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

[Mallus]

You can try anything in any game of D&D and the DM can say whether it works or not.

In AD&D (which I'm running now), how do you...

... try to pick a lock after failing the first attempt? (the rules state a thief must gain a level before attempting the lock again, making lock-picking far worse than a Daily -- it's a Level-y)

... shoot an arrow at a giant's head? (the system doesn't model hit location, making this possible only by superseding the rules).

... knock an opponent down? (possible only as a random result under the unarmed combat procedures)

... feint to the left? (assumed to be part of a PCs attack sequence, but explicitly attempting a feint has no meaning under the rules, thus a player stating such an attempt is in conflict with what the rules describe).

... break a limb? (injuries are not modeled as anything other than hit point loss, even though breaks should be common giving the physically dangerous activities PCs engage in).

... learn a weapon not on your class list? (this restriction is wholly artificial and not even representative of the much of the source fiction)

... start a Thieves Guild prior to 10th level? (again, an artificial restriction which can easily be at odds with the in-game fiction, as it is in my current campaign)

I could go on.

There has always been friction, disagreement, ahem, dissociation between the rules and the in-game fiction. It's a product of the abstractions the rules are built out of. The association between the two is the produced, during play, by the people playing the game.

Sure, they are different preference when it comes to the various mechanics. But they're almost all dissociated, in the sense they aren't --and make no claim of being-- process simulations, and require mental action on the part of the players/DM to fit them to the imagined in-game space.

The game is simply, frequently, at odds with the fiction. We've known this since the beginning. Older versions of D&D accepted this without making a fuss.

My biggest problem with the whole 'dissociated mechanics' thing isn't that it's an inherently bad critical framework for analyzing the rules -- it's that most people apply it in a completely arbitrary fashion to criticize mechanics they don't like, while turning a blind eye, or worse, trotting out pretzel logic, to all the places, usually in older editions, where it also applies.

 

[Emerikol]

Folks you can say what you want but until 4e D&D was undisputed master of the universe rpg-wise. After 4e, the playerbase shattered into pieces and one of those pieces "by itself" became Pathfinder and has surpassed D&D in sales. There are other pieces. Most of the ones I know of reject the dissociative mechanics of 4e. They have their own agenda's (simplicity being the feud between 1e and 2e). The still playing 3.5e edition is believe it or not a sizable faction independent of Pathfinder.

All you have to do is analyze the behavior of the 5e game designers. Unlike us, they do know the facts behind sales and edition success. It is obvious that whatever they do they are going to produce a game that "looks" like traditional D&D. They will try to accomodate as many as they can. So you can stick you heads in the sand but thats the facts. They emphatically do not want another 4e.

They know they can keep a certain percentage of current 4e players no matter what they produce. Those people play D&D. If you can't own the market when you start with that group in the bag you are doing poorly. I expect 5e if it returns to something close to traditional D&D will go gangbusters. Half the 4e playerbase, Pathfinder, 3.5e, 1e,2e. The market is wide open.

 

[Mallus]

Most of the ones I know of reject the dissociative mechanics of 4e.

How do they feel about the dissociative mechanics of the other editions (including Pathfinder)?

Come to think of it, my last Pathfinder character --a 13th level Wind Oracle-- had a Daily power, Thunderburst, which she could use 2/day. It's an EX ability therefore not, by definition, magical.

Plus two other EX Oracle powers limited to 1/round per level per day.

How are these so different from 4e powers?

Hint: they're not. The reason for their limited uses is game-related and uncoupled from any rationale originating in the in-game fiction (unless you create such a rationale yourself).

 

[Emerikol]

How do they feel about the dissociative mechanics of the other editions (including Pathfinder)?

Come to think of it, my last Pathfinder character --a 13th level Wind Oracle-- had a Daily power, Thunderburst, which she could use 2/day. It's an EX ability therefore not, by definition, magical.

Plus two other EX Oracle powers limited to 1/round per level per day.

How are these so different from 4e powers?

Hint: they're not. The reason for their limited uses is game-related and uncoupled from any rationale originating in the in-game fiction (unless you create such a rationale yourself).

You are correct. And I do not like them.

