What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[Raven Crowking]

I think it would be more immersive for me, because I'd have to imagine myself falling, how hurt I was, if I bruised my bad arm, etc. in order to come up with the right damage figure.

For you, it might be. But for those of us whose immersion is based upon being able to accept the "reality" of the campaign world, part of that reality is dealing with what the world throws at you.

It would be really nice IRL if I could control how much damage something does to me, or if I got into an auto accident, whether anyone died or was just rendered unconscious. Expecting that type of control is, I agree, a "fantasy" but not the type of "fantasy role playing" I'm interested in.

YMMV, though. If it does, and 4e rocks your socks, then enjoy it to the utmost. You might even decide not to move on when 5e comes......

RC

 

[Mallus]

I would suggest that, in some cases, offering specific additional choices are limitations upon the system, because they affect how the player(s) view the narrative, and hurt immersion.

OK RC. But note that I was talking about a specific case.

As a simple example of this, imagine a pit trap where, when sprung, each player is given a choice to have his surprised character fall into the trap or not.

Let a= the player decides the effect of an attack he has successfully performed.

Let b= the player decides if an attack (well, an environmental hazard) succeeds against him.

a<>b.

The idea that all area effects can selectively kill or render unconscious those within it depending upon the desires of the being initiating that effect is one which critically damages my ability to take the world presented "seriously".

For me it's all a question of 'what genre is the campaign emulating?'.

Also... why? Why is idea of notion of a mage with fine control over their powers verisimilitude-breaking? We're not talking about a lobbed grenade, we're talking about personal, mystical, wahoo. It meets my criteria of matching the literature.

"WTF? How do we narrate these rules?" experience.

Like an "A-Team" episode with elves, or perhaps like The Princess Bride? Granted, that's not for everyone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There are many games that work like that; the key is, the CHARACTERS aren't deciding, the PLAYERS are.

I would say that "The more one seperates character choices from player choices during actual game play, the more one damages player immersion."

For me, at least.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

OK RC. But note that I was talking about a specific case.

And I was making an analogy to make that specific case sensible to you. Not, please note, to try to convert you to a point of view; merely to understanding where someone else might be coming from.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Nothing prevents roleplaying in nearly any rulest

Exactly. Not even balanced combat rules...

To me, a roleplaying game centers around the DM and the players each having fun with the primary goal being to entertain themselves and everyone else at the table with the events that take place in the game.

A wargame (again to ME) centers around the players having fun trying to defeat opponents with an ultimate goal of winning.

Or... RPG's are mostly cooperative and wargames are mostly competitive.

The fact that the majority of development in 4E rules centers around combat balance indicates that it leans more towards a wargame.

The D&D praxis is all about combat. The later editions are just more up-front in recognizing this. And again, the existence of good combat rules doesn't detract from roleplaying.

In a roleplaying game there is no real NEED to have perfectly balanced combat rules.

Unless you're mildly disturbed by all those players twiddling their thumbs during fight scenes. If a game is going to be combat-heavy, then it needs a system that at least tries for equal player participation in the game's core activity.

Really, most D&D games simulate violent action stories. Conan et al. If D&D was primarily used to recreate the action in Jane Austen novels, I might concede your point.

If player A is jealous of the damage output of player B then there is a competitive conflict within the party.

Players want their turn. And meaningful options on their turn. This is not a bad a design goal.

 

[Mallus]

Not, please note, to try to convert you to a point of view; merely to understanding where someone else might be coming from.

I realize that, but at some point you have to at least agree on what's being discussed.

Drawing an analogy between players choosing the effect of their hit and choosing if they are hit only serves to muddle the issue.

Mmmm, muddle.. put's me the mood for a mojito.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Drawing an analogy between players choosing the effect of their hit and choosing if they are hit only serves to muddle the issue.

Not to me, it doesn't. The problem is that I see no substantive difference between the two. And, since 4e includes powers that cause damage even on a non-supernatural "miss", neither do the game's designers.

RC

 

[Mallus]

The problem is that I see no substantive difference between the two.

The existence/use of a task resolution system?

And, since 4e includes powers that cause damage even on a non-supernatural "miss", neither do the game's designers.

The fact that certain powers essentially 'auto-hit' does not imply the non-existence of a task resolution system.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The existence/use of a task resolution system?

How does this cause a substantive difference between a system where players choose the effect of their hit and where players choose if they hit? In either case "player chooses" is the task resolution system. In both cases, IMHO, "player chooses" is an utterly and equally inappropriate task resolution system.

Every RPG uses "player chooses" as a task resolution mechanic. For example, "You come to a T-shaped intersection. What do you do?" allows for "player chooses" as a task resolution system.

When a character reasonably has control over the success/outcome of a choice, "player chooses" is appropriate; where a character does not reasonably have control over the success/outcome of a choice, it is not.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.

The fact that certain powers essentially 'auto-hit' does not imply the non-existence of a task resolution system.

No; but it does more than imply that "player chooses" is a mechanic used for determining whether or not a hit occurs.




RC

 

[Mallus]

In either case "player chooses" is the task resolution system.

No, in my example the mechanical task resolution system as presented in the rules is still being used, presumably involving dice-rolling an PC stat checking.

In your example that's all all tossed and player fiat decides success.

In both cases, IMHO, "player chooses" is an utterly and equally inappropriate task resolution system.

Well, maybe because you're using it as a replacement for the task resolutions system --which results in too much narrative authority being conferred to the player-- and I'm using it in addition to a given set of task resolution rules, which confers a more gameable level of narrative authority to the players.

For example, "You come to a T-shaped intersection. What do you do?" allows for "player chooses" as a task resolution system.

Stating intent is not usually considered a task-resolution mechanic.

When a character reasonably has control over the success/outcome of a choice, "player chooses" is appropriate...

Well this is the crux of the biscuit, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the players, giving them limited situational narrative rights. I'm not looking at it from a character level perspective. Their not the ones with agency.

No; but it does more than imply that "player chooses" is a mechanic used for determining whether or not a hit occurs.

Abilities defined as automatic success bypass the task resolution system entirely.