Community

But... that's completely not my point.
Which makes it... just confusing.
Here, analogy thrown out the window now (like we should do with all fluff, amirite?):

People are able to do creative things, and change the rules.
That is, until they're provided with clear (or detailed) rules.
At that point, some people lose the ability (or willingness) to change the rules.
The reason for this seems to be... that the rules are clear (or detailed).

I was saying nothing about people's preference for games, or about any particular edition, or anything like that.

Just about rules, and folks' (in)ability to change them, and their (lack of) reasons for feeling that they can't anymore.

Mar 16, 2012 -- 3:54PM, Jharii wrote:

Your analogy was perfectly appropriate, understandable, and unbiased.  Haters gonna hate.

Misunderstanders gonna misunderstand?

Mar 16, 2012 -- 3:57PM, greatfrito wrote:

Mar 16, 2012 -- 3:54PM, Jharii wrote:

Your analogy was perfectly appropriate, understandable, and unbiased.  Haters gonna hate.

Misunderstanders gonna misunderstand?

I don't understand... 

He's not saying you have to change anything.  In other words, there's nothing wrong with Tim.

Analogies are all fine and dandy...but here is how it plays out at the table.

DM: You approach the city gate, there is a mean looking guard standing outside the city walls. "Halt!" the guard states as you approach, "No non-citizens are permitted entry this day. Present the proper papers or be off with ya!"

Player: "I try to intimidate the guard to let us pass"


DM: "OK, roll an intimidate check" (Player rolls, scores a modified 23)...checks DC...."OK, you manage to intimidate the guard and he lets you past"

later in the day.......

DM: "You are savaged by a band of orcs! Roll inititative!" (Players roll inititative...score better than the DM)

Player: "I use 'Snake's Retreat'!
(players and DM look at player blankly)
"Dex vs. AC, hit does 6(W) damage and I can shift 1 square as an interrupt!, Monster can save to end the effect"
DM: "OK....roll for damage"
(players and DM spend next 5 minutes determining slide effects on the miniatures board)


The playgroup at the other table meanwhile:

DM: You approach the city gate, there is a mean looking guard standing outside the city walls. "Halt!" the guard states as you approach, "No non-citizens are permitted entry this day. Present the proper papers or be off with ya!"

Player: "I try to intimidate him...what do I roll?"

DM: (stares at player blankly) "Present your papers! Don't stand there and waste my time!"

Player: "I...uh..Do you realize who I am? I am the leader of the dawn company who saved this very town from the marauding orc hordes! You will either let me past or I will let the high Theocrat know just how inhospitable his city guards are!"

DM rolls behind the screen: "the guard looks visibly taken aback, and permits you through without further delay"

Later that day.....

DM: " you are suddenly savaged by a marauding band of orcs! What do you do?

Player: "I use Snake's retreat!"
DM and Players (stare at player blankly)
Player: "I mean, I am going to keep low in the shadows and try to sneak around the lead orc before they get the drop on us, I am going to try plant a dagger between the shoulder blades"
DM: Roll initiative......

Many 'mechanical' effects of older editions were dice the DM rolled to adjuticate the probability of a player's stated action succeeding. The player was forced to role play a scenario, and the DM would decide how the scenrio unfolded, many times with the help of the dice (to keep it objective)
It is entirely possible to roll-play through a modern session of 4e by invoking skills, powers, etc, rolling against DC, and "winning" or "losing" based upon the result. The player can simply say, I try using X and roll a dice to see if it succeeds.
The more of the narrative that is broken down into mechanics takes the game further away from role playing and pushes it more towards an objective board game with story elements.

So much of the modern game revovles around how to resolve the effect on the miniatures board. There isn't the need to imagine because the pieces are moving around in a very tactical way. Status effects, move effects and the like are all painstakingly calculated. Narrative, if there is any, is soon relegated to sighs and eye rolling as players are waiting to take their turn moving the pieces on the board.

A lot of players talk about how free it is to have millions of mechanical powers without any in-narrative descriptions about how they work because then the player can create their own narrative. It sounds nice in a web forum, but it never plays out that way. It is too much to try and juggle multitudes of movement/status/dice rolling while at the same time devoting a good amount of time to fleshing out each power narratively each time it goes off. I've been playing 4e for almost 4 years now and have yet to see a single person role-play an interrupt effect of a power...it all comes back down to the mechanical game board.

That type of game can be fun some times....but it is not true to D&D's roots where narrative came first.