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

Imaro · Aug 12, 2012

Hussar said:
That's because you've completely subverted the example. Sure, if the character is built around swinging from the chandelier, then doing so would not be out of character. But, let's be honest here, not every character is built that way. And, I'd go so far as to say, many characters aren't built that way.

Being honest... I don't see too many, if any, players who think doing something like disabling traps, sneaking, etc. is cool... and then build a fighter. They usually build a character to do the things they think are cool. So I would argue few to very few characters are built in a way to minimize what a player thinks is cool.

Hussar said:
And, you're absolutely right. It doesn't necessitate the different stance. However, in many cases, players will adopt different stances simply because what they want to do and what the character would want to do are at odds.

I just don't find this to be the case on a regular basis... not enough where you can say most, or many...

Hussar said:
In this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/174075-good-idea-pull-lever-dungeon.html over half the players have their character pull the lever. It's almost never a good idea to do so, but, at least half of us do it anyway. And, it's almost always just to see what happens.

This example doesn't relate to what we are discussing at all. The result of pulling the lever is unknown, so it is neither a bad or good choice. Secondly we still have no information on the character motivation, personality, etc. so pulling the lever (especially for an adventurer) could still be the player in actor stance and doing exactly what his adventurer would do.

Manbearcat · Aug 12, 2012

Imaro said:
But if I am approaching from the view of my character... he is a persona in the genre we are playing in. Having actor stance doesn't necessitate that you approach it from the view of someonme in our world... So I'm unsure how genre plays into it at all

EDIT: As an example, most people in the real world avoid dangerous obstacles. However, if I am choosing to play an adventurer in D&D... then part of my characterization is automatically that I will face dangerous obstacles... does tthis fact now push me into author stance?

Neonchameleon has invoked OODA Loop a few times now. This is an instructive means to understand the process at hand. For those that do not know, the OODA Loop was devised by the USAF to conceptualize and classify combat operations decision-making into a formal process. OODA means Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. Just because your job description means that you "face dangerous obstacles", it does not mean that the Orient and Decide portion of OODA must then be a binary response of either "Reckless for the Sake of Cool" or "Shrewdly Pragmatic for the Sake of Minimizing Risk and Maximizing Resource Output." It can be anywhere in between. Genre plays into it in the following possible ways (there are more - these are just examples):

1) Swashbuckling Themed Campaign - Genre expectations are such that the PCs will be orienting their decision-making toward high-flying, acrobatic stunts married to dynamic swordplay that limits stagnancy and maximizes "cool" (Princess Bride, Pirates of the Caribbean, Zorro, 3 Musketeers). They will not be orienting their decision-making toward shrewd pragmatism.

2) Grim and Gritty Themed Campaign - Genre expectations are such that PCs will be orienting their decision-making toward strategic, shrewd pragmatism that limits risk and maximizes effectiveness (Game of Thrones, The Dark Tower Series). They will not be orienting their decision-making toward "what is cool" or in the interest of dynamic fiction.

Now, jn RPGs, you can approach this Orient and Decision process, from multiple ways with respect to Stance (perspective) and motive:

1) Actor stance
2) Author stance
3) Director stance

A) Within genre expectations (Cool First or Shrewd Pragmatism or whatever the genre "expects")
B) Outside of genre expectations (any Orient and Decision within OODA loop that is outside of what the genre "expects")
C) Within character profile expectations
D) Outside character profile expectations

What Hussar and pemerton are saying, I believe, is that any of the above stances "can" (not must or will or always) be taken and coupled with either B or D to create a cognitively dissonant or "dissociative" action with respect to OODA Loop process and genre or profile expectations.

Emerikol · Aug 12, 2012

Hussar said:
It's frustrating because it seems so arbitrary. It's okay sometimes, but not others? It's perfectly fine, so long as it doesn't bother your sense of disbelief, but, once it bothers you, it must be bad and bother everyone? That seems to be Forever Slayer's and Emerikol's position. It bothers him, therefore it must bother everyone and it's bad.

It doesn't bother everyone but it bothers a LOT more people than just us. It's not arbitrary either - read my post above this one.

Hussar said:
It's frustrating because, despite circling around this particular rabbit hole for years, no one can really give a decent explanation for why its bad, other than, "I don't like it".

I dislike it because it jars me out of my immersion and causes me to not be able to take the game seriously.

Hussar said:
If you choose to have your character do X and X is not in keeping with the character that you have created, then there is a difference between being "in character" and doing something cool. A hard bitten mercenary who is only in it for himself deciding to swing from the chandelier because you, the player, think it's cool is a good example of the difference.

Here is where I think you are getting off base. You are playing your character. You are inside that character's head. If you decide for whatever reason that guy wants to hang from a chandelier nobody is saying that is bad. At least I'm not for sure. We are talking about mechanics where the player steps back and makes decisions for the character that the character couldn't be aware of.

Hussar said:
That's because you've completely subverted the example. Sure, if the character is built around swinging from the chandelier, then doing so would not be out of character. But, let's be honest here, not every character is built that way. And, I'd go so far as to say, many characters aren't built that way.

When it comes to internal motivations I leave it to the player/character relationship. I'm not worried and I would never tell a player that he's doing something out of character. I might mention it after the game. But the assumption is that whatever the player makes his character do his character actually did that. So it's at least no longer out of character. Unlike a movie this is a game where things are supposedly happening in a game world dynamically.

Hope this clears things up. I think if you are concerned about your examples then don't be because we aren't worried about that stuff. Honest.

thecasualoblivion · Aug 12, 2012

Emerikol said:
They are an attempt to describe a mechanic that is disliked.

