The "real" reason the game has changed.

[Banshee16]

Here's how I handle that:

After the player makes the speech for his PC, I consider the reaction of the NPCs. If the words are obviously enough to convince the NPC, there's no need for a roll. The opposite is also true - if the words are obviously not going to work, there's no need for a roll. If I think the NPC's reaction is in doubt, then I ask for a roll.

I tend to make the player roll first. *Then* they make the speech. That way, what they say is somewhat dictated by the die roll......it turns into an opportunity to think up a fun way in which your character mucked up the dialogue, if the roll doesn't go well.

Otherwise, you end up with situations reminiscent of the player who has a barbarian and uses INT and CHA as dump stats to beef up STR, DEX, and CON. So he's got STR 19, INT of 9, and CHA 6....yet he's asking as party leader, and communicating with the player's level of verbal sophistication to NPCs. That just doesn't make sense. If he's got a lower than average intelligence, and a really low charisma, then play him as such. Similarly, if you roll poorly on a Diplomacy check, then play out that poor roll.

Banshee

 

[Mallus]

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.

Interesting, Lost...

I doubt I could make every combat that kind of tactical, physical puzzle, not with the amount of detail required to make a game of it. I don't know enough about historical hand-to-hand combat. Heck, I don't even like overly-detailed fight scenes in fantasy novels, unless they contain a copious number of witticisms traded by the combatants which spice up the (laborious, to me) descriptions of violent motion.

I think it comes down to words being an inefficient medium for describing/simulating physical actions, especially in my hands. I have no trouble, in fact I prefer, to "talk out" social encounters, because speaking is quite good at simulating, err, well, speech.

I can see how the method you described could provide a heightened sense of immersion, but it's just not the right technique for me. In my games, the fiction resides elsewhere, in the characterization, the dialogue, the exploration of setting elements, the way the world responds to players prodding it. That's the stuff I can do.

I like D&D's tradition of abstract combat. 4e is about as detailed as I'm willing to go. It provides all the tactical framework for combat I require, and as for the fiction, the game's fictive dream, well, I try to establish that in ways that play to my strengths.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oops. I guess my memory of that story had cross-polinated with the mid/late 90s X-Men where Wolverine pulls himself off a cross in the Australian desert (or have I misremembered that one too?).

There's a big difference between Conan and Wolverine.

There is also a big difference between pulling out the nails from your feet, described as being less deep in the wood, once you are no longer crucified and your hands are free....and pulling yourself off a cross.

I nevertheless agree with the editor of the collection in which my copy of that story is found (Patrice Louinet, I think) that that episode marks the departure of Conan from the ranks of mere mortals.

Interestingly enough, though, the episode occurs as the result of REH's research, which included actual cases of surviving crucifixtion and the condition of the individuals thereafter.

If this story marks the departure of Conan from the ranks of mere mortals....I guess we must also accept that some mere mortals have also so departed!

In a metaphysical sense, though, Conan departs the ranks of mere mortals in his first story, when he is declared the true ruler of Aquilonia. Also, The Hour of the Dragon has quite a bit of Arthurian "The King and the Land are One" in it......also a result of REH's research.

And suggests that heroic feats of recovery from fatigue and injury aren't necessarily contrary to the fantasy genre, or even the sword-and-sorcery (sub)genre.

Except that it took Conan seven months to heal from those injuries, in the story. Then, and only then, is he fit to seek revenge.

You can scarcely conceive, my dear old friend, of the conditions now existing in this tiny kingdom since Queen Taramis admitted Constantius and his mercenaries, an event which I briefly described in my last, hurried letter. Seven months have passed since then, during which time it seems as though the devil himself had been loosed in this unfortunate realm.​

So, I'll grant you Wolverine. But, otherwise, even Corwin of Amber takes longer than a night's rest to fully recover from his stab wound, and his regenerative powers were considered legendary!



RC

 

[Bluenose]

I'm not sure if there's a big difference between the two approaches. In my experience, if you roll first and narrate after, there's a danger of omitting the narration, or having it feel tacked on. (I have been through too many Duels of Wits where it went something like: "What are you doing? Point? Me too. I'm rolling Persuasion, how about you? Same thing, eh. Cool. I got 4 successes - you? Okay, I'll reduce my Disposition by 3. Great. Next round - what are you doing?")

However, one danger in the way I do it is that the actual words can get lost after we add up modifiers to the roll. There have been times in my hack where I have to ask the player, "Okay - what did you say again?"

I've seen the first happening. I agree, it can be a problem. What I've tried to do to get people to narrate it is to give them some sort of benefit anyway if they do something that enthuses everyone at the table. The Adventure Deck/Decks from Pinnacle, that they have both for Savage Worlds and D20, are what I often use. You might not have impressed the Baron with your speech, but you drew the Love Interest card from the deck after you narrated it well, and now his daughter is looking at you with an expression you recognise. Which occasionally takes the game in strange and unexpected directions. I don't think this would work with every group of players, but mine like it and go along.

