D&D 4E 4e/13thA immersion question and 5e/13thA DoaM question

Finished our first session of 13th age last week and have our second in a few days. I like the OUT/backgrounds/big-list-of-spells-and-powers for my cleric, am getting a handle on him as a person, and he played just fine mechanically in our first combat. The party seems like it should have lots of good role-playing opportunities.

1 - A question for 13th Agers or 4e-ers about immersion

My problem is that there are a lot of powers I can do as quick actions and a lot I can do as my regular action, so each round I'm looking over my stack of powers and the the rough layout of where everyone is and trying to figure out what the optimal set of them to use is. I can do it quickly enough to be ready before it gets to my turn, but it feels like once combat starts that I step out of character and into a generic strategy or video game. It's the same kind of feeling I had in 4e with the AEDU. I don't remember ever having to get immersed in previous editions at the levels we played at. Maybe it was because each situation had a bunch of things that you could do that easily meshed the language and effects (attack with sword, charge, circle around, etc...) and only a small handful of spells or special abilities that would be useful (and a lot of those were like fireball and heal, and not just flinging around some abstract bonus). Or maybe it was just years of practice.

So, how do you stay feeling like you're in character or doing what your character would in combat instead of feeling like you're running through a checklist to see what you should do next? (Or would a real-life character in combat just have a mental check-list like an NFL quarterback and go on auto-pilot?) Does it work to just try to focus on visualizing, or to not consider the whole range of powers? Is it just a matter of practice?


2 - A question about 13th Age/5e and DoaM

So, there seems to be a mass of hate about DoaM for 5e. Did I miss the big hubbub of dissatisfaction when people read 13th Age and saw damage on a miss, or is the audience that completely divorced from 5e? Is there any difference in the conception between the two?

As far as my impression of DoaM after our first 13th Age session, that one of my powers let me increase the other party members DoaM didn't help with feeling immersed at all. I can justify to myself a +1 to hit for everyone or something like that in 1e/2e/3/3.5/PF from a bless spell being the same as magically enchanting the blade or whatnot. That the magic weapon does more damage when it misses but nothing extra when it hits just seems odd. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about it. That another player's effectiveness depended on whether they had an odd-miss or even-miss also didn't help me picture it as more than plusses and minuses. That player did do a nice job of narrating what they did (after they saw the die result) though.

Cadence said:

So, how do you stay feeling like you're in character or doing what your character would in combat instead of feeling like you're running through a checklist to see what you should do next? (Or would a real-life character in combat just have a mental check-list like an NFL quarterback and go on auto-pilot?) Does it work to just try to focus on visualizing, or to not consider the whole range of powers? Is it just a matter of practice?

Click to expand...

That's tough because I don't really have this problem. When DMing it can be difficult to keep tabs on everything and really get into my monsters' heads at the same time. But when playing, it's not an issue. I mean I do think that my character is aware of each of his powers (even the martial ones), and that there's some split-second judgment calls that get abstracted into my decision-making process...but it doesn't take me out of character the way it seems to for you.

I'd suggest maybe DMing an adventure or two to boost your ability to multitask, but as an ENworld poster, you probably already have. Maybe it's a personality thing; I do think tactically, but it's a swashbuckly kind of tactical process. ("I can beat on the dude in front of me...or I can risk the OA and nail the leader in back!") Maybe it's because you're picking a lot of wordy powers? Or minor and off-turn powers? (I know they're CharOp gold, but those off-turn powers can kill me!)

Cadence said:

1 - A question for 13th Agers or 4e-ers about immersion

<snip>

I can do it quickly enough to be ready before it gets to my turn, but it feels like once combat starts that I step out of character and into a generic strategy or video game. It's the same kind of feeling I had in 4e with the AEDU. I don't remember ever having to get immersed in previous editions at the levels we played at. Maybe it was because each situation had a bunch of things that you could do that easily meshed the language and effects (attack with sword, charge, circle around, etc...) and only a small handful of spells or special abilities that would be useful (and a lot of those were like fireball and heal, and not just flinging around some abstract bonus). Or maybe it was just years of practice.

So, how do you stay feeling like you're in character or doing what your character would in combat instead of feeling like you're running through a checklist to see what you should do next? (Or would a real-life character in combat just have a mental check-list like an NFL quarterback and go on auto-pilot?) Does it work to just try to focus on visualizing, or to not consider the whole range of powers? Is it just a matter of practice?

Click to expand...

