D&D 4E The "Yay we're finally getting to play 4e!" thread

[That One Guy]

I'm actually curious how you would go about eradicating, well, referencing your ABILITIES at the table?

"Okay I'm going to... attack the guy." "Why are you moving him?" "I... can." "Uh huh. WAIT, why are you attacking AGAIN?" "Because." "Because why? I can't answer that." "WHY NOT?" "Because you don't like the word 'action point'."

I mean, how else do you declare your actions without referencing at-will/daily/action points/etc?

Amirian feints and the goblin picador falls for it, leaving him open to attack. He slams his dagger into the monster's flesh and with a shove sends it back three paces. Amirian quickly follows and then with a surge of adrenaline, rams his blade into the foe with a flourish. The creature falls to the ground, sputtering bloody disbelief.

I have no problem with using game mechanics to explain what a player is intending to do, but I prefer to describe things in a storylike fashion when they happen. Sometimes saying action point, defender, etc. happens, but I try to walk the line of story events and being able to communicate about the game. I think old school WoD had some good advice on how to do things like that (except for in Hunter. 10Conviction=newPower. Lolz). I've read some nWoD, but can't remember it being so strongly expressed. The problem is that 'surge of adrenaline' may over time simply mean 'action point'... in which case the PCs and DM have to mix it up, ne?

 

[Rechan]

Amirian feints and the goblin picador falls for it, leaving him open to attack. He slams his dagger into the monster's flesh and with a shove sends it back three paces. Amirian quickly follows and then with a surge of adrenaline, rams his blade into the foe with a flourish. The creature falls to the ground, sputtering bloody disbelief.

I have no problem with using game mechanics to explain what a player is intending to do, but I prefer to describe things in a storylike fashion when they happen. Sometimes saying action point, defender, etc. happens, but I try to walk the line of story events and being able to communicate about the game. I think old school WoD had some good advice on how to do things like that (except for in Hunter. 10Conviction=newPower. Lolz). I've read some nWoD, but can't remember it being so strongly expressed. The problem is that 'surge of adrenaline' may over time simply mean 'action point'... in which case the PCs and DM have to mix it up, ne?

Sure, but you also have to wait until all the attacks and such are resolved. Otherwise you have to start describing, STOP, roll, roll damage, then any sort of secondary stuff, etc.

Describing it is one thing, but declaring your action so the DM (and everyone at the table) understands it is an entirely different one. For instance, if an enemy has an interrupt or some other ability that it can do in response, declaring is a whole lot more helpful. (Or if you say 'I am moving here', that may result in an OA).

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Stupid me. I don't know anyone capable of DMing in San Diego any more, thanks to a few key players joining the Marines, so I'll probably never get to go through the adventure as a player.

I'm no longer in SD but I have gaming friends there. What part of town are you in? Maybe I could get you in touch with them?

 

[That One Guy]

Sure, but you also have to wait until all the attacks and such are resolved. Otherwise you have to start describing, STOP, roll, roll damage, then any sort of secondary stuff, etc.

Describing it is one thing, but declaring your action so the DM (and everyone at the table) understands it is an entirely different one. For instance, if an enemy has an interrupt or some other ability that it can do in response, declaring is a whole lot more helpful. (Or if you say 'I am moving here', that may result in an OA).

I gotchya'. I try to encourage my PCs to just describe things and roll dice/describe their actions in a nifty storylike fashion, but the only PC who takes advantage of rarely speaking in game terms was a oWoD Storyteller.

My point is that I concede your point, but I think that in certain groups it may be doable. These groups would need an understanding of rules/descriptions and trust between the dm and PCs. Of course, interrupts would have to interrupt descriptions or retcon them... but I could see the appeal of a table that only deals in story descriptions.

 

[Rechan]

When I play games online, I generally describe, roll, then describe result. In person, I've not been with a very wordy/descriptive group, I confess.

 

[Telsar]

YAY I GET TO PLAY KoTS TONIGHT!

