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

[Nagol]

<snip>


Good points. I think that 4e more strongly inclines towards "powers as player resources" than "powers as PC abiltiies" than earlier versions of D&D.

But then there are examples that seem to push the other way: what is an AD&D fighter's 3/2 attack ability, if not a player resource? All it corresponds to in the fiction - given the abstractness of an AD&D melee round - is "skilled melee combatant", and at that level of generality the same description explains the resources that the player of a 4e fighter enjoys. Why does the AD&D ability nevertheless seem to be (near-)universally regarded as less dissociated? It seems to have something to do with the attack roll nevertheless expressing someting about the activities of the PC in the fiction (and so 3/2 attacks corresponds to more of those activites), whereas a 4e power like Come and Get It has an obvious director stance component. (But Rain of Blows, for example, doesn't, and I personally can't see that it is any more dissociated than a 3/2 attack rate.)

The Fighter's increasing strikes per round is meant to model his improved proficiency for finding openings in his opponent's defence. The combat model takes this into account by having all additional blows delayed in sequence until after all initial strikes are accounted for. I don't see the improved attack progressions from previous editions as such a form of player input any more than the increase in to-hit gained from leveling. Both attempt to model increased proficiency from different angles. It is definitely a character resource.

What I'm missing: how exactly is this different from the 1x/level rule for locks, and the 1x/campagin rule for bending bars and lifting gates, in AD&D?

I mean, how come the PC had a chance of success the first time, but not the second? Nothing in the gameworld has changed between those two attempts, unless you take the view that what the die roll really determines is how tough the lock/gate is - but in that case, the die roll is an exercise of director's stance, which is (ex hypothesi) "dissociated".

It seems to be a check whether a particular character can test against a particular obstacle. I always took the result to be the eventual result of the test regardless of how long the character wanted to try. (I never said any game system was perfect.)

A similar question: from the point of view of the character, every stab in the minute of combat is indistinguishable. So how come the AD&D player only gets to roll one attack roll?
I think this might support LostSoul's contention that the "dissociation" issue is not really about process-sim at all.

That's why it's a results-sim. We don't know how many strikes are attempted or what percentage are blocked -- is the attacker more like Fafrd or Tars Tarkas with sweeping massive blows or more like the Gray Mouser with lots of deft strikes? The results are unaffected either way.

I think there may be something to this, but it is hard to work out exactly what is going on.

I mean, take the D&Dnext herbalism skill and healer's kits. Does a PC who expends a hit die falling use of a healer's kit have a bandage or poulstice somewhere on his/her body? And if so, can enemies therefore try to rip the bandage/poulstice off, thereby impeding the PC's performance and/or healing? The rules don't say. Is this an issue of dissociation, then?

I'd treat it more as an issue of abstraction/gamist convenience.

Given that not every detail of the fiction can be filled in, and fictional positioning is, of necessity, therefore partial, is 4e special in this regard? Or is the point that 4e assumes that, in some situations, the player enjoys the power to resolve indeterminate positioning questions a certain way (via expenditure of a resource in the form of a power) whereas D&D has traditionally vested that power in the GM? Except that there have always been some player resources, like the 3/2 attacks in AD&D - which give the player the power to specify that, whatever is going on in that minute of melee, it opens up multiple opportunities to get in a good hit.

Yeah 4e certainly increased the assumed interest in the player affecting the environment directly instead of through his character.

Anyway, here are some things that "dissociated" mechanics are not:

*Not metagame action resolution mechanics in general (eg action points are OK);
*Not director's stance mechanics (because an encounter power like Rain of Blows is no more director stance than AD&D 3/2 attacks);
*Not absence of process-sim (because D&D in general not process sim);
*Not mechanics that require/empower the player to think in ways that fail to parallel PC thinking (because D&D hit points have always given the player knowledge that the PC lacks, namely, when at low hp, that the next hit will be a bad one).​

I tend to disagree with some of premises above. I see disassociated mechanics as any mechanic that a game participant can bring to bear that does not have a in-game actor and expression.

Meta-game action resolution are the epitome of disassociated mechanics for me and almost all director-stance options for players fall into this category. The DM can have actors acting at the director level in-game (e.g. gods) so he gets a bit of a pass. Additional player knowledge like hp depletion are game constructs to make up for the limited ability to perceive the environment.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Not sure. It did read as somewhat patronizing as much as I don't think you know what goes on in my head as much you think you do. Some of my questions are just to keep people honest, or to understand the usefulness of semantics like 'process sim', and not necessarily to fill in a hole in my understanding. And in all fairness, you only know me as well as by what I write.

You are correct. I don't know what goes on in your head. With some sleep, I thought of a better, more correct way to say it: Some of your statements and questions are characteristic to me of patterns that have been in people whom I have later learned, once I got to know them better, to have this hole in their understanding from lack of experience. It's only a characteristic, though, not some kind of proof. Nor is it universal. When I said "I think" earlier that was misleading. What I should have said is something like, "If forced to make a guess, the similarities of the pattern would put a particular guess at the top of the list."

I believe that if forced to make that guess a hundred times on a hundred different people, I'd be right more than I'd be wrong. But 51% accuracy will make that true, while leaving an awful lot of misses.

