspects of 4e is just ridiculous.

Sorry to ironically use your post to continue the focus.

Part of the reason I focus on it is because, for me, CaGI encapsulates in a single, discrete power so much of what I enjoy about 4e as a resolution system. I agree that if there's a wedge CaGI is a long way from the thin edge - but I like what it tells me about that wedge!

You have never, nor has anyone else in the history of humanity used momentum and leverage to control someone 15 FRIGGIN FEET AWAY FROM YOU

The space between attacker and target when CAGI is used is 2 squares ie at least 10 feet. But nothing in the power precludes an interpretation of it as involving the fighter moving from his/her central square as part of the attack before moving back. (In some circumstances that narration won't work, of course). Furthermore, the fighter in my game is using a honking great polearm ("Black Peaks Halberd" as its known.) We've never bothered working out exactly how much reach it gives him, but given its a reach weapon at least 5 feet. Given that the targets of CaGI often have weapons themselves, not to mention limbs reaching out into other squares (you can pick up objects in an adjacent square, after all), hooking with a polearm also strikes me as feasible.

So no Jedi mind tricks required.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], good posts.

But I'm not sure about the "winning now gives me advantages next time" dynamic. At least with 4e, I think the game is often more fun when the challenges are harder - so you have to be careful to avoid a dynamic of "win now to have boring combats later".

One approach that might work is if winning now gives you access to bigger encounters later - ie more XP - with enough advantages to make them doable. Whereas losing now gives you access to wimpier encounters, without advantages - so comparable mechanical challenge, but for fewer XP.

 

[Argyle King]

CaGI actually didn't enter my mind at all when I responded to the hypothetical rule proposed earlier.

However, the Warlord power Leaf on The Wind is something I had in mind, and it makes sense to me.

For what it's worth, I think I do agree with Pem about finding CaGI fun. One of the things I like about 4E combat is that it seems more fluid. It might achieve that fluidity in ways which aren't always compatible with my preferred style of play, but I prefer having a more fluid feel to fights. There are similar reasons behind why I enjoy the fact that 4E has powers which can be used to interrupt the actions of others. I might have some issues with the game, but I still do enjoy playing it; I simply put my mind in a different mode when I play 4E than I'm typically in when playing other rpgs.

Other games I enjoy achieve that fluidity by having less abstract combat and allowing me to put together my attacks on a more granular level. I can target a leg with a push kick or I can perform a shield shove followed by an axe swing at my opponents face or any number of other options. I can likewise respond to what my opponent is doing by trying to parry, block, and dodge.

Those are two very different approaches, but I prefer the end result of each more so than the alternative of just sorta standing around.

 

[S'mon]

Here's something I was wondering about:

Can pemertonian scene-framing work for challenge-based games?

I originally thought no, but I read something about 10 pages back by [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] that made me question my assumption.

So, do you guys think it can work? If it can, are there any differences in how you use it?

Good question. My approach is challenge-based (Gamist) by default, but use of scene-framing reduces or at least alters that. I think this ties into the "Combat as Sport" idea - if you have a framed scene with open resolution, then players can deploy skill and resources within the scene to seek a successful resolution, as in the sporting arena.
But framed scenes are I think antithetical to the "Combat as War" strategic style, which I think is what most people think of as D&D Gamist/challenge-based play. This is the style where long term issues such as resource management, exploration etc determine the game content, not thematic or story concerns.

So I think scene framing allows for a certain sort of Gamist Combat-as-Sport play, but not so much the long-term strategic Gamism.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], good posts.

But I'm not sure about the "winning now gives me advantages next time" dynamic. At least with 4e, I think the game is often more fun when the challenges are harder - so you have to be careful to avoid a dynamic of "win now to have boring combats later".

One approach that might work is if winning now gives you access to bigger encounters later - ie more XP - with enough advantages to make them doable. Whereas losing now gives you access to wimpier encounters, without advantages - so comparable mechanical challenge, but for fewer XP.

Yep - it's the 'Combat as Sport' style. In real Combat As War, an overwhelming victory can often make future encounters trivial - there's a strategic schwerpunkt or moment of decision, just as there is a schwepunkt in the individual battle. There comes a point where the war is not over but you have achieved a lasting advantage over the enemy - a Kursk or Midway. In Combat as Sport the threat is modulated to demonstrated player ability, so success = bigger challenges, but more XP. Even traditional D&D tends to try to do this, in order to avoid anticlimax, by having the biggest monster sitting at the bottom of the deepest dungeon, but it can often feel a bit artificial. Whereas if challenge is centred at scene level then it's much less of an issue; in combat scenes the GM is building the challenge based more off player & PC abilities (XP budget), rather than a more objectively simulated environment.