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

Emerikol said:

I agree that for many people the dissociation between the player and the character is not a great concern. I can guess that this is true for a number of reasons. That is their experience. They play more casually and they think of it as a game just like monopoly. Now I'm not saying the game IS monopoly or that the game IS like a board game. I'm just saying that your commitment level and attitude is similar. That's all.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's ever really been a concern for me. I started with Moldvay Basic (B/X) and, without anyone to teach us the game, we went with what we knew: board games, especially Dungeon!. We carefully marked off turns, described the "board", etc. (We did allow PCs to "flip" d6s - basically re-rolling them - which was pretty important since almost everything was rolled on a d6. I think we did that after too many PCs died. Ah, poor Questor and Questor II. I will kill that mad hermit in B2 some day for you.)

Emerikol said:

For me I've just always been the kind of DM and player who really loves a well detailed and immersive world. I like getting to the character. So perhaps this is why I see things my way. I'm not saying you can't enjoy a detailed world either. Just saying how I perceive maybe I came to my own preferences.

Click to expand...

I enjoy those features as well. However, I think that I see those as a way to add depth to what I want out of the game, instead of the game in itself. (I don't want to sound like I'm assuming that's what you do; I just want to clarify what I get out of RPGs by use of contrast.)

I use the details of the world to either a) set an interesting goal for my PC and then manipulate those details in order to achieve said goal (in games like D&D) or b) to add texture, depth, and a personal closeness to "problematic issues of human nature" that I find interesting (in most Forge-baked games).

Patryn of Elvenshae said:

This is a thing that gets to me, because I, too, want a well-detailed and immersive world. I love getting into my character's head, too.

And yet, I also have no problem at all stepping back from my character, and saying, "You know what? The optimal / rational / smart in-character decision is probably [X]; but I think it will take the game in a more interesting direction if I do [Y] instead. Is [Y] something that makes me look like a jerk to the other players? Nope? Okay, can I come up with a reason why my character might do [Y]? Uh ... yeah, I can see that. Fine then - my character does [Y]."

It just boggles the mind that people not only will not do that themselves, but seem to think that it cannot be done at all without somehow transforming the experience into "not roleplaying."

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, you can definitely play a character who doesn't do the most optimal thing. In fact, I'd argue that's how the huge, huge majority of humans actually act. Most of the characters I play have personality "flaws" that often make life harder for them, or leading to complicating the situation (or taking "the game in a more interesting direction").

I don't think it has much to do with immersion, there. Sure, some characters will be purely efficient machines, but I imagine most won't be. So, you can remain completely in-character an immersed, never have to take a step back, and still make sub-optimal choices that make the game more interesting. Just thought I'd point that out (especially as this is the norm for me, and for my group). As always, play what you like

Patryn of Elvenshae said:

This is a thing that gets to me, because I, too, want a well-detailed and immersive world. I love getting into my character's head, too.

And yet, I also have no problem at all stepping back from my character, and saying, "You know what? The optimal / rational / smart in-character decision is probably [X]; but I think it will take the game in a more interesting direction if I do [Y] instead. Is [Y] something that makes me look like a jerk to the other players? Nope? Okay, can I come up with a reason why my character might do [Y]? Uh ... yeah, I can see that. Fine then - my character does [Y]."

It just boggles the mind that people not only will not do that themselves, but seem to think that it cannot be done at all without somehow transforming the experience into "not roleplaying."

Click to expand...

I think in classic D&D, it's quite frequent to step back from character to some degree and try to reconcile X to Y. I think that "not roleplaying" (your phrase, not mine) refers to not seeing X or not caring about X relative to Y.

Let's say that you want your PC to join the party [Y]. The rational thing for your PC to do [X] may be to say i) "you're crazy, no way", ii) "I'm not sure, tell me more" or iii) "hell yes!"

Now I don't like the term "not roleplaying". I'm not really sure what "roleplaying" means and I don't think it has anything to do with this thread.

