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

[Manbearcat]

Thank you for the effort. I will review it over time along with CJ's comments. My conclusion so far is, unfortunately, that using these terms is a minefield and I best leave it alone. I normally would take it at face value and try to find value in it. However, a handful of you guys seem rather hostile towards a certain playstyle (namely, using D&D for sim/immersion purposes) and it feels a whole lot like you're using this armchair academia like a club to beat people on the head. Because of that (real or imagined) attitude, I don't know that I can derive a whole lot of value out of it - I would be using semantics against those who are far more proficient with those semantic weapons.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am not trying to be an arm-chair academic. I'm just typing words and hoping that they sufficiently convey my thoughts/experiences. I truly am trying to communicate in good faith. I'm not trying to be snarky or condescending or anything of the sort. I really do apologize if it comes off like that. I am not antagonistic toward efforts at DnD Process-Sim. My gaming history encapsulates that effort (frustratingly so). As such, I'm very aware of its limitations and what must be done in order to not not take the "red pill" and climb out of the Rabbit Hole. When I demanded Process-Sim while playing DnD, unfortunately my suspension of disbelief was impossible, given time and intense scrutiny, due to the unphysical nature of the implied setting and the abstractions that the system has historically been premised upon. In order for me to forgive those things (while demanding proper Process-Sim and overarching Simulation), I would have had to either mind-wipe the results of my scrutiny away or not scrutinize and ignore the elephants in room poking me with their tusks or play a different system. Alternatively, I could change my expectations and playstyle. I did the latter.

As far as your post above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underman
If the "problem" is that Process Sim falls apart "badly" upon scrutiny, then do you apply equal scrutiny to the post-hoc/ad-hoc narration made by players and DM?

How does anything the player narrate make sense under the same scrutiny? Or do you just lower your expectations? If yes, aren't just ignoring a different problem, but a problem that is more palatable to you?


I hope my post above does a job in explaining. The expectations are not lowered. They are different. Different due to the vast swath of differences between "Simulation" vs "Emulation" and "Process-Sim" vs "Outcome-Based Sim".

 

[D'karr]

DnD Process Sim falls apart, badly, under intense scrutiny. Expectations of Process Sim are premised upon scrutiny.

I would actually say that DnD Process Sim falls apart, badly, under almost ANY scrutiny, and falls apart horribly when actually implemented within the ruleset.

Most of the attempts at Process Sim created such convoluted systems that they were, for most purposes, unusable. There is a reason that "weapon speeds", "weapon vs. armor type", "grappling", and even "psionic combat" were such a rarity at game tables during the 1e era. These rules were horribly unwieldy.

To say that intense scrutiny is needed gives the system a huge pass when hardly anything "rules wise", that could be effectively used, can be described as actual Process Sim.

DnD combat works "well enough" directly because it is completely abstract. Because it is abstract I as a DM, and as a player, can associate whatever explanation I feel works for the results of the particular mechanical action that the PLAYER takes. A character is never taking any mechanical action. A character doesn't roll initiative, never rolls an attack, never makes a climb check, never makes a diplomacy roll, or rolls to check for traps; a player does.

When it takes a minute for a combat turn that is not Process Sim. In that minute MY explanation is that many attacks and parries happened but only one has a probable "chance" to affect the outcome.

Why only one? Obviously that is an arbitrary distinction that the game designer put in place. Probably for balance reasons. For the same balance reasons a fighter as he goes up in level started getting more probable "chances" to affect the outcome. This was to balance against other classes that had more power as they went up in level.

Stepped inititiative, HP, AC, attack bonuses, and damage are all abstract mechanics to produce results, not to create a Process Sim of "real" combat.

When I started playing all I had was the Moldvay Basic Box. If I wanted any Process Sim I had to create it from whole cloth. This can even be seen in the default, and optional rules. By default, all weapons do 1d6 damage. The optional rules have weapons with variable damage. This was a way of providing variety, not Process Sim. A dagger to the heart will kill you just as easily as an axe to the head. Why then does the dagger do so little damage when compared to the axe? Shouldn't they do the same, if both of them can kill you with one strike? Because the damage values are designed for variety. The designer was giving me an optional guideline if I preferred to have some variety, but combat had no recognizable Process Sim.

To kill something I still had to whittle its HP, a completely abstract concept of combat effectiveness. As a fight goes on the characters should start to fatigue, which makes combatants sloppier and easier to hit, as well as less accurate. How come characters can hit just as effectively whether they just started fighting, or 10 minutes into the fight? Because the combat sim is not process sim. How come AC makes it harder to "hit" you instead of making the damage irrelevant? For the exact same reason.

