Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5436747" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree that the two things you characterise here are different. But I don't think there is much, if any, of the latter in 4e.The level of detail/abstraction can make a difference here. For example, in many games with social mechanics (not just 4e but 3E, Rolemaster, RQ etc) it can be common at some tables for the player to announce "I talk to her, explaining XYZ" - this is the player having his PC attempt a Persuade, let's say. Then the dice are rolled. If the check is failed, the player (or perhaps the GM) continues "Well, it's all going OK until I/you call her "Your Highness" rather than "Your Majesty" - at which points she calls for the guards and yells 'Off with his head!'" In this sort of play, the general nature of what is attempted is known before the dice are rolled, but the detail only after.I think your jumping example elides this issue somewhat, because we can imagine the jump starting - then the dice being rolled - then the jump finishing at a certain distance. But of course, if we hold everything else equal, than that distance is predetermined at the start of the jump, by the tension in Bob's muscles, the positions of his feet etc. So even here the precise details of what Bob attempted aren't known until the dice are rolled.An alternative that a game like 4e or HeroQuest permits, would be for Bob's player to predetermine that Bob tenses his muscles with the power of an Olympic athlete, and then to explain away a failure result on the dice as the result of an unexpected wind gust, or perhaps a last minute distraction that makes Bob shift his weight poorly. In 3E or Rolemaster this might be trickier, because at least the wind gusts should already be factored in (via a penalty on the roll) - though maybe the last minute distraction would still be an acceptable way for Bob's player to save Bob's face (ie to not be obliged to admit that Bob's jumping power is not all it's cracked up to be).Like I said in response to RC, when it comes to action resolution I think the difference between 3E and 4e can be overdrawn sometimes. But also, as the discussion of social mechanics and Bob's jump is meant to show, while both ways of going can appear in both 3E and 4e, 4e perhaps leans a bit more in one direction than the other.I think the difference is much more prominent on the GM's side of the screen. When it comes to building encounters, designing monsters, resolving skill challenges etc then the mechanics play a much more leading role in 4e than they do in 3E. This feature of 4e monster design, encounter building and DC setting is well known, so I don't think I have to elaborate on it.I think it's less well noticed as a feature of GMing skill challenges. Even the rulebooks don't mention it (whereas they do mention the other things). As far as I know, the only way a new GM can work out from the rulebooks that his/her handling of a skill challenge has to be guided by metagame mechanical constraints as well as ingame causal logic is by generalising from the example of this provided in the Rules Compendium. In that example, failure on a Streetwise check to recognise a building leads to an attack by some thugs who had earlier been brushed off with a successful Intimidate check - this consequence for failing the skill challenge is not caused in the gameworld by failing to recognise the building - it's not as if the thugs are guarding the building or come out of the building - the consdequence is imposed by GM stipulation as a consequence for the mechanical result of skill challenge failure.In my opinion, failing to expressly call out and discuss such an important aspect of the way the mechanics are meant to work, and leaving purely implicit in an example of play, is a textbook example of bad rules writing. Especially for a game like D&D, which at least presents itself as being playable by those without prior RPG experience.I agree with this, but think it's different from what RC and BryonD are talking about.In a game like 3E, RM or RQ (as typically played) an entry on the character sheet - like Pick Locks skill or a particular spell - has only one ingame meaning, determined at the time the entry is written down, and often determined even prior to that, at the time the character build rules are written.4e, on the other hand, is happy to let this relationship between mechanics and ingame doings be re-established every time an ability is used in play. (Like your nice vulture-eating example of 2nd wind.)This doesn't mean that, in a 4e game, on any given occasion that an ability is used the player isn't required to say what it is that his/her PC is attempting to do. As I explained earlier in the post, I don't think 4e differs much in this particular respect from more traditional RPGs.Makes sense to me. (Although in Rolemaster, at least, Dancing is a skill, so you'd still have to roll d100 and add your modifier, which would probably be fairly low for the typical PC.)</blockquote>

Verification