That said, depending on your character concept and consistency with past actions, some of those X's are going to be more "true to character" than others. I just think that "less roleplaying" or better "less immersion" is when you say "Sure" (ie., my PC agrees to join the party) [Y] without thinking about X at all.

So I'll infer that "less immersion" is when the player is primarily motivated to do Y and doesn't have any X in mind. I think that's when the danger of "dissociation" feeling comes in.

A simulationist mechanic does the easy work for you. It basically gives you a default X up front and it can be selected as true to character at the character design phase. You can keep spamming that simulationist mechanic and your pre-assumed Xs is generally aligned with your Ys, whether you're actively imagining it or not at any one time in play.

Whereas a metagame-y mechanic can be unsatisfying if I perceive that X is unknown or X doesn't make sense and therefore I have to frequently imagine X and why my PC is doing X relative to Y. Or my fellow players are doing Y and not articulating anything about X but I'm part of the shared narrative. So it can be easier to gloss over it all (like an awkward saving throw or a tactical skirmish move that you don't think about in-game). But when you gloss over a simulationist mechanic as you will inevitably do through the session, at least you have that default X for you.

In short, I feel like I'm doing "less roleplaying" when there's a whole lot of Ys and a whole lot of glossing over the Xs. And it's only "dissociated" when the nature of the mechanics (plus the presentation) isn't helping any with the immersion.

I don't know if I articulated that properly. It's strange analyzing the psychology of this.

EDIT: Oh, and I figure "dissociation" is best used to describe a feeling, not a thing

Emerikol said:

They play more casually and they think of it as a game just like monopoly. Now I'm not saying the game IS monopoly or that the game IS like a board game. I'm just saying that your commitment level and attitude is similar. That's all.

Click to expand...

You say that to a hobbyist that's been active and enthusiastic for over 30 years, it's an insult. Plain and simple. And you just said to /everyone/ who has the temerity to disagree with you on what is a pretty controversial and ill-supported little theory.

Neonchameleon said:

They pulled 3.0 and they pulled the books like Song and Silence, replacing them with Complete Arcane and the like. Therefore new edition.

Click to expand...

Please stop spreading wrong information.

Once again:
DMG pg 4
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition
of the game. This revision is compatible with existing products, and these
products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

According to the designers it's not a new edition. If you want to go that route then you could call 4th edition, after all the updates and erratas, a new edition.

Funny how you are quick to do this to 3rd edition but you conveniently forget to do this for 4th edition.

ForeverSlayer said:

Please stop spreading wrong information.

Once again:
DMG pg 4
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition
of the game. This revision is compatible with existing products, and these
products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

According to the designers it's not a new edition. If you want to go that route then you could call 4th edition, after all the updates and erratas, a new edition.

Funny how you are quick to do this to 3rd edition but you conveniently forget to do this for 4th edition.

Click to expand...

But it is a revision according to the designers, while Essentials is not a revision.

For me, the major difference beween 3.5 and Essentials is that 3.5 did supersede previous classes, prestige classes, change the skill ist and other abilities, while 4E Essentials simply added build variants to existing classes.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

But it is a revision according to the designers, while Essentials is not a revision.

For me, the major difference beween 3.5 and Essentials is that 3.5 did supersede previous classes, prestige classes, change the skill ist and other abilities, while 4E Essentials simply added build variants to existing classes.

Click to expand...

Let's discuss revision first and what it means.

A synonym for revision is correction so if something was not right to start with and it received a revision then all it meant was that it was corrected. There might have been some classes that were just incorrect, such as the ranger, and were corrected in 3.5.

Let's not forget that the fighter, for example, was changed into the "Weaponsmaster" after essentials came out. Also, some of the powers were "corrected" and replaced it's previous version. Same goes with the "Stealth" rules.

The designers stated that 3.5 was "not" a new edition. You can't argue with the designers on whether or not it was a new edition.

