Quote from: Benoist;404522I see. That could make sense. That's one hell of an abstraction though, taken this way, you gotta admit.

I was a 1e DM for way over decade; talk about abstractions in combat! At least with 4e I have a little more to work with when describing a battle than how many hit points a hit delivered.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;404533I was a 1e DM for way over decade; talk about abstractions in combat! At least with 4e I have a little more to work with when describing a battle than how many hit points a hit delivered.

I've played and ran my share of First Ed too. It's just weird: I don't see nearly as much of a degree of abstraction myself. If we were talking about the way the marking mechanic works compared to some maneuver in the First Ed combat system, then I could agree wholeheartedly. It's just as abstract. But the martial powers shoehorned in the Encounter/Daily frame feel much more abstract to me.

Anyway. The thread's not about the problem. It's about solutions!

Quote from: Benoist;404539But the martial powers shoehorned in the Encounter/Daily frame feel much more abstract to me.

One of the first things to cross my mind when I saw how martial powers worked in 4e was "Finally! Now I have something concrete to work with!"

The other thing to remember is that after PCs use up their powers, they have to fall back on the basic attack, which is essentially unchanged from its 1e ancestry. So make the PCs shoot their wad ASAP, and problem solved! :teehee:

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;404541One of the first things to cross my mind when I saw how martial powers worked in 4e was "Finally! Now I have something concrete to work with!"

Amazing, especially when you consider that we've got some comparable game histories, as I'm sure you've noticed too. (CoC, Ptolus, etc etc - we've got similar tastes on a lot of stuff, it seems) Could be coming from Iron Heroes in part, which was far more developed and much less abstract with its token mechanics than 4E ended up being. Did you play IH?

Quote from: Benoist;404544Amazing, especially when you consider that we've got some comparable game histories, as I'm sure you've noticed too. (CoC, Ptolus, etc etc - we've got similar tastes on a lot of stuff, it seems) Could be coming from Iron Heroes in part, which was far more developed and much less abstract with its token mechanics than 4E ended up being. Did you play IH?

Unfortunately, no. I bought IH, including the GM and monster book, as well as two printed adventures and at least two pdfs of settings. I thought it was amazing, but have yet to get the chance to play or run it. Matter of fact, IH was one of the big reasons I was so happy to see Mearls start working for WotC - I wanted to see IH stuff imported into D&D.

I see what you mean re: similar gaming backgrounds and likes, yet almost polar opposite views on this particular subject.

By the way, it occurred to me later that I wasn't as clear as I could have been regarding players using up all their daily and encounter powers and having to rely on their basic attack. I was conflating basics and at-wills, but now that I'm correcting myself, it occurs to me there isn't a lot of difference when you boil it down.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;404560Unfortunately, no. I bought IH, including the GM and monster book, as well as two printed adventures and at least two pdfs of settings. I thought it was amazing, but have yet to get the chance to play or run it. Matter of fact, IH was one of the big reasons I was so happy to see Mearls start working for WotC - I wanted to see IH stuff imported into D&D.

In some way that happened. Not how I expected it, though.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;404560I see what you mean re: similar gaming backgrounds and likes, yet almost polar opposite views on this particular subject.

By the way, it occurred to me later that I wasn't as clear as I could have been regarding players using up all their daily and encounter powers and having to rely on their basic attack. I was conflating basics and at-wills, but now that I'm correcting myself, it occurs to me there isn't a lot of difference when you boil it down.

Nah, not really, I agree. At-wills model some basic maneuvers when you think about it. Instead of a Feat in 3rd ed, or some basic class ability in First Ed, you got an At-Will in 4E. Cleave, for instance. It's not fundamentally different. What it does in practice is just say "this class got an At-will, not this one. So this class can do this basic maneuver, and not this one".

I've pondered this thread and some of the other 4e threads on this site, and I've concluded that I honestly don't know what is meant when someone says 4e is more abstract than, say, 1e. I'm not arguing, I'm not putting anyone down, I'm simply saying that somewhere along the way I've experienced a disconnect with others having the discussion.

