Gamasutra Article

Tydanosaurus · Post by **Tydanosaurus** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:23 pm

Discussion of Good Ideas from 4E

Found the link from one of PR's sad little threads. For your reading pleasure. Some interesting comments, some downright odd ones.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:28 pm

That thing mentions something I've noticed in alot of commentary. In almost every example of official people mentioning actions the players want to do that aren't covered by the rules, they bring up "swing from a chandelier". I see that example soo freaking often, I truly have to wonder why that particular activity never gets a rule. Swinging from a chandelier is almost iconic, just from examples of holes in their system alone, and yet they never think "maybe I should actually make a rule for it".

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:23 am

Especially when it just needs to be a sidebar marked 'Optional Rule: Action stunts'

Coming up with a cool 'action stunt' associated with whatever it is you are doing (such as swinging from the chandliers, grabbing the bunjee cord attacked to the attack helicopter and swinging to the next building, whatever) that meets with general approval gives you a +2 on whatever it is you are doing.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:04 am

'Swinging on something attack' is generally just using terrain to perform a charge over difficult terrain.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:59 am

We need objective rules that allow the use of something that you can swing on as part of your movement, which covers both terrain crossing and attacking from a chandelier, rather than saying "we don't feel like making rules for it, have some half thought guidelines" like I frequently see in books.

I can agree that players are potentially able to think of more actions that thematically work but aren't precisely covered by the rules, and thus guidelines for 'stunts'. However, the specific action of 'swinging' has been cited often enough that it should've gotten a ruling by now

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:26 pm

Why not just do it as Catharz, having a swing action count as part of a movement but make it a partial charge within the movement.

So if Lao Tzu the Monk has 60 speed and has to get across the second floor of the tavern by using the 20 ft hallway at first and then the chandelier hanging over the 15 ft spike trap (no reason) in the middle and then the hallway again to reach his dreaded enemy Confucious the drunken scholar then just let him make a simple jump check to get towards the chandelier (which we say he makes because he has the speed) and then the partial charge in the middle gives him a +2 to his attack.

If there isn't an attack action involved, just have it be fluff. It is cool.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:16 pm

A_Cynic wrote:If there isn't an attack action involved, just have it be fluff. It is cool.

Attacking's considered cool too, you know? I.e., non-attacks can unbalance a game just fine - any need you have for rules' is a need, period. But that could just be: "Charging over difficult terrain: roll Tumble against DC [insert number here]. Make something up." And have it be written in the rules, with a retarded chandelier example.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:47 pm

Bigode wrote:
A_Cynic wrote:If there isn't an attack action involved, just have it be fluff. It is cool.
Attacking's considered cool too, you know? I.e., non-attacks can unbalance a game just fine - any need you have for rules' is a need, period. But that could just be: "Charging over difficult terrain: roll Tumble against DC [insert number here]. Make something up." And have it be written in the rules, with a retarded chandelier example.

Of course, attacking is cool. I'm just being too quick and not very careful in checking my posts recently. I just meant it is cool in the sense of 'it's A-OK'
~

But, yes, that works as well.

I just invented a more obtuse mechanism because virgileso wanted a specific mechanism rather than something existing.

It was rough, bad, and silly. I rescind it. I'll leave it up and watch the hilarity ensue.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:57 pm

A_Cynic wrote:Of course, attacking is cool. I'm just being too quick and not very careful in checking my posts recently. I just meant it is cool in the sense of 'it's A-OK'

If by that you mean one can just say "whatever", you're wrong; if non-attacks were silly little flavor considerations, the 3.5 fighter would be a great class ... though now it becomes clearer why it is to some people (not meant to include you, though) ...

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:15 pm

Okay, fine, I'm going about it in a wrong way. I'm just rushing up the hill and just bumbling about and not really clarifying any of the information I'm trying to get out.

So let's try to extrapolate some information first.

Virgileso, bigode, whoever the fvck else...

What are the primary/secondary purposes for the 'action stunt' swinging by use of chandelier, lariat, etc...?

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:25 pm

A_Cynic wrote:What are the primary/secondary purposes for the 'action stunt' swinging by use of chandelier, lariat, etc...?

Not sure whether you ask about in-game or metagame, but the latter's the only one I'd care about: debunk the classic (and retarded) defense of EBD, namely "You can't foresee everything; what about chandeliers?" - so fvcking write whatever rules for what you want in the book, and then start worrying about the real rare stuff instead of going for not having a system at all.