I complained in the D&D 5e playtest about the fighters 2/day power.

I don't limit my attacks to 4e. 4e just institutionalized them in a grand way. I will say that in Pathfinder I could probably just ban certain classes to avoid the issue which is ok in 5e too if thats possible.

 

[Manbearcat]

It always amazes me that people want to take D&D which has a proud tradition and totally change it. This is basically what 4e did. Why do you care? If D&D was a rotten game all the way till 2008 then you obviously have few ties to it. Wouldn't it be better to just seek out a game that caters to your interests more directly?

You see D&D pre-4e did cater to a LOT of peoples tastes. Pathfinder is proof of that if nothing else. And the ridiculous thing people are missing is that 3.5e maybe getting played as much as Pathfinder is getting played. An informal survey of players in my game club of 100 would definitely indicate that.

I'm just asking that D&D be D&D. And I've also offered that I'm ok with other styles in addition to the original style. But you seem insistent on wanting the game your way and the abolishment of my way. Well let me tell you that if 5e were just a extension of 4e, then it would fail worse than 4e. 4e got a lot of sales from Pathfinder/3.5e people who didn't realize what they were getting until they'd spent a good bit of money. I'm one of those. I know what to look for now. I won't even buy the 5e players handbook if it's just another 4.5e.

Also. These are NOT equivalent. So do not assume they are...
1. dissociative mechanics.
2. realism vs cinematic vs cartoonish
3. abstraction

None of the above are related. Something may exhibit all three or none or any one or two. They are not related.

I have an issue with [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1"]#1 [/URL]but not [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3"]#3 [/URL]and some of [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2"]#2 [/URL].

Was this post a response to my post (which was the immediate antecedent, in terms of reponse to you, as far as I'm aware)? If so, then it reinforces my need to excruciatingly clarify my positions so no misunderstanding can occur. If this is my post and you think;

A) I hate DnD editions that predate 4e
B) I don't want other people to be able to play their preferred style
C) That I don't understand the various components that may work together to "unimmersify" (yes, made up) people whose expectations are of the mechanics to interface with the fiction in a rigid, linear process-sim fashion which is surveyed from the perspective of strict actor stance

then you and I have crossed our wires somewhere or I have failed to be clear...because neither A, nor B, nor C is true. If this is indeed an angry response to my post, directed at me, then I will gladly recalibrate my words to something that is crystal clear and clarifying.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then there's the "stop-motion" initiative system of 3E that means you can't make decisions until everyone else has taken their full allotment of 6-second actions, at which point you can decide what you're doing for 6 seconds without much interference from others.

I'm not sure how the player and the character are making equivalent decisions.

Here I fudge it and claim that it's not exactly six seconds, it's one OODA cycle and I assume it's about the same for most people of the same level.

 

[Emerikol]

In AD&D (which I'm running now), how do you...
... try to pick a lock after failing the first attempt? (the rules state a thief must gain a level before attempting the lock again, making lock-picking far worse than a Daily -- it's a Level-y)

The thief can attempt it all he wants. He just fails. Perhaps a poor choice of words in the rules. A DM with an ounce of common sense would understand what was intended though. This is unrelated to the discussion.

... shoot an arrow at a giant's head? (the system doesn't model hit location, making this possible only by superseding the rules).

When you shoot an arrow the assumption is you are trying to maximize damage. I agree a power attack feat models the "increase the odds of missing but increase damage" This argument though is again an abstraction. In AD&D, individual combat moves are not modeled. It's all in the attack. If you kill the guy you can claim a headshot. This is not dissociative. It may be too abstract but it's not dissociative. That seems to be your issue. You can't distinguish between dissociative and abstract.

... knock an opponent down? (possible only as a random result under the unarmed combat procedures)

Actually this could and was improvised. The player suggested an action and the DM set a DC. This happened a lot in the recent 5e playtest. It was refreshing actually. It's why I believe I'm not really a 3e purist. I'm more a 1e/3e hybrid in my tastes. This has nothing to do with dissociative mechanics though.

... feint to the left? (assumed to be part of a PCs attack sequence, but explicitly attempting a feint has no meaning under the rules, thus a player stating such an attempt is in conflict with what the rules describe).

