The "real" reason the game has changed.

[shadzar]

That's my guess at why this happens, based on weekly play of 4E - save for a six month or so period where I spent time hacking the game to address this.

So basically still the creation of "RAW", wherein as I posted somewhere on this site, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all tell you to not try to play by "RAW". Either doing it because you feel "RAW" is the best way to do it, or because for some there is just so much going on on the character sheet, trying to do something else just confuses you since so much it already there to choose from?

So we know it happens, and what happens when it does happen, but is this the reason why players don't get creative?

 

[LostSoul]

So basically still the creation of "RAW", wherein as I posted somewhere on this site, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all tell you to not try to play by "RAW". Either doing it because you feel "RAW" is the best way to do it, or because for some there is just so much going on on the character sheet, trying to do something else just confuses you since so much it already there to choose from?

I don't understand - maybe you could re-phrase this?

So we know it happens, and what happens when it does happen, but is this the reason why players don't get creative?

That's my best guess for the phenomenon at large. I'm sure there are other reasons, but I think that's the big one - though perhaps I feel that way because it's something I knew I could attempt to change.

 

[Mallus]

This habit really shows up in combat, where players (in my experience) usually describe their characters actions in two ways: moving miniatures around a battlemap and declaring the name of their Power in their attack (or other rules constructs, like Second Wind). Both of these are artefacts of the real word, not the imagined world, and the imagined world's "reality" suffers as a result.

My experiences are a bit different from yours. The reality of the table and the in-game fiction coexist, peaceably, even (they kinda have to). It's not a zero-sum game.

Using attack power names doesn't diminish the fiction; my character is still a repulsive, optimistic, and fearless paladin regardless of whether I declare his actions by saying "I smite the blackguard mightily while calling upon the Dragon Within!" or "I use Virtuous Strike".

I wholeheartedly agree making the in-game fiction a priority, but I don't see reliance on game terminology being much of a problem. In order for the game's fiction to be interesting, it has to be interesting as fiction; in the case of a fight scene this means having a handle on who the combatants are, why they're in conflict, what's at stake, and making sure both side get in as many quip-y one liners as possible, in the best traditions of the Spartans and 1980s action movie stars.

 

[LostSoul]

Using attack power names doesn't diminish the fiction; my character is still a repulsive, optimistic, and fearless paladin regardless of whether I declare his actions by saying "I smite the blackguard mightily while calling upon the Dragon Within!" or "I use Virtuous Strike".

I think it does diminish the fiction if you go with the latter. I'm not sure what your character is doing, and I can't respond to his actions. The fictional details are unknown, can't have an effect on resolution (because they are unknown), and can't feed back into the player's decisions.

In the last combat I ran, the first round went something like this:

3 hobgoblins moved up in a shield wall, crashing into two dragonborn who had locked shields. The middle hobgoblin tied up the sword of one of the dragonborn with his flail. Meanwhile, a PC in the back ranks launched her rope + grappling hook, grabbed onto the hobgoblin's shield, and yanked him forward.

Here's how the fictional details affected resolution:

• In the next round the hobgoblin was bent over at the waist with his shield out of position, but he still had the dragonborn's sword tied up. This gave the dragonborn a penalty to his attack roll.
• Since the hobgoblin had his head in the dragonborn's shield, he used it as leverage to yank the sword out of the dragonborn's hand, gaining a bonus to his roll.
• Since the hobgoblin was in a bad position with his head exposed, the dragonborn was able to use Hammer and Anvil, which, in my hack and for this specific character, requires the opponent's head to be exposed. This position also gave the dragonborn a bonus to their attack rolls.
• Since the shield was out of place, the other hobgoblins were no longer in a shield wall and didn't get a bonus to their AC.

 

[shadzar]

I don't understand - maybe you could re-phrase this?

1st edition AD&D an up tells you not to try to play by the rules as written/presented because they are not complete and the DM is there as the arbiter to fix things that don't work for your group.

