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

Neonchameleon · Aug 13, 2012

Emerikol said:
I believe even in 4e the choices really are set. 98% of the time you lead with the same combination of powers. So I'm not sure the choice is as much as you realize.

The game survived for 30 so years before it had the kinds of choices you prefer. It's not really though until 4e in the tradition of D&D. I'm not sure how I'd classify it. We'd probably both be happier with two separate games. I doubt 5e will make you happy because it sounds like you want encounter/dailies for everyone period.

In 4e whether the choices are set or not depends a lot on your class and build. I get more variety out of Essentials classes than most people do out of regular ones (that said, I'll never play a Slayer or Knight and a Scout is pretty unlikely). Three illustrative characters are below.

[sblock]My wizard-from-hell regularly finished combats with one or both of his encounter powers unused. But they were options that did other things than his at wills and whatever he chose to use (other than Unravelling Dart while he had it - he found he never needed single target damage) was going to give the monsters a very bad day in a way the DM didn't anticipate.

The question with my monk wasn't so much what attacks he'd use, but where the hell he'd be to use them. He had a wire-fu fly, a free move action at the start of his turn 1/encounter, an encounter teleport, and an insane turn of speed. The attacks he used were almost always determined by the shape of the enemy (vs fort or vs ref) but where he'd be from round to round even I couldn't tell you.

And my Warlord had five distinct at wills all allowing him to do very different actions (Commander's Strike, Direct the Strike, Brash Assault, a risky charge attack that either slammed the enemy over or granted combat advantage, then let him bounce off (feat + boots of adept charging), and his MBA for when he actually needed to square up to someone and tank) and the DM's hatred, mostly for the Powerful Warning encounter power although Brash Assault ran it a close second.[/sblock]

And it simply isn't true that pre-4e D&D didn't have what I wanted for immersion. There's never been a problem with casters other than being overpowered (I know the 3.5 bard pretty well partly because of this). And 1e and oD&D are not about immersion. Gygaxian D&D has the player in pawn stance and trying to solve a ruthless meatgrinder. I have no problem with that - Immersion is a Johnny-come-lately, mostly of interest from 2e onwards. (I don't think it was even a goal of anything published pre-Dragonlance). On the other hand the Book of 9 Swords was the very first time I actually saw a fighter I wanted to play in D&D in its own right (as opposed to because I had a concept that fitted or because it made for an excellent pawn).

As for wanting encounters/dailies for everyone, period. No I don't. I want most if not all classes to have the option of limited use powers. I certainly don't want to force you to take them if you don't want to.

Manbearcat · Aug 13, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
So, again, if the point is "this can happen" then I go back to... okay? Of course it can. I just fail to see what the point of "it can happen" is. I understand the "it" of the sentence, so no need to explain that to me. What is the point of saying that it can happen in this conversation?

Look back to page 50 and 51ish. It was something about dissociative mechanics (presumably something relating to stance and player's leveraging disconnect between PC and Player perspective to impose upon the fiction something that they found compelling...I really don't know. I lost interest in the dissociative mechanic discussion some time ago as all of the tendrils of the discussion are quite clear to me and they've been canvassed thoroughly more than once. I'm rather weary of it. I just saw what appeared to be folks either misunderstanding or missappropriating Hussar's statement by bringing in unrelated elements. His point was quite simple so I figured I would attempt to clarify for the relevant players.

In truth I abhor these discussions when they become extraordinarily unhinged from anything resembling focused dialogue.

JamesonCourage · Aug 13, 2012

Manbearcat said:
Look back to page 50 and 51ish. It was something about dissociative mechanics (presumably something relating to stance and player's leveraging disconnect between PC and Player perspective to impose upon the fiction something that they found compelling...I really don't know. I lost interest in the dissociative mechanic discussion some time ago as all of the tendrils of the discussion are quite clear to me and they've been canvassed thoroughly more than once. I'm rather weary of it. I just saw what appeared to be folks either misunderstanding or missappropriating Hussar's statement by bringing in unrelated elements. His point was quite simple so I figured I would attempt to clarify for the relevant players.

This wasn't particularly illuminating, but okay, I don't know if Hussar's initial statement (and the ensuing agreement/disagreement) was really all that meaningful to this discussion anyways.

Manbearcat said:
In truth I abhor these discussions when they become extraordinarily unhinged from anything resembling focused dialogue.

