In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

wrecan · Jul 26, 2011

Yesway Jose said:
You might contemplate the consequences, but no DM will predict everything.

The problem is the same with 3e and 4e (and every setting) in the context of houseruling. At best, it's a wash. The problem is not the same with respect to fixing published mechanics that affect worldbuilding.

Yesway Jose said:
Fair enough. But my problem is that I would have such a huge laundry list for 4E (I don't accept a fiction where people are turned for frogs for only 6 seconds outside of combat or hypnotism doesn't live up to its name)

Except this sounds like a problem with nomenclature. You don't like that spells with broad-sounding names have narrow effects. So change the name. I still don't see what this has to do with world-building.

the end result is even more problematic for my world-building.

What does your dislike for the names of some powers have to do with world-building?

Yesway Jose · Jul 26, 2011

Neonchameleon said:
People walk around normally. Adventurers hit on instinct. Until the 20th century, people seldom throw themselves to the floor. Therefore prone is quite a lot harder to induce through that method

Oh don't even get me started on that one...

In 3e NPCs used PC classes. Every single low level spell could be cast by many people in the world. In 4e, NPCs do not use PC clases. Therefore for the purpose of worldbuilding you do not need to worry about what a very few oddities can do. Worldbuilding is about the world. And 4e doesn't make powers like hypnotism ubiquitous.

How the PCs integrate into the fiction is part of my worldbuilding. The PCs aren't aliens. Harry Potter has potential access the same spells and implements as the rest of the school, maybe not the exact same spell affinities for every individual, but there are similar paradigms for everyone. Harry Potter's Baleful Polymorph need not be unrecognizable and alien to other magicians.

As has been pointed out you have completely missed the point about Zone of Truth and world building. The point about Zone of Truth is that any third level cleric in the world can make it impossible for anyone who isn't a seventh level bard impossible to lie unless they cast Dispel Magic (telling enough).

Honestly, that problem has never appeared in any of my games, so it's not a problem for me any more than Hypnotism is not a problem for you.

If a game is played to the letter of the 4e rules, there is not one single problem. Combat powers do exactly the same out of combat that they do in combat.

For me, that IS a problem, but I hadn't gone that road yet because we went down the page 42 road.

Except the clauses are incredibly different. The scenarios are too - 3e is broken out of the box and needs a contract to fix. 4e is fine out of the box and needs a contract to extend.

I'm sure there's plenty of people playing 1e to 3.5e to PF who disagree the above, so you forgot to add "IMO YMMV"

Crazy Jerome · Jul 26, 2011

Yesway Jose said:
Fair enough. But my problem is that I would have such a huge laundry list for 4E (I don't accept a fiction where people are turned for frogs for only 6 seconds outside of combat or hypnotism doesn't live up to its name), and less time than the designers to think through all the consequences, that the end result is even more problematic for my world-building.

My suggestion is try it some time (the strategy, not necessarily 4E). You don't fix everything on the list. You fix the things that players have chosen, that matter, as they matter.

In fact, that is the way I played 3E too, and all prior versions. But I'm an experienced game master, that has known what I liked for a long time. I'm fairly certain a lot of experienced world builders do the same things, with 3E and earlier. Don't mistake a simple system with lots of boundaries protecting beginners from themselves as ironclad walls that you can't cross when you feel comfortable. And what is the worst that is going to happen? You get overly generous with a bunch of 4E powers, and the game gets out of hand? How is that any different than the same problem in 1E or 2E or 3E?

Yesway Jose · Jul 26, 2011

wrecan said:
Except this sounds like a problem with nomenclature. You don't like that spells with broad-sounding names have narrow effects. So change the name. I still don't see what this has to do with world-building.

I don't like broad-sounding names that fail to live up the creative wonderful promises they hint at, nor do I like the narrow binary effects. And those narrow binary effects inform out-of-combat too. 6 seconds frogs indeed -- can you imagine the point of seeing a wizard in a movie turn a man into a frog for 6 seconds out of combat?

