I find this an interesting question and problem because it is one of the things that is a switch up from earlier editions to later editions.
For example, I was once playing in a 2e Living City game as a player. I had seen some martial arts movies and done some martial arts myself at that point.
I wanted to buy some time for the rest of the group to organize and respond to an ambush by a group of monsters. I told the GM that instead of attacking, I was going to spin the spear I was using in a defensive circle around me. Anyone moving through the area would risk getting hit by the spear.
The GM having had similar experience decided that was a reasonable tactic and went with me blocking up the alley way for the round against the monsters wielding short swords.
There were no rules, powers, or feats that covered this action. The GM just made a judgement and told me what I could expect from the attempt.
In 3e there would be general rules like Attacks of Opportunity that would cover this situation but nothing would be really in the rules for the Rogue that chooses to leap on a Dragon's back and start hacking away. It comes back to the GM to try and work out what this action entails and how difficult it is to achieve.
In 4e, you have things even more spelled out as to what you can and can not do. The more that you need a rule, power, or feat to do something then the less openness there is to react and tell a story. This is not to say that 4e does not work and you couldn't have a player improvise a strategy like grabbing a torch from a wall and tossing it on the rushes of the inn floor. You could do this and the GM would still have to make some adjudication of the results.
It is just that the more you provide specific things a person can do then the less a person thinks of alternatives that they may want to do.
It also changes how a player expresses their description of actions.
When I played 1e and 2e it was common for me to use terms like "I bang twice high on the Orc's shield to get her to protect her head and then sweep a shot low to the thigh hoping to get past her guard."
Again, I'm sure that people that play more 4e then I do could say they do these types of descriptions (though personally I don't see it in the games I've played as the player often just says they are doing an X maneuver because anything more would be more confusing to the GM to understand).
4e is fun and kwel but it also has this reduction in free form. Some may like this and some may not. For some, it may depend on the GM that they play with and how that person handles free form solutions or how that GM adapts to using a power, feat, spell in a new stunt way.
------------------
Personally, I think the DnD game would get more mileage out of a 'Stunt' system that encourages players to give descriptions of actions rather than going with a specific set of actions.
A stunt system would be more based around giving modifiers to players to do certain actions. This way a player that wants to run up a wall to get around a player could be 'practiced' in doing this making it easier to do but any player could attempt this action.
For example, I was once playing in a 2e Living City game as a player. I had seen some martial arts movies and done some martial arts myself at that point.
I wanted to buy some time for the rest of the group to organize and respond to an ambush by a group of monsters. I told the GM that instead of attacking, I was going to spin the spear I was using in a defensive circle around me. Anyone moving through the area would risk getting hit by the spear.
The GM having had similar experience decided that was a reasonable tactic and went with me blocking up the alley way for the round against the monsters wielding short swords.
There were no rules, powers, or feats that covered this action. The GM just made a judgement and told me what I could expect from the attempt.
In 3e there would be general rules like Attacks of Opportunity that would cover this situation but nothing would be really in the rules for the Rogue that chooses to leap on a Dragon's back and start hacking away. It comes back to the GM to try and work out what this action entails and how difficult it is to achieve.
In 4e, you have things even more spelled out as to what you can and can not do. The more that you need a rule, power, or feat to do something then the less openness there is to react and tell a story. This is not to say that 4e does not work and you couldn't have a player improvise a strategy like grabbing a torch from a wall and tossing it on the rushes of the inn floor. You could do this and the GM would still have to make some adjudication of the results.
It is just that the more you provide specific things a person can do then the less a person thinks of alternatives that they may want to do.
It also changes how a player expresses their description of actions.
When I played 1e and 2e it was common for me to use terms like "I bang twice high on the Orc's shield to get her to protect her head and then sweep a shot low to the thigh hoping to get past her guard."
Again, I'm sure that people that play more 4e then I do could say they do these types of descriptions (though personally I don't see it in the games I've played as the player often just says they are doing an X maneuver because anything more would be more confusing to the GM to understand).
4e is fun and kwel but it also has this reduction in free form. Some may like this and some may not. For some, it may depend on the GM that they play with and how that person handles free form solutions or how that GM adapts to using a power, feat, spell in a new stunt way.
------------------
Personally, I think the DnD game would get more mileage out of a 'Stunt' system that encourages players to give descriptions of actions rather than going with a specific set of actions.
A stunt system would be more based around giving modifiers to players to do certain actions. This way a player that wants to run up a wall to get around a player could be 'practiced' in doing this making it easier to do but any player could attempt this action.