I can handle the all the tangents pretty easily (as you can too, no doubt), and while I can tolerate them easily enough, I tend to dislike them most when the same topic ends up getting discussed in three or more threads simultaneously. This forum has kinda felt that way for the past few days to me. As always, play what you like

Lokiare · Aug 13, 2012

Imaro said:
So what is the criteria for a new edition? The first thing you asked was did it replace or overwrite things... which it did. Now your criteria seems to be...does it invalidate character classes.

EDIT: I'm also confused about how you're using the phrase "from the ground up" because the math used in the first three corebooks is substantially different from that in essentials.

Wow...

Ok, that right there tells me you have never compared the two side by side.

Unless you can actually point out the 'substantially different' math. We can assume you don't really know what you are talking about.

P.S. I'm trying to be polite, but comments like this make it difficult...

pemerton · Aug 13, 2012

Manbearcat said:
It appears to me that they are merely saying:

- Players sometimes (rarely? less than a majority? who knows?) make decisions for their PCs whereby "cool within genre expectations" trumps "pragmatic within M.O of a living breathing human expectations" for the sake of interesting, dynamic fiction.

<snip>

- Further (I think...could be wrong here), they are saying that players may not do this willfully (sometimes)...they may be completely unaware that this is their M.O. when it manifests.

Yes to both of these in my case.

The stances are logical stances. They are not psychological stances - you can move from one to the other very quickly, or even inhabit two stances at one and the same time: "I attack the old man NPC with my dagger" - where use of the dagger is actor stance (it's my PC's default weapon) but attacking the NPC is author stance (my PC isn't sure what's going on, but I know that my GM's old man NPCs are always treacherous types who will do us over if we don't get them first!(.

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.

<snip>

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.

Yes. I also like your lever example.

I mean, the 4e DMG even has a category for this style of play - "the instigator". So someone thinks that this sort of author stance play is common enough to deserve a semi-formal label.

Manbearcat said:
For instance, let us say the genre expectations are Grim and Gritty (the cold pragmatism of risk assessment and acting in accords with this analysis to minimize risk and maximize resource deployment). Let us say your character's profile is generally in line with these genre expectations (a shrew pragmatist). However;

Observe - Let us say that the fiction is exceedingly stagnant on the evening in question. The player thinks "blargh, I need to liven this up and make something happen." This is the end he is seeking in the moment; livening things up and creating fiction that is dynamic rather than stagnant.

That's the instigator!

And it doesn't have to be very conscious - it can just be deciding that your PC feels like doing X rather than Y because X will lead to more interesting game play.

JamesonCourage said:
What is the point of saying that it can happen in this conversation?

To make it clear that author stance isn't some radical infliltration of RPGing by evil "dissociators", but rather has been a completely banal and accepted technique of play ever since RPGing started. (I mean, look at descriptions of early Gygax and Arneson play - author-stance decisions all over the place!)

Imaro said:
He assumes that this action is "ridiculous" (which is one of those assumptions I was speaking to)... when in fact it would depend on PC motivation, characterization and even build choices as to whether it is a ridiculous choice to swing on a chandelier or not.

<snip>

I'm sorry but I don't see players often attempt things they know their characters suck at because it might be cool

This raises an interesting question - how do I build a PC who always gets lucky when s/he attempts crazy stunts? In D&D, I can only do this by boosting my DEX and my Acro-type skills as high as possible. I don't see that there is any rule which prevents me from interpreting this, in play, as luck rather than skill. (It would be different if there was some sort of training mechanic associated with stat and skill increases, which would then seem to mandate intepreting higher numbers as greater skill.)

pemerton · Aug 13, 2012

Emerikol said:
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.

The player interacts with the gameworld using dice. The PC uses swords, shovels, etc. Different tools.

Also, in D&D there is no technique whereby a player can try to lop the head off an enemy. But presumably PCs try to do so from time to time.

A better definition of actor stance: the player declares actions for his/her PC that follow from that PC's already-established character and motivation.

Emerikol said:
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.

Author stance generally means that the player declares actions for his/her PC for reasons that the player cares about (eg doing something cool at the table, irritating his/her fellow players, etc) without any such motivation being pre-established for the PC. The PC's state of mind is then retroactively estabilshed.

Come and Get It has nothing to do with author stance. Its forced movement is director stance. Its metagame character has nothing to do with stance as such.

Emerikol said:
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.