What does your dislike for the names of some powers have to do with world-building?

I'm exhausted. No more for today. Goodbye.

wrecan · Jul 26, 2011

Yesway Jose said:
those narrow binary effects inform out-of-combat too. 6 seconds frogs indeed -- can you imagine the point of seeing a wizard in a movie turn a man into a frog for 6 seconds out of combat?

A stunned frog. Yes. It's plenty of time for his swordsman pal to impale him on the tip of his spear.

wrecan · Jul 26, 2011

Yesway Jose said:
that problem has never appeared in any of my games, so it's not a problem for me any more than Hypnotism is not a problem for you.

Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it's not a problem. Do you not understand why Zone of Truth, Fabricate, Wall of Iron, ESP, Lyre of Building and the like should have an impact on how a world develops, even if you haven't personally experienced it?

I mean, I haven't experienced dissociation in 4e, but I'm certainly not saying "I haven't experienced it, so it's not an issue" to people who say they have. In fact, I think people would be rightfully insulted if I were to dismiss someone's experience in that way.

I'll assume that this is simply a result of your exhaustion. We'll continue this when you're better rested.

frozenwastes · Jul 27, 2011

This thread has gotten too big for me to catch up.

So I don't know if anyone has posted a link to this:

anyway: 3 Resolution Systems

And the entire series:

anyway: The Dice & Clouds series from 2009

Hussar · Jul 27, 2011

BryonD said:
/snip

I do find it a bit gratifying but also frustrating that we can have 40 pages heated debates over 4E fans being outraged over the idea that someone would dare say "4E doesn't feel D&D" and then we turn around and everyone suddenly agrees with the points that constitute that claim and don't accept that it has ever been challenged.

There is a significant difference between "4e doesn't feel like D&D" and "4e is exactly the same play experience as all prior editions".

Hussar · Jul 27, 2011

Yesway Jose said:
That's a good thing for me! That's what great sci-fi is all about -- imagining how technology transforms society. Most D&D did a bad job of it, but the potential was there and it could be fun to explore.

How does 4E handle this -- because it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong -- that spells only work in a certain way in the heat of combat, and then are either undefined or don't work at all outside of combat, which still leaves the DMs and players at loss to figure out how that fits into worldbuilding.

By and large, they don't because virtually all the powers have no impact on the game world. You don't HAVE zone of truth. Healing powers are typically based on healing surges which are a limited resource in 4e. The clerical "Cure" spells actually might be a bit problematic, but, it's not guaranteed that every cleric will have them and they are a bit higher level, so you can dodge the question pretty easily.

Hussar · Jul 27, 2011

Just caught up on my reading.

YeswayJose said:
Honestly, that problem has never appeared in any of my games, so it's not a problem for me any more than Hypnotism is not a problem for you.

Why hasn't this problem occured in your games? I'm not being snarky here, I'm honestly curious. Is it that you run a very low magic setting outside the default 3e assumptions, so that Zone of Truth isn't really an issue? Or do you simply hand wave it away and none of your players have bothered worrying about it? Or something else?

How you build your world will inform a lot of how the D&D magic system affects that world. If you play with the default 3e assumptions, particularly the 3e demographic assumptions, then these questions are very pertinent. Most DM's and players, I think, just ignore them because it would be such a PITA to deal with all of them.

I'll stand by the idea that disociated mechanics makes for MUCH easier world building because all of the above stuff doesn't have to be handwaved away. A quick perusal of the 0 to 2nd level cleric and wizard spell lists shows a plethora of really world altering effects if they were actually taken into account. Most people that I've played with simply don't care.

But handwaving the problem away doesn't suddenly make one system better at world building than another.

In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

wrecan

First Post

Yesway Jose

First Post

Crazy Jerome

First Post

Yesway Jose

First Post

wrecan

First Post

wrecan

First Post

frozenwastes

First Post

Hussar

Legend

Hussar

Legend

Hussar

Legend

Similar Threads