Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shadzar" data-source="post: 5436555" data-attributes="member: 6667746">Exactly, this is where the players narrative control comes in. When you want to do something an only have a power that includes push, and you don't want to push someone, that push dictates the player and DMs narrative control.With the Jump, the DM had narrative control as to what was landed on, and the player had narrative control of his flailing as he fell.Weapons use to be the things that did stuff like "push" by having abilities added to them is you wanted to via magic.4th, that requires the powers, really cannot be played without giving up narrative control.All editions you can roll the dice and then describe how the blows were traded between the fighter and the orc. $th edition, you can't really decide to push someone away, if not using a power that has the "push".Now how would you so that in older editions? Well someone spelled out subdual damage or whatever it is, the non-lethal damage. This is so those who didn't get it before could have something that would tell them your blows don't always have to do damage. Otherwise to push an opponent, when you rolled your attack you and the DM would decide how much damage had to be done of the max for the attack, say has to be worth half damage, then if you get that much you have the foe be pushed away from you rather than received the damage. That, or you could use a "called shot". Called shots were your cinematic, over the top, key action scenes from past editions, where you didnt need something special to make the characters special.When the "special moves" went from being something the player decided to being incorporated all throughout the game, it means the player loses narrative control when to use those.You can say the player and DM can agree to not let the power push the opponent, but I would bet you would have other players whining and crying that the player isn't pulling his weight, because the system would become unbalanced leaning towards the DM. I also bet that most 4th edition players wouldn't let another, or even the DM "push" someone away from them with an attack, unless the power included it.4th isn't I want to swing with my sword and push someone. 4th is I swing with my sword, and the power MADE me push them.It really is funny that combat focuses heavily on the design concepts of a miniature game, when the miniature game for D&D failed.So the action happens when a player "attempts" to do something, and the resolution just tells you how well they did. That is the players narrative control, and that is what was taken away with 4th in that it doesn't allow for as much control because the player is dictated to what things they can try.Did you mean to post this in the alignment thread? Cause it pretty much sums up the problems people have with alignment, where one does not understand they are not playing the character in the world today, but in a fictional world that has vast differences, and those differences you learn about through playing.Which is a funny change to D&D, removing alignment rather than just explaining to people, in the OFFICIAL BOOKS FROM THE DESIGNERS, that alignment is based on the way the D&D world views things, not how people view things in today's world, ergo fictional like the characters being played.You know what, I am going to copy this and my reply thus over to that thread actually.</blockquote>

Verification