Come and Get It is director stance: the player gets to dictate how NPCs act. Every time a player says "I want to pick up a rock and throw it" in circumstances where the GM hasn't already mentioned that there are rocks on the ground, the player is entering director stance.

There is no particular link between director stance and "story game style", I don't think.

Emerikol said:
So when I say dissociative mechanics/plot coupons/metagame dissonance, I mean author/director instead of actor. I only want actor in my games.

Actor stance is completely consistent with metagame limited powers - the player decides when to use powers only with reference to his/her PC's personality and motivations.

As I've already posted a couple of times, so-called "dissociative mechanics" don't have much to do with stance. They are related to metagame features, not stance features: namely, that there are considerations relevant in the action resolution mechanics that do not correspond in any pregiven way to any causal process in the fiction itself.

Emerikol said:
am talking about the specific mechanical definition that was named "dissociative mechanics".

<snip>

They involve the Player choosing something for his character that the character would be unaware of.

These things are not plot coupons

<snip>

Hit points - a character is aware of his overall well being which is the abstract concept of hit points.

I mentioned hit points already: hit points include knowledge of how lucky you will be in the next fight. How does a PC know this about him-/herself? (My answer: s/he doesn't. Hit points are a metagame mechanic.)

Also - you still havent' told us what you think is happening in the fiction when you roll initiative for your PC. (My answer: nothing. It's a purely metagame device for handling action declaration, which is itself a purely metagame concept.)

Emerikol said:
I believe even in 4e the choices really are set. 98% of the time you lead with the same combination of powers.

What's your basis for this claim? It's not like this in my game, for any of the PCs.

Hussar · Aug 13, 2012

Emerikol said:
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.
/snip

Swimming a bit upstream for this one.

Sure, these could be done. The downside, as NeonC points out, is that all of your options strip any choice from the player's hands.

Which, I think, brings up the main bone of contention here. No one has a problem with critical hits or the like. They tend to be fun and interesting. The problem, I think, is that the AEDU power system allows the player to declare, "I am going to attempt to score a critical at this time". Note, it's not guaranteed, you still need to roll, but, the player gets to control when that chance comes up.

After all, many of the Daily martial powers are effectively just a critical hit in disguise. Extra damage, maybe some sort of forced movement or other effect. It's pretty rare for a martial daily to cause fireballs to explode or things like that. They're spectactular criticals, the same kind you can find on Critical Hit tables from the beginning of time.

So, is that the issue? Is that the critical point in a nutshell - that the player gets to declare when he's attempting a critical hit?

If that's true, then why not just add that into martial characters? Sounds like a perfectly good module to me, and one that would not require a whole lot of processing power. Something akin to the old Unarmed Attacks tables that you saw in 2e, where the attack die roll determined effects.

That way, everyone's happy. The immersion crowd gets what they want - mechanics that don't break immersion, and the other crowd gets what they want - mechanics that have never bothered them in the first place.

Seems a pretty simple fix.

Hussar · Aug 13, 2012

And, just to reply back to El Mahdi. In your example with Gambit, it makes perfect sense for him to swing from the chandelier. Fine. No problems. How about Cyclops? Or Kitty Pryde? Now, Nightcrawler? No problems at all. But, there are a number of X-Men where it would be jarring for that character to swing across the room from a chandelier.

So, you're GMing a Marvel Super Heroes game where someone is playing Cyclops. How do you react to that player attempting to swing across the room on a chandelier?

Underman · Aug 13, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
I guess we just have very different opinions of the fan-base - and probably humanity, in general - then.

Probably. I'd like to be more magnanimous. And if you want to be scientific about it, you need a reading of the fan-base. We people on Enworld with our penchant for arguments and overstatements haven't been proved to be at the median of the distribution curve representating the fan base. So I'd prefer to give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I don't want to be a curmudgeon.

Tony Vargas · Aug 13, 2012

pemerton said:
Emerikol said:

I believe even in 4e the choices really are set. 98% of the time you lead with the same combination of powers.

Click to expand...

What's your basis for this claim? It's not like this in my game, for any of the PCs.

Possibly CharOp? A build might have a sort of script, certain powers (especially minor action attacks) in a certain order. It's not really for use in every fight in a real campaign, it's just for calculating DPR or some other metric being optimized to.

In theory, though, if you did choose to play such a build, you'd use the script as often as you could and had a good target for it, since it is your 'optimal' thing.