I think I have a vague idea about one aspect of the problem; the 4e classes seem more nebulous in their roles than their 1e counterparts. Is that the problem?

As for powers and what they are supposed to model from the real world...I just haven't had a lot of trouble grokking (to continue to overuse the term) what the designers meant with a given game mechanic. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that most of the powers instantly conjure something I've seen in a movie or read in a book. Others may take me a little while, but eventually there's always an "aha!" moment when I get what it means.

"Marking" is an easy one, or at least it seems that way to me: Captain Blackheart bellows across the battlefield "By God, Trueheart, you son of a whore, I will be eating your heart presently!" Trueheart, his honor besmirched, hastens to cleave Blackheart's head from his shoulders, his attention so focused on Blackheart that his blows against other foes are delivered absent-mindedly. I've seen or read about stuff like this a lot in swords & sorcery. Or, Hell, maybe I have it wrong...

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;404941"Marking" is an easy one, or at least it seems that way to me: Captain Blackheart bellows across the battlefield "By God, Trueheart, you son of a whore, I will be eating your heart presently!" Trueheart, his honor besmirched, hastens to cleave Blackheart's head from his shoulders, his attention so focused on Blackheart that his blows against other foes are delivered absent-mindedly. I've seen or read about stuff like this a lot in swords & sorcery. Or, Hell, maybe I have it wrong...

No, that does make some measure of sense.  Of course, it assumes that every single creature you could possibly encounter (even gelatinous cubes) has the exact same reaction to such an insult.  And, at times it is just a spoken challenge but at other times it is an incantation so powerful, it negates divine power.

Another example is tripping.  There is no possible way to 'trip' a giant block of Jell-O, or render it 'prone' in any sensible definition of the word.  But that is because those aren't being used in any 'sensible' way.  They are simply shorthand for conditions that can be imposed within the structure of the rules.  It likely would have been better to call it 'Monkey Dances with Tiger' or 'Fighter Offensive Manoeuvre B' or something, because there is no actual 'tripping' going on.  There can't be, because it is functionally impossible to trip an amorphous cube, and physically impossible to trip a much larger creature, especially a quadruped.  Hence, elephants are right out, too (cue endless anecdotes about how it is totally possible for a 200lb human to 'trip' a four-legged animal that is 3m tall, and weighs 5000 kg).

It's less a matter of being 'more abstract', although that is a certain facet of it.  It goes right to the heart of 'disassociated', where 'tripping' something doesn't actually mean you have physically affected a creature to render it prone from a standing position.  It just means there are now certain conditions that apply to that creature.

So, your rationalization of  how a 'mark' works is functional, and the most common one I have heard.  But it's exactly that, a rationalization.  At some other table, it could be a quasi-mystical compunction.  It could be flicking a booger on someone.  It could be any of those things, all of those things, or none of those things.  The point is:  it doesn't matter how you explain it.  It's actually none of those things, it is simply a penalty to an opponent when they attack anything other than your character.  And that is literally all it is.  Anything you use to explain it at your table is great, but it isn't 'what really happens', because it is set up in such a way that 'what really happens' is totally irrelevant.

Quote from: StormBringer;405095Anything you use to explain it at your table is great, but it isn't 'what really happens', because it is set up in such a way that 'what really happens' is totally irrelevant.

Yeah, but my entire point with that post is to ask how does this differ significantly from 1e? I mean, combat in 1e was centered on the one-minute round. In general, PCs had one opportunity to hit something in that round. When they did, all the game says is that they...hit. To ask your question - what really happens? Was it a thrust? A slash? A punch with the pommel? Why did it take a whole friggin' minute to hit, anyway? That's a helluva long time when you're in a fight for your life. Sure, at some point Gygax said that it assumed feints and parries and maneuvering around, but again, my point is that 1e combat seems way more abstract than 4e. The designers for 4e provide about as much info as to what their mechanics "mean" as Gygax did (EDIT: No, they provide more info than in 1e).