 

[LostSoul]

Otherwise, you end up with situations reminiscent of the player who has a barbarian and uses INT and CHA as dump stats to beef up STR, DEX, and CON. So he's got STR 19, INT of 9, and CHA 6....yet he's asking as party leader, and communicating with the player's level of verbal sophistication to NPCs. That just doesn't make sense. If he's got a lower than average intelligence, and a really low charisma, then play him as such. Similarly, if you roll poorly on a Diplomacy check, then play out that poor roll.

That's one way to handle it, and I can see why you'd write up a game that did exactly that. The reasons I decided not to go that way are: 1. because I wanted to challenge the player, and while you can challenge players with either method, I think this way brings it to the forefront a little more; and 2. because I wanted to make sure that the game world was always in the forefront of the player's minds, not only for immersion, but also so that they would think "outside of the box" when solving challenges.

It's a middle-way that combines some old-school stuff with new-school ideas. (Sorcerer was the inspiration.) I can think of reasons why you wouldn't want to run things this way; off the top of my head, a game in which you are guaranteed to play the character you want. My game makes no such guarantee; I want PCs to change a lot based on play, and not necessarily in ways that players would have chosen for themselves.

I can see how the method you described could provide a heightened sense of immersion, but it's just not the right technique for me. In my games, the fiction resides elsewhere, in the characterization, the dialogue, the exploration of setting elements, the way the world responds to players prodding it. That's the stuff I can do.

That makes sense. Different tastes, eh? I always liked the nitty-gritty details of fight scenes - probably why I preferred Palladium Fantasy's combat system to 2E AD&D.

 

[Hussar]

Unless the spell specifies otherwise, a 3.5Ed bard's magical effects don't depend upon understanding*. The use of magical words & gestures of power make the spell's effects essentially universal. (I've run 3.5Ed bards that played flute wordlessly, told limericks, spoke haikus or quickly painted symbols on surfaces...)

Certainly, you can choose to have a spell's effects limited by the understanding of the target, but that is self-imposed, not a limitation by the rules themselves.




* those that do are generally telling the target to do something; altering behavior.

Well, there's the trick isn't it? Many of the Bard's abilities are outright spells. The bard had a few abilities that affected allies, but those that affected enemies, like Fascinate, were mind effecting and thus there were numerous creatures immune to it.

But, other than direct sonic attacks, a lot of the bard's spells were language dependent. Like you say, mostly the mind affecting stuff. Bard's weren't exactly strong in the blasting capabilities.

So, no, it's not entirely self imposed actually. The rules impose limitations as well. Fascinate wouldn't work on a giant slug in 3e, for example since giant slugs were vermin (IIRC), and thus neither would Suggestion.

To be fair though, the 4e bard and the 3e bard really are different animals.

 

[pemerton]

Except that it took Conan seven months to heal from those injuries, in the story. Then, and only then, is he fit to seek revenge.

<snip>

even Corwin of Amber takes longer than a night's rest to fully recover from his stab wound, and his regenerative powers were considered legendary!

Like I've posted upthread, I think that this criticism of healing surges is focused on a pretty minor element of the 4e rules, namely, the extended rest rules. The problem - if one regards it as such - can easily be resolved with very little mechanical impact upon 4e - simply reduce the rate of healing surge recovery. (One surge per day will make healing take between one and two weeks for most PCs. That would come close to emulating 3E natural healing rates, I think.)

The mechanically significant function of healing surges, and the powers that revolve around them, is to make the recovery of hit points during combat (i) important, and (ii) tactically engaging. Removing healing surges altogether would have a huge impact on this part of the game. But the rules that govern their expenditure during combat are quite separate from the rule that governs their recovery by resting. The latter rule plays an obvious role in determining adventure pacing, but that's about it. If you want to change the pacing, you can change that rule, and the rest of the game will remain unaffected.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Like I've posted upthread, I think that this criticism of healing surges is focused on a pretty minor element of the 4e rules

This isn't a criticism of healing surges, or of 4e. It is a criticism of erroneous statements made about what happens in the literature being discussed.

RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Healing surges provide too many hit points?

I can't take that concept sewiouswy.

If the typical mode of play the system is built for involves running the PC's through a meatgrinder of combat encounters they will need more hit points because there will be a lot more damage sustained.

It is a case of simple numbers bloat. More encounters with tougher, harder hitting monsters = more hitpoints needed.

The one thing that surges remove is true magical healing. If Joe fighter is out of healing surges for the day and low on hp, a barrel of healing elixer might as well be tapwater and the almighty power of deity brand X suddenly isn't so almighty-until tomorrow.

 

[Ariosto]

The way I see it, however, is that they are missing the point - that the game can be fast and simple at its core, but with tons of flexible options to customize to your heart's content.

"No, it can't," has been the answer from the modernists. The game, they say, has changed because the world has changed. Now, somehow, A>(A+B+C). Taking their program seriously, the best thing would be to put 4e out of print immediately (if not previously) and replace it with yet another Something Completely Different.

In other words, it doesn't take anything away from those that like complexity, it just opens the game up and potentially keeps it alive for those of us who want a simpler, faster game.

Apparently -- although I have yet to see a remotely cogent explanation -- it does take something away from them. The mere availability of a different flavor of complexity is somehow a threat they cannot abide.