There is a blurry line between describing a mechanic and describing your dislike. Describing a mechanic can be an interesting discussion, describing your dislike generally is not. Describing your dislike as if you are describing a mechanic is an edition war.

Manbearcat · Aug 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
Hussar, pemerton, and Neonchameleon have a point, but only insofar as certain personalities are concerned. Past that, however, the objection gets raised, because those claims start to lose steam.

Again, they are not stating that there is an absolute uniformity here or that no one can/will/may work outside of this. They are just saying that their concept exists. Not that it is majority or uniform or anything close to it. Under the auspices of that caveat, I'm not sure how it loses steam.

Neonchameleon · Aug 12, 2012

Emerikol said:
All of the above have things in common. They involve the Player choosing something for his character that the character would be unaware of.

Interesting. Because it's the opposite that breaks immersion for me. The player being unable to choose for something that the character would be aware of.

And without some approximation of encounter powers (i.e. powers that are limited in use at some level) I literally can not end up with a character that will behave even the way I will. You can attempt justifications - for instance the Crusader's mechanics from the Bo9S.

But I never once have had a problem with the idea that the scale of RPGs is less than 1:1 and therefore some things get abstracted and some of these abstractions lead to me working with slightly different resources to my character because I can't see quite what my character does or hear what they do.

Encounter Powers and the like are a patch from an immersionist perspective. A patch to bring my approximate knowledge up to somewhere approaching that of my character. I'm fully aware that the RPG is a map of the territory we are in, and those funny little squiggles aren't quite what my character will see. But this doesn't prevent contour lines et. al. making the map more closely represent the land in question than a map without contour lines would.

Emerikol · Aug 12, 2012

Manbearcat said:
1) Actor stance
2) Author stance
3) Director stance

I wanted to speak on these terms because this may help us in our discussions. Perhaps these are less offensive than "dissociative".

I've seen some examples though and I'm concerned that some things get in the author category that really should still be considered actor.

So let me take a stab at definitions... you guys can correct me if I get them wrong.

Actor
Player and Character both interact with the world using a common set of tools (game mechanics for example). When the character speaks, the player speaks. When the character tries to lop off the head of the enemy, the player is also trying to lop of the head of the enemy. There is a very tight coupling here. One thing here. When the character acts like a drunk even though the player is not one, I still think this is actor. The player is acting as his character but it's still in character.

Author
The player decides things for the character that the character is unaware of. For example the player decides that at this very moment his fighter will do a come and get it manuever. The player knows once used he can't use it again for the day. The character though just thinks this is an opportune time to use it but he is unaware that he can't use it again that day. It just works out that way.

Director
In addition to being an author, a director can change the environment outside the character. He can suddenly have an uncle who is mayor or a guard in the town watch. The player can add to the character backstory dynamically as the game progresses. He can add friends, enemies, family, etc.. as the game goes on. This kind of play is a story game style.

So when I say dissociative mechanics/plot coupons/metagame dissonance, I mean author/director instead of actor. I only want actor in my games. That is a preference. If others like author/director interaction then they should play that way. As a customer, I would suggest where possible that WOTC give us a game that can be played actor style as at least an option. Whether the other styles are also available is entire not my concern (other than I generally want D&D to succeed and I like it if others are happy. I'm just saying not a gameplay concern of mine).

Emerikol · Aug 12, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
And without some approximation of encounter powers (i.e. powers that are limited in use at some level) I literally can not end up with a character that will behave even the way I will. You can attempt justifications - for instance the Crusader's mechanics from the Bo9S.

Actually powers that approximate encounter powers are possible using other methods. Here some examples
1. On any attack where you exceed the enemies AC/defense by 5 immediately add an encounter power effect.
2. Assign stamina points to powers and allow X per round. Obviously these powers have to be strenuous to really be believed.
3. Reactive. Whenever someone does something I get the chance at-will to react. Think opportunity attack.
4. At-will powers that have a downside like a minus to hit.

Neonchameleon said:
But I never once have had a problem with the idea that the scale of RPGs is less than 1:1 and therefore some things get abstracted and some of these abstractions lead to me working with slightly different resources to my character because I can't see quite what my character does or hear what they do.

I play non-rpg games that do what you say. I'm not a real general of an army nor am I a real estate mogul. But when I roleplay I want to be as close to my character as I can get.

Neonchameleon said:
Encounter Powers and the like are a patch from an immersionist perspective. A patch to bring my approximate knowledge up to somewhere approaching that of my character. I'm fully aware that the RPG is a map of the territory we are in, and those funny little squiggles aren't quite what my character will see. But this doesn't prevent contour lines et. al. making the map more closely represent the land in question than a map without contour lines would.

Obviously it's impossible for me to see exactly what my character sees. I'm talking about decision making.

Emerikol · Aug 12, 2012

thecasualoblivion said:
There is a blurry line between describing a mechanic and describing your dislike. Describing a mechanic can be an interesting discussion, describing your dislike generally is not. Describing your dislike as if you are describing a mechanic is an edition war.

How can we discuss anything honestly? Now I didn't read the original post and even the author admits that it was rough. But if you go and read the dissociative mechanics post right now, I can't see how you can fault the guy. It's very calm clear and inoffensive. He uses football analogies to keep 4e out of it. He admits to being too reactionary the first round. So perhaps you read the original. I only read the latter.

Imaro · Aug 12, 2012

Manbearcat said:
Again, they are not stating that there is an absolute uniformity here or that no one can/will/may work outside of this. They are just saying that their concept exists. Not that it is majority or uniform or anything close to it. Under the auspices of that caveat, I'm not sure how it loses steam.

Only Hussar has continued to use words like most, majority, etc...