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;405153Yeah, but my entire point with that post is to ask how does this differ significantly from 1e? I mean, combat in 1e was centered on the one-minute round. In general, PCs had one opportunity to hit something in that round. When they did, all the game says is that they...hit. To ask your question - what really happens? Was it a thrust? A slash? A punch with the pommel? Why did it take a whole friggin' minute to hit, anyway? That's a helluva long time when you're in a fight for your life. Sure, at some point Gygax said that it assumed feints and parries and maneuvering around, but again, my point is that 1e combat seems way more abstract than 4e. The designers for 4e provide about as much info as to what their mechanics "mean" as Gygax did (EDIT: No, they provide more info than in 1e).

But that is kind of my point.  They can have a novella length description for each power, the fact remains: that isn't really what it is doing.  When you tripped someone (or otherwise rendered them prone) in the olden days, that is actually what happened, and there were limitations on who, what and when you could do it.

So, sure, there was some abstraction back then.  But it wasn't so abstract that tripping someone meant you didn't really trip them.

Quote from: StormBringer;405095No, that does make some measure of sense.  Of course, it assumes that every single creature you could possibly encounter (even gelatinous cubes) has the exact same reaction to such an insult.  And, at times it is just a spoken challenge but at other times it is an incantation so powerful, it negates divine power.

I don't see the fighter's marking as either of you does. To me, it makes sense when you basically assume it's not just "you son of a whore" after you hit the guy, but that the attack roll you make to mark the guy actually simulates whole lot of fences and moves destined to FORCE your enemy to fight you by disrupting whatever he does with other opponents.

That's how it makes sense to me.

But really please, maybe you can create another thread for this? This is a thread for SOLUTIONS in the forms of settings, not a thread to rehash the problems.

I'll be happy to participate.

Quote from: StormBringer;405156But that is kind of my point.  They can have a novella length description for each power, the fact remains: that isn't really what it is doing.  When you tripped someone (or otherwise rendered them prone) in the olden days, that is actually what happened, and there were limitations on who, what and when you could do it.

So, sure, there was some abstraction back then.  But it wasn't so abstract that tripping someone meant you didn't really trip them.

I'm not following this line of reasoning. I'm not being a dick; I just don't grasp what is meant.

In 1e, the effects of someone being tripped and/or brought prone (by grappling or overbearing) only results in hit point damage. Tripping doesn't even give the possibility of a "stunned" result. It just allows pummeling. I just don't see how that is "actually" happening as opposed to a given 4e martial power.

Quote from: Benoist;405158But really please, maybe you can create another thread for this? This is a thread for SOLUTIONS in the forms of settings, not a thread to rehash the problems.

I'll be happy to participate.

Aw, buzzkiller.

But, seriously, the problem I'm having participating in this thread is that I genuinely can't grasp what the problem is in the first place, especially when it has to do with a comparison to earlier editions of the game. I'm trying to glean the meaning.

Look, I'll just concede stupidity and bow out of this thread.

Quote from: Benoist;405158I don't see the fighter's marking as either of you does. To me, it makes sense when you basically assume it's not just "you son of a whore" after you hit the guy, but that the attack roll you make to mark the guy actually simulates whole lot of fences and moves destined to FORCE your enemy to fight you by disrupting whatever he does with other opponents.

That's how it makes sense to me.

But really please, maybe you can create another thread for this? This is a thread for SOLUTIONS in the forms of settings, not a thread to rehash the problems.

I'll be happy to participate.

You are absolutely right, and I apologize.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;405166Look, I'll just concede stupidity and bow out of this thread.

Don't concede stupidity, and don't leave on my account!  It's entirely possible I am not providing clear examples.  We can take this up in PM or address it in the 4e-clone thread I started a couple of weeks ago.