Remember the "Rules Compendium" from 4th edition? It was a "Revision" of the PHB because it contained all the corrections up to that point.

Technically 3.5 was not a new edition, even without the designers saying so, neither was "Essentials" and what came afterwords but if we are going to base opinions on the amount that was "revised" then 4th edition would be considered the "new edition" before 3rd edition.

pemerton said:

Mustrum, I thought the same thing. Didn't you or me even post it already upthread?

I think this is a standard definition of stances:

*In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

*In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

*In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.
​

@Hussar 's example of the chandelier is Author stance: the player decides that it would be cool to have his/her PC do a stunt, and then (retroactively) decides that his/her PC wants to do something stuntish. My own view is that most RPG players switch between actor and author stance all the time, and neither has anything to do with 1st vs 3rd person narration (you can do either with either).

Click to expand...

Wait, Hussar seemed to be claiming that anytime one did something non-optimal... they had entered actor stance and I don't agree. Unless we know the personality, motivations, goals, etc. of the character being played... the action of swinging on a chandelier can't automatically be proclaimed as author stance as opposed to actor stance.

As an example, let's look at the character Gambit from the X-men... part of his motivations and personality would be that he "does things with style". So for a character like that swinging on a chandelier might be ridiculously dangerous... but he has an in character motivation and reason to do it. Doing something with panache and style is more important to him than worrying about the risk. That is my problem with the example... it assumes things withoout the proper context or information. So, no I don't think what Hussar is describing is author stance unless the player chooses to actively do something that doesn't coincide with the character he has created (which he would have to do purposefully).

3.5 was far more then the inclusion of errata and additional classes. You can pick up pre-essential books and post essential books and use the content interchangeably. Trying that with 3.0 and 3.5 involved some conversion/adaptation. Skill name changes, totally revised classes.

You can, happily, have a mix of essential and pre-essential classes run together. The changes from 3.0->3.5 were far bigger than 4e->essentials.

Emerikol said:

They play more casually and they think of it as a game just like monopoly. Now I'm not saying the game IS monopoly or that the game IS like a board game. I'm just saying that your commitment level and attitude is similar. That's all.

Click to expand...

All I can say here is "Welcome to D&D".

D&D started life as a hacked tactical skirmish game with rules for combat, and not much else. The game was about taking your team and by hook or by crook getting as much loot out of screamingly unrealistic dungeons as possible. Unrealistic to the point that when Mike Mornard was asked what his monsters ate in his Ramshorn Dungeon, he simply put a McDonalds on the 6th level. And at the Lake Geneva group, no one would do something odd because it was what their character would do - they were all playing to defeat the dungeon. (Source in this thread.)

Now I know you want to play something other than the D&D of Gary Gygax. For that matter so do I. But such play is the play D&D was based on. It's what D&D was set up to do - and why the biggest source of XP in 1e wasn't monsters but treasure. And it's also the biggest thing that separates D&D from most modern roleplaying games - there are plenty of immersive games that encourage in character behaviour. oD&D was game front and centre, worldbuilding coming some way behind.

This, incidently, is one of the many ways that 4e is much truer to the spirit of oD&D than the post-Gygax editions were. The Nentir Vale and 4e cosmology are both set up as places you can have good adventures. And 4e keeps the tactical players who don't want to immerse in their characters happy and uses language that tactical players from outside the game find natural.

(And for the record if you're going to use a boardgame, please don't use monopoly unless you mean to use a terrible one).

Kamikaze Midget said:

I don't really regard these as two completely separate editions. They seem to share a lot more in common than 4e and 5e do. If you want to dig deep into .5's, then surely you must consider 4-Essentials to be 4.5,

Click to expand...

Essentials didn't lead to the 4e PHB being pulled off the shelves. It's mostly a couple of splatbooks with delusions of grandeur - imagine if the full D&D rules had been included with the Tome of Magic and the Book of 9 Swords. That's pretty close to Essentials. So no, the situations aren't analogous.