Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Giltonio_Santos" data-source="post: 6246340" data-attributes="member: 36874">In this case, it's not cooperative. As much as we share world building, someone needs to have the final word about what is and what isn't allowed into the game. There are some good story games where you bid for authority, but D&D is not one of them, it doesn't even have mechanics for that. If you're not playing alone, and I'm pretty sure you're not, everything you conceive for this imaginary world should only be incorporated if everybody agrees that it's a good addition. The DM is the final arbiter on this regard not because of entitlement, but because the rules say someone needs to have the authority. You could have a game where that authority is given to someone else, but one more time, this is not the case with D&D."Come and get it" is, indeed, the poster-child to this discussion, but only because it rewrites the fiction in the most absurd ways. In fact, the majority of the martial encounter and daily powers will have players asking the definitive AEDU question: shouldn't I be able to do that more often?The first answer is complicated: no, you cannot do it because you tap into reserves of inner endurance to do that. It's complicated because that same character will tap into those same reserves to use other powers, so they're probably far away from being depleted.The second answer is fine: no, you cannot do it because that's a player resource of narrative control. By using this power, you get to tell the exact moment where the enemy lowers his guard and you strike for additional damage, but the amount of narrative control you're entitled to is limited.While I have no problems with the second answer, I believe D&D can do better without it. As always, it's my opinion about what makes for a good D&D game, and in no way represents what I believe everybody should be playing. In fact, it's not even the reason why I moved away from 4E in favor of other D&D flavors.And I'm perfectly fine with that. If this is improves your experience, that's how you should be playing. For myself, I prefer to play an unpredictable game where some characters are completely incompetent for the most various tasks, including fighting anything. I've found that thinking about ways to make failure interesting and relevant improves my experience more than assuring basic general competence for characters.I fail to see how this improve a story game. Can you develop on this?  While I was talking specifically about the matter of player empowerment, I see your point. I agree that 4E creates those moments, but I believe it's an artificial construct of its own rules. I mean, it's only this way because of encounter powers and healing surges. In fact, the players want a break, not the characters. A fighter who spends all his encounters and dailies but who can still keep swinging his sword all day long with only at-wills is really tired? How is he different from a 3E fighter?In other games with the same general construction, characters don't stop to catch their breath because there's nothing to gain from it. On this regard, Torchbearer does it better, in my opinion, because characters don't stop to regain useful resources, they stop as a matter of life and death. It's the rules, not the players, telling the characters at which point they're too tired, hungry, thirsty or injured to go on.We'll agree to disagree in that matter. While 4E does a lot of things better than DW, I don't believe any of those things is related to be played as a story game.Cheers,</blockquote>

Verification