This mentality needs to die

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I was responding to Vyvyan Basterd's rule-ism specifically. Critical hits are fun. But I like my fun gameplay to extend beyond stabbing the bad guy, and think that criticals outside of combat can/should have flashes of excitement as well, so I think skills SHOULD be able to critical. Thus my comment about why this is one reason that Fantasy Craft has risen above D&D 3e or 4e for my fantasy gaming needs.

I woudn't have a problem with Skill checks earning you a critical success, but much like 'stabbing the bad guy' a critical success should only be able to be achieved if you hit the target number. Deciding something is nearly impossible and assigning it a DC of 50 is pointless if you allow a 5% chance for the action to succeed no matter what, IMO.

I'm not familiar with Fantasy Craft, so I have some questions to put your comments in context. How does Fantasy Craft handle critical successes on Skill Checks? Does it allow success beyond a character's normal abilities? For example, if I wanted my character to jump to the moon (an action that has a definable, although insanely high, DC in both 3E and 4E) would a critical success in Fantasy Craft allow him to do so?

 

[WizarDru]

Working on a guide to getting kids into imaginative play and RPGs at present. Bigger task than I thought when I started sketching it out. Was going to be a blog post for Thistle Games but it's well past that now.

It'll be science not opinion, easy to digest and include more from Coco Wildwolf. Will share for free with ENWorld when it's done.

You may find value in the Young Persons Adventure League. It's a website dedicated to getting kids into RPGs.

 

[Psion]

I'm not familiar with Fantasy Craft, so I have some questions to put your comments in context. How does Fantasy Craft handle critical successes on Skill Checks? Does it allow success beyond a character's normal abilities? For example, if I wanted my character to jump to the moon (an action that has a definable, although insanely high, DC in both 3E and 4E) would a critical success in Fantasy Craft allow him to do so?

This is a bit of a tangent, but basically, if you roll a threat (normally a 20), you have the option to spend one or more action dice to invoke a critical success. Effects of the critical success vary, and in some cases are left up to the GM.

In the case of a jump check, a critical gets you the maximum possible distance according to your height (so a 6' tall character would jump 36' on a horizontal jump.) So you couldn't jump to the moon unless you were REALLY tall.

 

[WizarDru]

I'm pretty much of the opinion that maybe Chris didn't handle things in the most optimal fashion for some playstyles, but classifying him as a 'bad DM' or having 'made a mistake' is far off the mark. And as Umbran already mentioned, in the context of a group of total newbies to 4E playing a game as part of a marketing video, it works fine.

Like PC said, I'd have tried to find a way to say 'Yes' rather than 'No'....but Chris did a good job of leading the players down the path. He was instructing them and showcasing the game at the same time. Its entirely possible in the context of an 'official' game that he made the call to keep it clear how it worked. I note he did several things in the capacity of training and advising new players and they all clearly were enjoying themselves.

At the end of the day, the question to me is "Did they have fun? Would they play again?" That's the mark of a good game. I'm sure quite a few people would find fault with my DMing and playstyle...and that's OK. They're not my players, who like my style just fine. Because I've formulated it around their requirements. From everything I hear, Chris Perkins does likewise.

 

[WizarDru]

Nertz. Double-post.

 

[MrMyth]

In the presentation of the 4E rule set, the flavor text is almost entirely irrelevant. A power description has a ruled effect, and the flavor text is merely one suggestion as to how the power can be described.

It certainly is not a hard and fast rule of how the power works, but it can provide some guidance on what it may be capable of when used in unintended ways. For myself, I actually tend to take a close look at keywords when determining what PCs can improvise with them. [Fire] keyword is an easy way to figure out if something can melt a wall of ice, for example.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...and for the record, the only people calling this horrible DMing seemed to have disappeared by page 2 of the thread.

I personally think the call could've been better, that it's an experience to learn from and to try and not repeat, but I've also mentioned that DMs always goof up, that any video is going to catch them, and that it certainly wasn't a game-breaker (though it might've been lame, and if it continued, it might've been more lame). I'm not gonna bash the DM in this case. Though I do think that it was actually a mistake, I don't think it was a major one by any stretch of the imagination. I've done worse things without even realizing they were mistakes. I think it's a mistake because the ruling hurt creative power use, just like the OP presumably did. I thought that a clearer name could help with the confusion, which spiraled off in its own direction for a few pages.

I'm personally more interested in the idea of using video and audio to capture what's going on at the table and find ways to correct it. I noticed a lot of subtleties in watching the video that it's easy to miss when actually doing the running of the game. I think the game could go through a pretty major overhaul if we looked at the way people react to the things they have to do to play D&D, and how we could maximize their engagement and minimize their deep sighs and confusion.

 

[Squire James]

I think Chris made an adequate (though perhaps suboptimal) response.

It was DM discretion that allows a "creature" power to target an object. He read the card, and perhaps decided that an object couldn't grant combat advantage. So he decided not to make an exception in this case.

Hopefully one of the players will think to ask the DM about that ruling after the end of the session, especially since the first encounter consisted entirely of what the players would consider "non-creatures".

 

[tomBitonti]

It certainly is not a hard and fast rule of how the power works, but it can provide some guidance on what it may be capable of when used in unintended ways. For myself, I actually tend to take a close look at keywords when determining what PCs can improvise with them. [Fire] keyword is an easy way to figure out if something can melt a wall of ice, for example.

Then, you are back into the rules effect. The Fire keyword, if present, is tied to the effect.

Even so, a player has a great amount of flexibility in how they describe the effect.

I don't have links, but I'm remembering a lot of posts where it was stated that players are free to "refluff" rules to fit their interpretation of the effect, and that this was viewed as a great value of the rules.

Thx!

Tom Bitonti

 

[Daern]

So, in the 8th session Perkins allows the Wizard to control an Arcane Ballista after succeeding in a skill challenge. There had been much table talk about using the construct and when the player asked, the DM emphatically said YES. I would imagine this was not necessarily planned for ahead of time...