When someone starts the conversation with how "DnD used to be able to do Process Sim within the rules, and 4e can't" they are simply looking at DnD with rose colored glasses. DnD has never provided effective Process Sim right out of the box. A group of players and a DM can decide to add some Process Sim to DnD by "house ruling" it in some way that is palatable to them. They can do that with any version of DnD.

If the arbitrary rule that during a one minute turn I'll only get one probable "chance" to attack does not break my immersion, then the arbitrary rule that during a combat or a day I'll only have one probable "chance" to use a particular technique does not do so either.

If I want, I can explain the 1 minute turn as a series of parries, ripostes, etc., with one good opening or an opening due to circumstance. I can also explain the particular technique as a series of parries, ripostes, etc., with eventually a good opening. When I've used the technique and can't use it anymore I can explain it as fatigue, the enemies getting wiser to my tricks, or the specifics of how to achieve the technique simply not manifesting again during the combat or during the day.

The abstract nature of the combat system allows me as a DM, and as a player, to find/create a comfortable "explanation" for that situation. If I want, or need one I can do so. Or I can ignore it entirely if I so choose. The willingness and experience to do so is not a limitation within the rules system.

This is no different in any version of DnD from ODnD, to 4e, to DnD Next.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here's my thought: Ticking off an encounter power for Come and Get It so that your "Hey Bro" actually brings your enemy closer to you is as "dissociated" as the fact that you roll a d20 and add some number to determine whether your attack hits.

The d20 and the math calculaitons behind it are nothing the character is aware of, but it determines whether something he thinks and plans to do actually works out, and that the player is highly aware of.

To get rid of such dissassociative effects, we'd basically have to move to a "DM/computer rolls all the dice and tracks all mechanical resources".

Think about how you character would eventually play out under such a scenario. You don't know the rules resolution at all. You don't know whether your taunt doesn't work because you failed a dice roll, or a target was out of range or immune to forced movement, or because you already ticked of a power for this combat. You don't know if you have 30 hit points or 1 hit point.
You would probably still eventually get a "feel" for what is going. You don't know your number of hit points, but you may learn that after a few swings of an enemy, you're hurting, but you will usually be able to deal with a few. You probably know that taunting enemies works only seldomly and isn't worth trying more than once in any given combat, but you know it can work.

That doesn't mean the results are "realisytic" - for example, you will probably never encounter a situation where you or one of your friends are killed instantly by an attacker. You know the start of combat usually ends up in bruises, glances or outright misses.

 

[Underman]

I would actually say that DnD Process Sim falls apart, badly, under almost ANY scrutiny, and falls apart horribly when actually implemented within the ruleset.

Do you or do you not apply the same scrutiny to whenever a player uses a non-process-sim mechanic and narrates something equally ludicrous that falls apart badly under scrutiny?

Short answer please.

 

[Underman]

When I demanded Process-Sim while playing DnD, unfortunately my suspension of disbelief was impossible, given time and intense scrutiny
<snip>
Alternatively, I could change my expectations and playstyle. I did the latter.
<snip>
I hope my post above does a job in explaining. The expectations are not lowered. They are different. Different due to the vast swath of differences between "Simulation" vs "Emulation" and "Process-Sim" vs "Outcome-Based Sim".

I'm not sure I get it, but I'm trying very hard. You're saying you gave up trying to suspend disbelief in D&D.

So if a player narrates CaGI or whatever in some way that "falls apart badly under scrutiny" (as the going phrase is now), it doesn't suspend your disbelief, because you don't have any expectations for verisimilitude?

For example, Bob uses CaGI and says "My fighter is taunting the mindless skeleton." Bob thinks its thematically interesting or whatever to narrate it that way. You're cool with that, because you've lowered your expectations.

Did I get that right, kind of?

 

[stoloc]

I'm not sure I get it, but I'm trying very hard. You're saying you gave up trying to suspend disbelief in D&D.

So if a player narrates CaGI or whatever in some way that "falls apart badly under scrutiny" (as the going phrase is now), it doesn't suspend your disbelief, because you don't have any expectations for verisimilitude?

For example, Bob uses CaGI and says "My fighter is taunting the mindless skeleton." Bob thinks its thematically interesting or whatever to narrate it that way. You're cool with that, because you've lowered your expectations.

Did I get that right, kind of?