This one is difficult to answer but I'll try. Here is some primary background for myself and my group and I think part of our answer lies in this reality. Our group is all composed of athletes who have all (but one) competed at the collegiate level. Our group is composed of engineers, an accountant and a natural scientist. We all have a deep history of card games, board games, RTS/twitch CRPGs, and other strategic/tactical games.

You mentioned the NFL QB check-list and auto-pilot behavior above. I think that is a very shrewd observation. There is a well-developed, subconscious OODA Loop that asserts itself in athletics the same as it does for pilots. I think the more developed and natural this mode of activating a response becomes, the more natural, intiutive (and sensical) something like 13th Age or the 4e Defender suite of control abilities is to the player. Further, when you're careers, backgrounds, and other leisure activities perpetuate that natural mode of activating a response in line with a mechanical system, it becomes easier and more natural still.

Further, I think these biographical tidbits also work to appreciate rulesets with the aesthetic of an "engineering manual" versus those with "natural language."

Developing a focused OODA Loop orientation to stimuli (and the perspective that comes from such orientation) is doable for anyone and just a matter of exposure to technique, conceptual internalization, and practice/refinement. I would probably suggest playing other leisure activities that require assimilation of information along multiple vectors and tactical deployment in real time (most ball sports). Once that is done, the tactical overhead ceases to be a distraction and is actually a boon for play (especially if you feel that the tactical overhead properly represents the OODA loop in a real martial scenario). You're clearly a very smart fellow. I'm sure you'll get it done if you set your mind to it.

Cadence said:

2 - A question about 13th Age/5e and DoaM

So, there seems to be a mass of hate about DoaM for 5e. Did I miss the big hubbub of dissatisfaction when people read 13th Age and saw damage on a miss, or is the audience that completely divorced from 5e? Is there any difference in the conception between the two?

As far as my impression of DoaM after our first 13th Age session, that one of my powers let me increase the other party members DoaM didn't help with feeling immersed at all. I can justify to myself a +1 to hit for everyone or something like that in 1e/2e/3/3.5/PF from a bless spell being the same as magically enchanting the blade or whatnot. That the magic weapon does more damage when it misses but nothing extra when it hits just seems odd. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about it. That another player's effectiveness depended on whether they had an odd-miss or even-miss also didn't help me picture it as more than plusses and minuses. That player did do a nice job of narrating what they did (after they saw the die result) though.

Click to expand...

There is no difference in the conception between the two that I am aware of. Both systems create a composite of mitigation and avoidance through AC. Both systems use abstract HPs to represent heroic staying power (though I think 13th Age may be more overt about this). Both systems use similar metagame action economies and contests to determine "damage-in".

I don't think most detractors of DoaM are, or will be, playing 13th Age any time soon. I'm not sure where Imaro stands on DoaM but he definitely has certain aesthetic preferences that go against something such as DoaM. Nonetheless, as a good sport, he gave it a go and GMed some for a group. He didn't seem to have a bad time. However, his anecdote notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure Heinsoo's D&D (4e) and Heinsoo's D&D but not D&D (13th Age) will have a considerable overlap of detractors due to various system elements.

Tequila Sunrise said:

Maybe it's a personality thing; I do think tactically, but it's a swashbuckly kind of tactical process. ("I can beat on the dude in front of me...or I can risk the OA and nail the leader in back!") Maybe it's because you're picking a lot of wordy powers? Or minor and off-turn powers? (I know they're CharOp gold, but those off-turn powers can kill me!)

Click to expand...

That could be it. He's got 4 spells + 5 domain powers relevant to combat + some feat or other + gnome illusion + heal + melee weapon + ranged weapon, where I think all but one power and one spell are buffs of some sort, with about half being quicks and half regulars. I think one or two of them are off turn.

Sad thing is I picked those domains and spells because they seemed to fit the motif better and didn't really think about how big the bonuses they gave were. I'll go back and see if I can trade out some of the buff-y spells with some things that are more combatty and/or match up better with things I would have picked in previous editions.

Manbearcat said:

Our group is all composed of athletes who have all (but one) competed at the collegiate level. Our group is composed of engineers, an accountant and a natural scientist. We all have a deep history of card games, board games, RTS/twitch CRPGs, and other strategic/tactical games. ...

Developing a focused OODA Loop orientation to stimuli (and the perspective that comes from such orientation) is doable for anyone and just a matter of exposure to technique, conceptual internalization, and practice/refinement. I would probably suggest playing other leisure activities that require assimilation of information along multiple vectors and tactical deployment in real time (most ball sports). Once that is done, the tactical overhead ceases to be a distraction and is actually a boon for play (especially if you feel that the tactical overhead properly represents the OODA loop in a real martial scenario).