Abstraction. Not dissociative.

... break a limb? (injuries are not modeled as anything other than hit point loss, even though breaks should be common giving the physically dangerous activities PCs engage in).

Abstraction. Not dissociative.

... learn a weapon not on your class list? (this restriction is wholly artificial and not even representative of the much of the source fiction)

You could purchase anything but you'd be lousy using it.

... start a Thieves Guild prior to 10th level? (again, an artificial restriction which can easily be at odds with the in-game fiction, as it is in my current campaign)

You could. You just got famous enough to pull it off pretty easily once you reach 10th level. You are renowned.

I could go on.

Because you don't grasp the differences between dissociative mechanics and abstractions you could.

I agree that all editions of D&D have been full of abstractions. Hit points, Armor Class, etc.. are all big abstractions. You can like those or not. In the day people gravitated to less abstract games if that was something that bothered them. I'm not bothered by abstractions (at least not always) but I am bothered by dissociate mechanics.

 

[Emerikol]

Was this post a response to my post (which was the immediate antecedent, in terms of reponse to you, as far as I'm aware)? If so, then it reinforces my need to excruciatingly clarify my positions so no misunderstanding can occur. If this is my post and you think;

A) I hate DnD editions that predate 4e
B) I don't want other people to be able to play their preferred style
C) That I don't understand the various components that may work together to "unimmersify" (yes, made up) people whose expectations are of the mechanics to interface with the fiction in a rigid, linear process-sim fashion which is surveyed from the perspective of strict actor stance

then you and I have crossed our wires somewhere or I have failed to be clear...because neither A, nor B, nor C is true. If this is indeed an angry response to my post, directed at me, then I will gladly recalibrate my words to something that is crystal clear and clarifying.

Your post is so far back I'm not sure. You can clarify anyway if you want to make yourself clearer.

The argument we now seem to be having is whether those who dislike dissociative mechanics dislike something that really exists. I'm certain I have a consistent understanding of what they are and that they are distinct from abstractions and unrealism. People write articles that I've never met who nail it. So it exists and I am aggravated at people who try to muddy the waters and say it does not will silly examples that only reveal they don't understand.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The argument we now seem to be having is whether those who dislike dissociative mechanics dislike something that really exists. I'm certain I have a consistent understanding of what they are and that they are distinct from abstractions and unrealism.

The consistent difference you seem to find between abstract and dissociative is that the latter occurs in 4e.

People write articles that I've never met who nail it.

Yep, people writing articles critical of 4e, which you despise. That's confirmation bias.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Folks you can say what you want but until 4e D&D was undisputed master of the universe rpg-wise. After 4e, the playerbase shattered into pieces and one of those pieces "by itself" became Pathfinder and has surpassed D&D in sales. There are other pieces. Most of the ones I know of reject the dissociative mechanics of 4e. They have their own agenda's (simplicity being the feud between 1e and 2e). The still playing 3.5e edition is believe it or not a sizable faction independent of Pathfinder.

I don't think you can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. 4E happened, and its not going to be like it was. There is a signficant portion of the D&D community that doesn't want to go back, maybe not a majority but certainly too large for 5E to ignore.

All you have to do is analyze the behavior of the 5e game designers. Unlike us, they do know the facts behind sales and edition success. It is obvious that whatever they do they are going to produce a game that "looks" like traditional D&D. They will try to accomodate as many as they can. So you can stick you heads in the sand but thats the facts. They emphatically do not want another 4e.

I see the 5E game designers being arrogant like they were with 4E's development, thinking their creation was golden and when people saw it they would be converted. It didn't completely work the last time, and I don't expect it to this time. The question isn't whether the game "looks" traditional, but whether the modularity can deliver the "new school", which it hasn't shown signs of doing.

They know they can keep a certain percentage of current 4e players no matter what they produce. Those people play D&D. If you can't own the market when you start with that group in the bag you are doing poorly. I expect 5e if it returns to something close to traditional D&D will go gangbusters. Half the 4e playerbase, Pathfinder, 3.5e, 1e,2e. The market is wide open.

Wishful thinking on your part.