D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

Balesir

Adventurer
I've been squinting at this analogy for several minutes trying to determine exactly why it feels off. Now I know. A shirt may or may not make people feel warm (and it's not one of the first things you throw off to feel cooler). However, neckscarf, hat and gloves does objectively imply priority and effectiveness of retaining heat. Your analogy objectively ascribes qualities to the secondary articles of clothing and is therefore a biased and unhelpful analogy IMO and does not counter JamesonCourage's point (I wonder if it actually reinforces his point?)
I don't think it's really about "priority" - perhaps my original thought (which I changed because I wasn't sure of cultural imputations) of a jacket instead of a shirt would have been better; I don't know. The point is, I think, that neckscarf, hat and gloves do make you warmer. Now, there is a point where you become too cold, so you want something to keep some heat in - just not too much. What I'm saying is it isn't unreasonable to ask why a person chooses scarf, hat and gloves over a jacket (or a shirt - or "pants", by which I assume you mean "trousers", since otherwise the reason would be obvious...)

Reasons like "I just like hats and gloves are reasonable; "I'm supposed to be the Lone Ranger, so I have to have the hat, kerchief and gloves" would be fine but would still beg the question over the shirt, but "the jacket isn't inherently tied into my body like hat and gloves are" is going to get some askance looks...

Its more like I say I don't like flip flops and you say but dude your wearing sandals. What you fail to see is that while they share some common properties not all sandals are flip flops.
Which begs the question "what is it about flip-flops you dislike if sandals are fine?"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Balesir

Adventurer
Ally is itself a consent thing. If someone doesn't want to be moved by a given power they can declare themselves to be not an ally for the duration.
OK, I can see that argument. I don't think I'd use it, because its a klunky, messy sort of mechanism reminiscent of "bad old days" ;)

Actually, the whole Ally/Enemy thing was not well defined in 4e and I really wish it had been; there is a world of depth that could be added to social interaction with that sort of "status" differentiation...
 

I may have misunderstood, but I read @chaochou as denying that there is any such category as "inherently associated" - that all episodes of play involve people sitting around deploying various mechanical techniques, and making decisions and/or reaching agreement about how those techniques produce or relate to outcomes in a shared fiction.

You've not misunderstood. That is exactly my point.

And the word 'inherent' adds nothing. Objective Association as 'defined' (I use that word in the loosest sense, since the definition is nonsense) already means that use of the mechanic can not ever be found 'dissociative' by anyone in the world.

To claim that association and disocciation are objectively true you must claim to be able to speak on behalf of the experiences and imaginations of everyone.

Is a mechanic linked to the game world? In whose game world? Who is doing the linking? Who gets to judge whether that link is adequate?

Does a mechanic equate a decision by a player to a decision by the character? Whose character? Who does the equating? Who gets to judge whether that equating is acceptable?

To accept the 'theory' of dissociated mechanics is to accept the premise that the answer to the third question is 'Justin Alexander'.
 

Gryph

First Post
You've not misunderstood. That is exactly my point.

And the word 'inherent' adds nothing. Objective Association as 'defined' (I use that word in the loosest sense, since the definition is nonsense) already means that use of the mechanic can not ever be found 'dissociative' by anyone in the world.

To claim that association and disocciation are objectively true you must claim to be able to speak on behalf of the experiences and imaginations of everyone.

Is a mechanic linked to the game world? In whose game world? Who is doing the linking? Who gets to judge whether that link is adequate?

Does a mechanic equate a decision by a player to a decision by the character? Whose character? Who does the equating? Who gets to judge whether that equating is acceptable?

To accept the 'theory' of dissociated mechanics is to accept the premise that the answer to the third question is 'Justin Alexander'.

Chaochou, I agree with on the subjectiveness of dissociated mechanics and have posted so previously. But, maybe this misses an aspect of game design.

D&D for at least the last two editions, and arguably for both editions of AD&D, has a default fictional world that the mechanics are hung on. Doesn't this at least imply some commonality of fictional expectation among the player base?

Extrapolating from that, I conclude that D&D players who say they dislike 4e for its dissociated mechanics are effectively saying they dislike the default, often implied, game world presented in 4e. That its genre conventions as expressed in its game physics are not to my taste.

Similiarly to my dislike for 3e multiclassing because I feel its representation of character development over time is flawed. It's tendency toward power building puts me off but can be fairly easily houseruled around but at its heart the sense that every couple of game days/weeks someone can fundemntally change their nature just violates my sense of how people work.

So, yeah I think dissociated mechanics are inherently subjective, but there does seem to be a deliberate attempt on the part of the game designers to make the game world a shared experience so maybe its not just at an individual level that discussions of the suitability of a mechanic for representing the implied fiction can be had?