Click to expand...

I'd never thought of that. I've got the history of card games (bridge twice a week now, dozens of different games growing up) and used to play chess -- but my lack of hand eye coordination has never really encouraged me to stick with the ball sports or even video games. Never thought RPGs would be the excuse to get back into sports. I'll see if a session or two more of practice begins to push the choices into the subconscious (like it did with bridge bidding and play), and if not will start digging around to find things to develop that part of my brain more. My waist could definitely use it too since I haven't kept up with swimming/biking/jogging like I should!

Cadence said:

I'd never thought of that. I've got the history of card games (bridge twice a week now, dozens of different games growing up) and used to play chess -- but my lack of hand eye coordination has never really encouraged me to stick with the ball sports or even video games. Never thought RPGs would be the excuse to get back into sports. I'll see if a session or two more of practice begins to push the choices into the subconscious (like it did with bridge bidding), and if not will start digging around to find things to develop that part of my brain more.

Click to expand...

The human brain is an amazing machine. I've known plenty of folks who are naturally very poor at certain enterprises but they have committed themselves to getting better and, through their industry, they've achieved elite ability.

Going back to the NFL, its very surprising to me that (specifically given the recent advances in understanding biomechanics and neurophysics) there aren't multiple QB schools out there that have a regime for refining the raw (or poor) OODA Loop for these collegiate athletes who are aspiring toward the NFL. We are at a point where guys like Brees, Manning, Brady, and Montana (with sub-par measurables but freakish OODA Loop speed and efficiency) should be able to be (at least better) groomed rather than solely being born with it.

Cadence said:

So, there seems to be a mass of hate about DoaM for 5e. Did I miss the big hubbub of dissatisfaction when people read 13th Age and saw damage on a miss, or is the audience that completely divorced from 5e? Is there any difference in the conception between the two?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "mass" of hate. I think the loudness of the detractors outweighs their numbers, especially on EN World which has always skewed heavily against 4e. Personally, I feel indicting 5e over the inclusion or exclusion of DoaM to be somewhat asinine, but that's me.

Thankfully, 13th Age doesn't have the problem 5e does of trying to be everything to everyone because it doesn't carry the D&D name with all its baggage. It embraces the fact that its a game, and doesn't try to pretend to be some kind of fantasy world simulation. Its focused on trying to deliver a very specific gaming experience and its not afraid to use mechanics like Recoveries, or DoaM to deliver that experience.

I suspect that hardcore simulationists and some simulation-minded OSR folks won't touch 13th Age with a ten foot pole (see what I did there?), although in my opinion, 13th Age epitomizes what the OSR movement is all about better than most retro clones. 13th Age is the ultimate in DIY "rulings not rules" freeform d20 fantasy, IMO.

The bottom line is you're unlikely to see a lot of hand wringing over 13th Age's unapologetic embrace of non-simulationist mechanics because the folks who get upset over those things probably wouldn't be playing 13th Age in the first place.

I can't help you with immersion. This is something I have never experienced with RPGs. I am well aware I am playing a game when I have played any RPG.

Cadence said:

Finished our first session of 13th age last week and have our second in a few days. I like the OUT/backgrounds/big-list-of-spells-and-powers for my cleric, am getting a handle on him as a person, and he played just fine mechanically in our first combat. The party seems like it should have lots of good role-playing opportunities.

1 - A question for 13th Agers or 4e-ers about immersion

My problem is that there are a lot of powers I can do as quick actions and a lot I can do as my regular action, so each round I'm looking over my stack of powers and the the rough layout of where everyone is and trying to figure out what the optimal set of them to use is. I can do it quickly enough to be ready before it gets to my turn, but it feels like once combat starts that I step out of character and into a generic strategy or video game. It's the same kind of feeling I had in 4e with the AEDU. I don't remember ever having to get immersed in previous editions at the levels we played at. Maybe it was because each situation had a bunch of things that you could do that easily meshed the language and effects (attack with sword, charge, circle around, etc...) and only a small handful of spells or special abilities that would be useful (and a lot of those were like fireball and heal, and not just flinging around some abstract bonus). Or maybe it was just years of practice.

So, how do you stay feeling like you're in character or doing what your character would in combat instead of feeling like you're running through a checklist to see what you should do next? (Or would a real-life character in combat just have a mental check-list like an NFL quarterback and go on auto-pilot?) Does it work to just try to focus on visualizing, or to not consider the whole range of powers? Is it just a matter of practice?