Some people however still focus strongly on playing "RAW" games.
-They feel "RAW" is the best way to play.
-They are overwhelmed by so many options to have to choose from, they think they have enough on the character sheet to not try anything outside of what would be considered "RAW".

That better?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think one problem is that previous editions gave such little narrative control to players that it trained them to not utilize it well. In the 4e game I'm in, the players who's most recent game was another D&D edition don't really think outside the box too much. Myself, and another player who was most recently playing FATE, do it all the time.

Oh sure, we describe our attacks really flavorfully and RP and everything, but I think that, in order to really think outside the box, you have to come from a game / environment where that's really rewarded, and 3e at least didn't do that.

In past - and the current, to some degree - D&D edition(s), thinking outside the box and trying to grab narrative control wasn't brought up. It was a sort of unspoken option. In many other games - most especially in FATE systems - it's the whole point of the game. This is also probably where Salvatore brought up how 4e really needs creative players rather then creative DMs. Even in powers, many powers really ask for players to set out the narrative rather then the DM or the rulebook - and, incidentally, those powers seem to be the most contentious with others.

 

[Mort]

I think it does diminish the fiction if you go with the latter. I'm not sure what your character is doing, and I can't respond to his actions. The fictional details are unknown, can't have an effect on resolution (because they are unknown), and can't feed back into the player's decisions.

In the last combat I ran, the first round went something like this:

3 hobgoblins moved up in a shield wall, crashing into two dragonborn who had locked shields. The middle hobgoblin tied up the sword of one of the dragonborn with his flail. Meanwhile, a PC in the back ranks launched her rope + grappling hook, grabbed onto the hobgoblin's shield, and yanked him forward.

Here's how the fictional details affected resolution:

• In the next round the hobgoblin was bent over at the waist with his shield out of position, but he still had the dragonborn's sword tied up. This gave the dragonborn a penalty to his attack roll.
• Since the hobgoblin had his head in the dragonborn's shield, he used it as leverage to yank the sword out of the dragonborn's hand, gaining a bonus to his roll.
• Since the hobgoblin was in a bad position with his head exposed, the dragonborn was able to use Hammer and Anvil, which, in my hack and for this specific character, requires the opponent's head to be exposed. This position also gave the dragonborn a bonus to their attack rolls.
• Since the shield was out of place, the other hobgoblins were no longer in a shield wall and didn't get a bonus to their AC.

So you give situational modifiers based on how the action is described and the result of that action?

If so, how do you keep from the following (I'm avoiding using manuever names because I'm away from the books) The quick example is far from stellar but hopefully the meaning comes through.:

Player: I bend to swing at the 3' kobald and attempt to knock his head off. (resolves roll)

DM: (notes damage) The kobald is realing, however you bending over has exposed your right side, the kobald on that side will get a +2 modifier to hit you!

Player: Ok forgot about that kobald, but ragnar (the fighter) is a veteran of many battles and would not have forgotten, or at the very least know to protect his side properly!

etc. and circles from there - situational modifiers like this can be a bit tricky especially when dealing with such an inexact medium as imagination of the players.

 

[BryonD]

Oh sure, we describe our attacks really flavorfully and RP and everything, but I think that, in order to really think outside the box, you have to come from a game / environment where that's really rewarded, and 3e at least didn't do that.

There are some systems built to do exactly that. None of them are called "Dungeons and Dragons".

For me, I'd strongly quibble on some particulars.

I'd agree with you that 4E works well with, as I called it, "pop quiz" roleplaying. There IS a push to think of flavorful things. BUT, that push is built around the players responding to the mechanics. X happens because the mechanics say so. Now you explain it. There is certainly an element of mental challenge to that. No doubt. And I can see how that could be fun.

But, for role playing games, I like fully open ended responsive mechanics. Games that are just about "what do you do?" with no push at all from the mechanics. And then the mechanics are there to model the results.

I've never really thought about it this way before, but looking at that with your spin in mind, maybe it does require a higher level of input from the players. With no push from the mechanics, the players are left to make it happen themselves. I certainly reject as laughable and directly contradicted by a great deal of personal experience that 3E games don't bring great RP and "outside the box thoughts" opportunity. But opportunity can easily be lost. Maybe if the players just are not so good, a trade off of being told WHERE outside the box you should go is a benefit for getting outside the box at all.

