I just finished a session of 4th edition D&D, and I found that during the combats the DM and the other player tended to talk about what was happening in rules terms.

For example, they might say "If I shift here instead of moving, then that won't provoke an attack of opportunity, but does that count as a move action or a standard action?"

The trouble with that is that it doesn't seem to be meaningful in terms of 'stuff happening to adventurers'. For example if someone walks across a room, it's not meaningful to ask whether they're 'shifting' or 'moving', or whether they're taking a move action or a standard action. But it can be a very big difference in the game - in fact most of the combat decisions seem to be these kinds of choices, and relatively little seems to be about choices that have an obvious real-world meaning (do we fight, negotiate, run away, surrender, or try to sneak past?)

Is this a problem with 4th edition, or D&D in general, or role-playing games in general?

Quote from: Age of Fable;224850Is this a problem with 4th edition, or D&D in general, or role-playing games in general?

I think it's a difference between high complexity ("crunch") rules systems and more rules-light / abstracted systems.

A suggested rule I liked (for Tunnels & Trolls), is that everyone has 30 seconds to announce what they're going to do, otherwise they do nothing for that round.

I'd soften it to "...otherwise they do the most obvious thing for that round (attack the nearest enemy with a standard attack)".

Quote from: Age of Fable;224850Is this a problem with 4th edition, or D&D in general, or role-playing games in general?

Yes.

I really hate it when players do that.  I much prefer it when players tell me what their characters do in real world terms, and then leave it to me to decide what that means in terms of the game rules.

They're talking in the terms that matter for playing the game.  It may be annoying, but it is efficient, much like using jargon on the job.

I don't think it is a problem per se. It's a design feature of that particular game due to detailed tactical combat rules.

The question is whether an individual player likes it that way or not.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;224924They're talking in the terms that matter for playing the game.  It may be annoying, but it is efficient, much like using jargon on the job.

Not really efficient. Just going by the rules as written, RAW, omits a cornucopia of detail and circumstances that can make the game more colorful and more entertaining.

It happens, I think 4e would make it particularly bad since it's very focused on rules clairity instead of narration.

I always like GURPS for this because so many of the actions actually have names that are narrative.  And it's very easy to parse descriptions of activity into game terms.

"I'll feint and stab him in the knee!"

Quote from: David Johansen;224930It happens, I think 4e would make it particularly bad since it's very focused on rules clairity instead of narration.

I always like GURPS for this because so many of the actions actually have names that are narrative.  And it's very easy to parse descriptions of activity into game terms.

"I'll feint and stab him in the knee!"

Exactly! I took inspiration from one of the Best of the Dragon magazine articles some years ago, The article was titled Monkish Combat in the Arena of Promotion, back in the day when monks had to defeat a grandmaster one level higher than them, before they could advance to the next level.

Anyway, The table listed an illustrated version of different battle maneuevers including blocks, strikes, kicks, and other unique moves each of which offered a unique circumstance modifier to combat. Some moves were more effective against some kinds of blocks or parries, of course. I modified this table so that it could be used with different types of weapons as well. The players had to secretly pick a manuever just prior to resolving combat, if it was against an NPC, I randomly rolled what the NPC was going to do, then simply narrated the combat.

This actually speeded up play, since everyone quickly came to know that a high block or parry, was simply not effective against a low strike, disarm attempt, on so on, plus the combats were simply spectacular, especially when there was in-party fighting.

As I understand it, Mike mearls himself says that the point of 4E DnD is to focus on rules terminology - see this post by him where he compares his OD&D campaign with 4E: http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=campaignstories&action=display&thread=543#1203183973

Note especially

Quote... I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

and

QuoteFor me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised. I can write rules without worrying about strict interpretations or covering every possible case. The players, since they've agreed to sit down at an OD&D table, are probably more likely to accept random craziness and a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).

from what he is saying here, it seems intended for 4E players to think and act in terms of "game elements" and leave "game fiction" out. In 4E, it doesn't matter how a trap is made and trying to think up a way to defuse the trap via logic coherent to the setting misses the purpose of the game - instead 4E players should think "aha - a trap, that's a skill challenge to which I can apply these exception based rules to my advantage, yea me!"

Likewise a 4E player is not supposed to think, much less say, "my ranger makes a daring leap across the tavern table, grabs the chandelier, and stabs the villain" he is supposed to think and say "my striker oriented ranger makes a shift movement, employs a skill challenge to improve its attack function."