(I do think its time to let the term dissociated mechanic die. I think it now has too high an emotional context for too many people for it to be useful used in discussion).
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
D&D for at least the last two editions, and arguably for both editions of AD&D, has a default fictional world that the mechanics are hung on. Doesn't this at least imply some commonality of fictional expectation among the player base?

I'd say that it was attempted, but even when it was merely Gary's Greyhawk, it was still default fictional worlds--not singular. The aspect of each group (or at least each DM) making the world their own would be there, even if not encouraged by the rules and advice. The commonality of fiction thus can seem more similar than it is in fact.
 

Greg K

Legend
One odd (and often self-defeating) result of this focus was often an inability in 3e to play the character you envisioned right from the start. Even the prestige system reflects the idea that getting to play your concept was a goal of the game. You want your character to be X?...wait 6 levels and you can be close. You had to "earn" the right to be what you wanted (yet another hidden aspect of the design process that subtly favored the caster over the martial character.)

Technically, I would disagree. First, PrCs were an optional rule under DM purview. They were not a default a rule available to the players (at least, in 3.0. As to whether they are still listed in the DMG as being an optional rule, I don't know. I don't know). Second, if you are going to mention PrCs, there are a number of official options available for customizing the character from the start.

1. Customizing the Character (PHB 3.0 and 3.5): Granted there was only one example in the PHB and very little support was given in 3.0 supplements (e.g., the Urban Ranger which I believe was in Masters of the Wild), there much more support in 3.5 supplements

2. Variant Spell lists (DMG)
3. Variant: 0/0 level multi class at first level (3.0 DMG)


With 3.5 we see a number of options presented for character customization.
a. UA Class variants: examples include the Barbarian Hunter (trades rage for Ranger Weapon Style and Favored Enemy), Bardic Sage, Divine Bard, Savage bard, Cloistered Cleric (weak combatant, sage-like), Monk Fighting Styles, Martial Rogue (Trade Sneak Attack for Fighter bonus feats), Wilderness Rogue (variant skill list; can be combined with the Martial Rogue), urban ranger.
b. Complete Champion class variants: Spell-less Paladin and Spell-less Ranger. Instead of spellcasting, they receive a bonus feat (from a set list0 every time they would gain a new spell. This was a common internet house rule going back to 3e. I think that I first saw it on Monte Cook's site. (there was a different Spell-less Ranger in the earlier Complete Warrior)
c. Cityscape web enhancement 1 Urban/Wilderness Skill Swap: Basically, a codified version of an idea seen in the Wilderness Rogue and, already, used by those DMs impementing the PHB class customization.
d. Variant Class features: These appeared in Unearthed Arcana (e.g., the Favored Environment variant that replaces a rangers favored enemy class feature).
e. Substitution levels: Appeared in PHB2 and other books
f. alternate spellcasting methods (e.g., Spontaneous Divine casting in which the cleric has a smaller list of spells known, but casts spells like a sorcerer (it can even be applied to the Druid) or DMG variant: tailored spell lists)

The issues was that the above, like PrC, required the DM to allow their use and might not be allowed. However, the point is that were many options for tailoring the character at the start rather than simply the PrC option.
 

Gryph

First Post
I'd say that it was attempted, but even when it was merely Gary's Greyhawk, it was still default fictional worlds--not singular. The aspect of each group (or at least each DM) making the world their own would be there, even if not encouraged by the rules and advice. The commonality of fiction thus can seem more similar than it is in fact.

The following is anecdotal so take it for what its worth.

In my D&D group (4e for the last 3 years now) I split DMing duties with another member. We each run a seperate campaign. I use a long standing campaign world of my own creation that I have used, with modifications, since AD&D 2e was current. The DM in our group runs by the book Eberron.

Since my campaign is long established and pretty detailed, I found that a lot of the new races, classes and a lot of the fluff around the classes just doesn't fit. The range of Channel Divinity feats/powers, for instance. So I use a fairly large campaign rule document to remove a bunch of elements that don't fit and refalvor a few more to make them fit.

My cohort does not have such a document, he started playing with 4e and loves the everything is core approach.

There is still a lot more shared between our games in terms of rules and implied game physics than there are differences; because the mechanics, powers and class abilities have some considerable weight of genre expectation built into them.


I'm not really trying to argue with you CJ, just expanding on the experiential context of my previous post.
 

Imaro

Legend
I'd say that it was attempted, but even when it was merely Gary's Greyhawk, it was still default fictional worlds--not singular. The aspect of each group (or at least each DM) making the world their own would be there, even if not encouraged by the rules and advice. The commonality of fiction thus can seem more similar than it is in fact.

But even amongst those various worlds there were, barring special abilities or DM intervention, commonalities. As an example, one such commonality is that a greatsword will always, on average, do more damage than a dagger. That may be pure mechanics but it directly correlates to and influences the fiction of a D&D world.
 



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top