Of course, if you can get outside the box on your own, there is no gain in that trade.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, well if that is the start and end of it and it is not addressed anywhere else, then count that as one more grain of sand on the "reasons I don't prefer 4E".


Again you are playing double standards, counting the "very express advice to say yes" in favor of 4E, but ignoring such advice for 3E and further presuming a non-thoughtful bad DM for 3E. As I said, a bad DM is a bad DM, no matter what sysytem you use.

If your experience with 3E models that, then that is too bad for you that you missed out on the full potential.

Bottom line, the rules require tools and you *DO* have tools. If anything, your tool is more restrictive because a "normal" rogue can replace traditional tools, your re-skinned unique tool is irreplacable.

It would be nice if Robin D Law's writing was so fantastic that it could time travel, but, barring that, where in the 3.5 or 3.0 DMG does it expressely state to "say yes" to players? I see all sorts of quotes about the DM being the "final arbiter" of the rules, but that's not the same thing as advising DM's to say yes to player ideas.

Look, I already stated repeatedly that you can do the spoon trick in 3.5. Of course you can. What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW. It's pretty much in direct violation of the RAW. Now, violating RAW is certainly fine and wonderful, but, that's still what you're doing. The DM has to step in and decide if this is an okay place to violate RAW. And he's certainly empowered to do so.

What I am not saying is that this is impossible to do in 3e D&D. Of course you can and I said as much. What I did say is that the rules are pretty much against you if you try. And if your DM sticks with the rules, then the player is SOL. Sticking with the rules should not be a sign of a bad DM in my opinion.

Going back to the specific example of the Thieves' tools, it does not say that they are required in 4e. It says to use it properly, you need them and having them grants a bonus, but, it does not forbid you from using the skill if you do not have them. In 3e, you are expressly forbidden from using the skill without thieves tools. Right in the skill description, you "require at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort". 3e mechanics are proscriptive, not descriptive. They hard wire the narrative into the mechanics.

In 4e, because the narrative is largely divorced from the mechanics, the player can choose to narrate any event however he chooses, so long as the table agrees. If the player wants to Fonzie Bump the lock, the rules support that. If the player wants to sing the lock open, the rules allow for that, so long as the table is willing to go for it. So, yes, the naked rogue can open the lock at 1st level and that's very much in keeping with the rules in 4e.

BryonD, you like the narrative that is produced by the 3e ruleset. I get that. That's groovy. But, the narrative is no more "open" in 3e than any other edition. You attempt an action, resolve the action through the mechancs and those mechanics define how you resolve that action. In 4e, they actually don't. I could use Theivery to open a lock by singing to it.

Granted, I can do the same thing in 3e, but only if the DM is willing to tie up the mechanics and dump them in a trunk somewhere.

 

[LostSoul]

So you give situational modifiers based on how the action is described and the result of that action?

If so, how do you keep from the following (I'm avoiding using manuever names because I'm away from the books) The quick example is far from stellar but hopefully the meaning comes through.:

Player: I bend to swing at the 3' kobald and attempt to knock his head off. (resolves roll)

DM: (notes damage) The kobald is realing, however you bending over has exposed your right side, the kobald on that side will get a +2 modifier to hit you!

Player: Ok forgot about that kobald, but ragnar (the fighter) is a veteran of many battles and would not have forgotten, or at the very least know to protect his side properly!

etc. and circles from there - situational modifiers like this can be a bit tricky especially when dealing with such an inexact medium as imagination of the players.

The way my hack works is that it's supposed to challenge the players; if the player forgot, Ragnar forgot as well. His AC defines how well he protects his flank, which goes up as he levels, so it's already in there in a way. But yeah, that's exactly how it's supposed to work - in my opinion, it helps to reward smart play.

There are other ways to do it, I imagine, but that would depend on the specific goals you've got for your game.