Sure it's on OpenRPG instead of at a table, but I GET TO Play instead of DMing. I will be the SCARIEST FREAKING PALADIN EVAR. Rar I'm a player!

Ahem.

If you see this in time to answer, will the room be public? If it's not passworded, I'd love to lurk, if I knew the time and place.

 

[baberg]

I can see the appeal in being very flavorful in your descriptions of the actions, but I also forsee lots of out-of-character explanation if your DM is trying to play by the rules.

PC: "My broadsword easily through the flesh of the two Kobold in front of me and I follow up that stroke with a vicious overhand chop down on the first. He takes 27 damage and his buddy takes 3"
DM: "Wait, you cleaved for 27 damage?"
PC: "No, I cleaved, then used my daily power to attack the first one again."
DM: "You can't do that, they're both Standard. Are you taking an action point?"
PC: "Yeah"
DM: "Oh, ok."

I just see it as easier for the PC to say "I cleave, first guy takes 10 damage, 3 to the guy next to him. Then I spend an action point and use my daily for 17 damage." THEN, in my opinion, comes the flavor description of the actions, either from the DM or from the player.

 

[WampusCat43]

I can see the appeal in being very flavorful in your descriptions of the actions, but I also forsee lots of out-of-character explanation if your DM is trying to play by the rules.

PC: "My broadsword easily through the flesh of the two Kobold in front of me and I follow up that stroke with a vicious overhand chop down on the first. He takes 27 damage and his buddy takes 3"
DM: "Wait, you cleaved for 27 damage?"
PC: "No, I cleaved, then used my daily power to attack the first one again."
DM: "You can't do that, they're both Standard. Are you taking an action point?"
PC: "Yeah"
DM: "Oh, ok."

I just see it as easier for the PC to say "I cleave, first guy takes 10 damage, 3 to the guy next to him. Then I spend an action point and use my daily for 17 damage." THEN, in my opinion, comes the flavor description of the actions, either from the DM or from the player.

I agree with this. It's really about the best you can do. But at least this version gives you the opportunity to make these kind of descriptions, better than "I hit, then I hit again."

 

[That One Guy]

PC: "My broadsword easily through the flesh of the two Kobold in front of me and I follow up that stroke with a vicious overhand chop down on the first. He takes 27 damage and his buddy takes 3"
DM: "Wait, you cleaved for 27 damage?"
PC: "No, I cleaved, then used my daily power to attack the first one again."
DM: "You can't do that, they're both Standard. Are you taking an action point?"
PC: "Yeah"
DM: "Oh, ok."

Playing the devil's advocate, it'd require trust to work out right, and there'd have to be some sort of storytelling middleground. Generally, PCs figure out ACs/Defenses within a few rounds so they can start to generate their own story attempts. Butuhh...

PC: "I take my broadsword and chop at the two kobolds in front of me. 17 hit?"
DM: "Yes."
PC: "Rad. I hit the kobold with a staff dealing X damage and swing extra wide to hit the adjacent kobold for 3 damage."
DM: "The kobold with a light spear falls under your attack. Next action?"
PC: "With a battle lust in my eyes, I attempt to brutally strike down the kobold priest."
-Rolls dice. Let's assume the PC and the DM know and trust each other such that the PC will not lie/cheat w/ the dice rolls and the DM knows it. So, let's assume he rolls something poor-
PC: "But, I swing wide and whiff the (Insert curse word of choice here)."
DM: "I assume you used your action point. Want to move or do anything else?"
PC: "I'll just glare at the priest so he knows his doom is coming."

I know what I'm being an advocate for is not perfect and has flaws. It will not work for every group. But, I think that certain experiments in letting the PCs storytell can help the game be more fun and flow better. To be honest, some of my PCs just prefer to let me describe their actions so we just do things the traditional way most of the time (Being resolve actions/dice out of game, and then describe the results in game).

Edit: Sorry for being so Off-topic. I'll pretend that I was using these as suggestions for experiments w/ 4e rules.