Click to expand...

It's a tactically complex game, which is one reason it has so many fans and haters. For instance, I love the tactical complexity and flexibility of the humble fighter. I never want to play the "point and punch" fighter again. But of course there's a cost. You have to spend more time thinking about what you want to do. That's one reason 4e combat rounds take longer, especially when you get a lot of off-turn actions at higher levels.

To feel more "in-character", when playing I try to ask for details about my surroundings. Even if it's not the "smartest" move, I'm also looking to do the "coolest move". If there's a big object I can shove onto someone, a fighter should try that. Look at page 42 for damage values. Same for shoving someone into something. In my second-last 4e session, the PCs raided an old torture chamber (the "villain" was a good guy who didn't use the torture equipment but still found the dungeon useful) and asked if there was an iron maiden there. I said yes and put it on the map. They then tried to shove the "villain" into said iron maiden. It would have been cool had they succeeded.

In our last Greyhawk game, we were ambushed on an ice bridge by yetis. A group of them were up a steep 30 foot high slope above us, throwing rocks. We have a monk PC, and he wondered if he should attack the yetis in our faces, or go up the slope and attack the rock throwers. I said go up because it's "cooler". He made the Acrobatics and Athletics checks to get up there, and with his speed reached and beat up yetis a bit before getting shoved back down. (It turned out his chance of making his skill checks was south of 50%, so I almost got his PC killed with my advice. Whoops!) My PC is a wizard who uses Thunderwave, and he's a monk. We got so many "stage fatalities" by throwing yetis down cliffs that, had I brought my laptop, I would have played the Mortal Kombat theme.

Actually, our very first monk, who didn't live long enough to roll initiative (it was a Fourthcore game), still wowed us with his ability to take death-defying leaps "at-will", or even refusing to move through any method except jump kicking, which was still faster. 1st-level!

Basically, think about what you can do out of game, then translate that in game terms. You might find yourself doing things that aren't optimal. If you have a pretty well-built character, that shouldn't be a problem.

2 - A question about 13th Age/5e and DoaM

So, there seems to be a mass of hate about DoaM for 5e. Did I miss the big hubbub of dissatisfaction when people read 13th Age and saw damage on a miss, or is the audience that completely divorced from 5e? Is there any difference in the conception between the two?

Click to expand...

The audiences don't overlap much at all. D&D has been splintered a long time.

As far as my impression of DoaM after our first 13th Age session, that one of my powers let me increase the other party members DoaM didn't help with feeling immersed at all. I can justify to myself a +1 to hit for everyone or something like that in 1e/2e/3/3.5/PF from a bless spell being the same as magically enchanting the blade or whatnot. That the magic weapon does more damage when it misses but nothing extra when it hits just seems odd. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about it. That another player's effectiveness depended on whether they had an odd-miss or even-miss also didn't help me picture it as more than plusses and minuses. That player did do a nice job of narrating what they did (after they saw the die result) though.

Click to expand...

DoaM doesn't help with immersion much. Then again, many parts of D&D are unrealistic, unimmersive or both. The issue with all the histrionics isn't that DoaM isn't worth attacking, but that D&D Next has far more important problems to deal with. If someone is complaining about DoaM in D&D Next, it's a bit like they just returned home from work, found out that someone broke their window and stole their computer, stereo set, TV, identity documents and lamp, and the last part is what's really ticking them off. If someone is complaining about DoaM in 13th Age, it seems to me that it's a First World problem, only a problem because so many more important problems have been fixed, so that's all there's left to complain about.

Dragonblade said:

I wouldn't say "mass" of hate. I think the loudness of the detractors outweighs their numbers, especially on EN World which has always skewed heavily against 4e.

Click to expand...

I find this statement and others like it strange. Why does everyone seem to think that en world is against certain games?

I've seen it said that en world is against 4e. A haven for 4e. Against osr. For osr. What is en world for or against?

herrozerro said:

I've seen it said that en world is against 4e. A haven for 4e. Against osr. For osr. What is en world for or against?

Click to expand...

EN World isn't for or against anything, other than being a pro-D&D (in all forms) community. With individual members, your mileage may vary.

Since EN World is an RPG news site and got its start reporting scoops on 3E, there is a definite skew toward reporting and discussion of the current/latest versions of games, but that isn't a pro- or anti- position.

Aside from a vocal minority, I think you'll find most EN Worlders are accepting of all forms of the game.