I am speaking ONLY for myself.

When bruce Lee uses come and get it by Motioning to the 10 or so guys surrounding him, smirking at them and quirking his eyebrow my suspension of disbelief is not triggered because I'm thinking Man that guy is bad ass.

Rule of cool wins out.

Wouldn't matter if the bad guys were mooks, skeletons, robots or ninjas.

Fine your verisimiltude is hurt by Come and Get It but mines not I just think it's cool.

There are so many abstractions and compromises built into the combat system that I think it's silly to attack 4e over CaGI.

 

[D'karr]

Do you or do you not apply the same scrutiny to whenever a player uses a non-process-sim mechanic and narrates something equally ludicrous that falls apart badly under scrutiny?

Short answer please.

My players don't go to any lengths to narrate something ludicrous. The same way that I, as a DM, don't spend my efforts into describing something ludicrous. That's part of the immersion.

My players come up with "reasonable", within the genre, narration. In other words they roll with it, and don't try to make it ridiculous.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] posed a very creative example of how his players did something similar with the paladin explaining away the polymorph as his deity changing him back.

So no, I don't have to.

 

[Underman]

My players come up with "reasonable", within the genre, narration. In other words they roll with it, and don't try to make it ridiculous.

When your players try to come up with something "reasonable" within the genre, do you apply the same level of scrutiny, the same highly critical eye, as you obviously do towards D&D process sim rules (as per upthread)?

 

[Balesir]

Let's be pragmatic and not arm chair academics and rule this out for most people, k?

Huh??? What on earth is "armchair academic" about assuming that people might conceivably have the nouse to try out other RPG systems? When alternatives are so plentiful, so well documented and so easily available this makes no sense to me at all.

If the "problem" is that Process Sim falls apart "badly" upon scrutiny, then do you apply equal scrutiny to the post-hoc/ad-hoc narration made by players and DM?

How does anything the player narrate make sense under the same scrutiny? Or do you just lower your expectations? If yes, aren't just ignoring a different problem, but a problem that is more palatable to you?

Do you or do you not apply the same scrutiny to whenever a player uses a non-process-sim mechanic and narrates something equally ludicrous that falls apart badly under scrutiny?

Short answer please.

I think your question is based on a misunderstanding. If we don't use process-Sim, then there is no narration of the process that leads to the outcome determined by the systems spoken aloud. Each player imagines a process that makes sense to them, and that results in the outcome determined by the system and die rolls. My own internal envisioned process stands up to my scrutiny precisely because I have invented it such that it does just that. Each other player does likewise. The only point that we have to assure ourselves of is that we all agree on the outcome - the state of play after the process that leads to the outcome has to be clear, but the process that led there can be variable, suited to the processes that each player at the table finds believable.

Clear rules are a great help, here. By knowing what outcomes the rules support, I can prepare a range of processes that I imagine might explain or result in those outcomes.

 

[Underman]

Huh??? What on earth is "armchair academic" about assuming that people might conceivably have the nouse to try out other RPG systems? When alternatives are so plentiful, so well documented and so easily available this makes no sense to me at all.

My assumption is that nobody can prove that the average D&D player across all the lands plays pure sim systems. IME, my group has never played a bunch of those aforementioned systems. "Armchair academic" refers to theoreotical assumptions about the average D&D player should be doing. "Oh the people of D&D are hungry for sim? Let them eat pure sim cake" -- that kind of thing.

I think your question is based on a misunderstanding.

Maybe, but I'll understand as much as people are telling me, in a concise helpful way. Do you promise to talk nicely about the difference in playstyles (unlike on that other thread about that 3rd playstyle)

If we don't use process-Sim, then there is no narration of the process that leads to the outcome determined by the systems spoken aloud. Each player imagines a process that makes sense to them

So you solve the problem of process-sim by not talking about it?

and that results in the outcome determined by the system and die rolls. My own internal envisioned process stands up to my scrutiny precisely because I have invented it such that it does just that.

Do you think then that there is a sort of double standard, if you will? That any intense scrutiny applied to a process sim mechanic on paper is not equally applied in your own mind? That you kinda give yourself a free pass, you don't really dig deeply into your own assumptions about the process so much?

For example, under intense scrutiny, hit points don't make sense because the PC is still fully capable at 1 hp as much as 100hp, according to D'karr. In your own mind, when you come up with some sort of hit point related narration, do you apply a similarly stringent standard of verisimilitudinous scrutiny, assessment and critique?