James Wyatt makes a similar point here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080630

QuoteThe shift in philosophy reflected in this table is most evident in the section on terrain in Chapter 4 (pages 67-68). In past editions, we'd describe things like cave slime as if the DC of the Acrobatics check to avoid slipping in it were an objective, scientific measurement of its physical properties. "How slippery is cave slime? It's DC 30 slippery." But setting a fixed number like that limits its usefulness -- cave slime would be too challenging for low-level characters and irrelevant for high-level characters. In 4th Edition, we tell you to set the DC to avoid slipping based on the level of the characters, using the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table. So when 5th-level characters encounter cave slime, they'll be making a check against DC 22, but 25th-level characters have to make a DC 33 check.

Does that mean that high-level characters encounter Epic Cave Slime that's objectively slipperier than the Heroic Cave Slime they encountered in their early careers? Maybe. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the DM has permission to use terrain that's relevant to the characters, regardless of their level -- and has a table supported by solid math to make sure it's relevant.

The game fiction for why a Cave Slime always matches DC against the player's level is irrelevant. The point is to understand and relish the game mechanics affecting in play challenges and be rewared with a comensurate treasure parcel. The point isn't to ask what is meaningful to "stuff happening to adventurers" (that's old D&D my friend) but instead to monitor and exploit the interplay of game elements in a suitably rewarding manner as defined by the rules. "How slippery is the cave slime?" will always be answered in 4E by "as much as it needs to be to ensure proper game balance and appropriate to the treasure parcel it will provide." Remember - fiction is irrelevant, only the game elements are relevant.

So yes, this is a feature of 4E Dungeons and Dragons. Those who perceive it as a problem would probably enjoy some other RPG better. Whether it becomes a trend in role playing in general, only time will tell. But since D&D has always been the most common entry point into RPGs, I uspect this approach to play will quickly become the norm over the next few years.

Me? I'm sticking with BRP, but what do I know?

QuoteThe shift in philosophy reflected in this table is most evident in the section on terrain in Chapter 4 (pages 67-68). In past editions, we'd describe things like cave slime as if the DC of the Acrobatics check to avoid slipping in it were an objective, scientific measurement of its physical properties. "How slippery is cave slime? It's DC 30 slippery." But setting a fixed number like that limits its usefulness -- cave slime would be too challenging for low-level characters and irrelevant for high-level characters. In 4th Edition, we tell you to set the DC to avoid slipping based on the level of the characters, using the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table. So when 5th-level characters encounter cave slime, they'll be making a check against DC 22, but 25th-level characters have to make a DC 33 check.

Does that mean that high-level characters encounter Epic Cave Slime that's objectively slipperier than the Heroic Cave Slime they encountered in their early careers? Maybe. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the DM has permission to use terrain that's relevant to the characters, regardless of their level -- and has a table supported by solid math to make sure it's relevant.

This is the most absolutely idiotic thing I've ever read.

So basically, no matter how good a character gets, everything should remain an identical challenge?  Nobody gets better, the numbers just get bigger.

I just don't get it.

Another way to go, at least from some games, was to have some cards which listed the common manuevers and modifers.  One of two things could happen...they may not talk as much and just lay cards down.  The card could serve as a springboard to talk about the action in adventure terms since rule terms is already figured.   Of course, player preference rules as well.  Some people may just feel more comfortable expressing themselves one way verses another.

We sometimes express our actions in narrative terms. We always express them in rules terms.

If you're playing a game, and you want to stick to the rules, it's important that everyone know what is happening from a rules point of view.

Quote from: worrapol;224951from what he is saying here, it seems intended for 4E players to think and act in terms of "game elements" and leave "game fiction" out. In 4E, it doesn't matter how a trap is made and trying to think up a way to defuse the trap via logic coherent to the setting misses the purpose of the game - instead 4E players should think "aha - a trap, that's a skill challenge to which I can apply these exception based rules to my advantage, yea me!"

Either approach could make sense, depending on what attracts people to D&D.

When I was young, the assumption was that people got into it through liking Lord of the Rings (no one I knew got into it through wargaming). So having the 'story' be the point makes sense.

I think the other approach would work for people who were like the people on boardgamegeek.com. There, a popular game might be 'about' building the pyramids, but the theme could be changed to courtly intrigue in ancient China or heavy metal bands and it'd have the same rules and be just as popular.

So, do 'kids these days' still become interested in role-playing via liking Harry Potter/anime/Lord of the Rings, or not?