 

[LostSoul]

I would need to know more about the context of the centipede encounter to know whether or not I could narrate the "ray of truth" in a similar fashion.

It was a wandering monster in a dungeon. I'm pretty sure the MM2 says that there's a link between Torog and centipedes; at any rate, the reason why they're down in the dungeon in my game is because of the corrupting influence of Torog. I'm not sure how much Torog cares about truth and lies, but it's possible that one could use that "ray of truth" to damage centipedes.

(Hmm, now that I think about it, that "ray of truth" does radiant damage in that game. I redefined radiant damage to be the ability to transform something into the way you want it to be. For example, the cleric of Tharizdun shoots disintegration rays that deal radiant damage, and the cleric of Lolth makes people believe her lies.)

I think this still preserves meaning, by the way - I think it makes a difference, in the fiction, that the bard has mocked Juiblex or Orcus. But the difference isn't an immediate difference to the action resolution. It's about the need to introduce some additional fictional content into the game, on which future consequences and complications might turn, in order to get the power is to work.

Yeah, that makes sense. I think that I want the meaning to show up in action resolution because of the way I want to DM the game - how I want to frame scenes and introduce conflicts, complications, and obstacles. Since I want to remain as impartial as possible, I think I need the meaning to flow out of action resolution.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Hero has the same basic premise -- powers work like this -- all expressions of a powers have the same basic structure. What Hero has that makes the system work better for me is an extra step where the character designer associates the power with in-world fiction and that association can then consistently be used to adjudicate interactions with the rest of the universe.

Power is through a device? Then it can be stolen, potentially broken, or otherwise incapaitated. Power is gravitic? Then an invisible object between the origin and the target is likely to get affected as well. Power is held in an arcane tattoo? A specific wound or magical suppression is necessary to stop the power (and thus the power costs more than the glove).

I find this association more tolerable than the pragmatic reskinning of powers to suit any situation that people talk about happening in 4e. This seems to be the best expression of my power this round, this is what I'll use. They've moved into a formation that invalidates that expression? I'll use this one instead.

This moves the power away from the character (he can do X because of Y) into a resource for the player (this is an ability you can always call on when playing this character; please attach it to the game world when you use it).

I think this aspect of 4E is optional but poorly called out. I've said before that nothing stops a group from playng 4E exactly like Hero, in that powers are reskinned, but only at the time the character pick them--where upon the skin is locked and will now have an effect on the play. That would precisely be playing 4E as an effects-based game, removing any shred of player narrative ability.

In such a game, if you define your CAGI as "taunts," then it won't work as well or even at all on creatures that would be resistant to such. If you define it as "appearing to drop your guard," then likewise. This is really no different than all the rulings and adjudications that some group accumulate in AD&D and then consider binding going forward. Presumably, if you can't lock the skin of a given power, then your character can't take it.

A lazy variation on this would be to not lock the skin until such time as the power was used, but consider it locked from then on. Obviously, that would be an irritant for a group deeply concerned with immersion, as they would need to stop to make such a ruling each time it arose. But presumably even this group, if they didn't change characters often, would be off and running in short order.

Hero is odd this way, in that the "game framework" is often not process sim, as it is meant to say something about the world of the campaign by what options you allow and how you do so--i.e. it is focused on results, not process. But a given campaign, in play, is very process-sim, in most of it's applications. (To a lesser extent this is true of GURPS, as well, though I'd say it is less framework, and thus more process-sim, in the campaign construction phase.)

I don't consider the timing of the association of the elements to be a basis for calling something inherently "disassociated," but rather simple acknowledgement that the timing can change. Something like "late association" and "early association" or "fixed association" and "variable association" would not only be more accurate, but would lose the backhanded slur of mental disfunction.

If the original "essay" had said that the default 4E encourages variable, late association, and thus can interfere with immersion, no one would have batted an eye.

 

[nogray]

For me, the breaking point is the 4e bard. I HATE the 4e bard. It's nails on the chalkboard time for me anytime a bard power is used in the game. Loathe it because I just cannot wrap my head around it and come up with any sort of believable scenario in my mind about what's going on when a bard does something.

Apropos of nothing relating to the thread at large, but this strikes me as odd, given that the 4e Bard powers are all explicitly spells, and would -- I tend to think -- have the same exclusion from the requirement for a believable rationale as is normally afforded to wizard, sorcerer, warlock, swordmage, and artificer powers. The bard is "just casting a spell" that has the described effect (including, possibly, a weapon attack component to the spell).

Just a random thought, though.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Nagol @Underman @Emerikol ;An exercise to make sure that there is some level of coherency and consistency within the application of the concept of "dissociation" and to confirm its limits. For each of the following please provide 1 or more of the following labels and the reasoning for the labels;

1 Dissociated.
2 Necessary Gamist Abstraction but not Dissociated.
3 Narrative Convention but not Dissociated.
4 Process-Sim.


- The Ability Scores of Dexterity and Strength being siloed away from one another (in terms of biophysics/kinesiology implications), despite their "real-world" synergy.


- Come and Get It
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.


- 5 Melee/Ranged Basic Attacks every 2 rounds. Rounds are one minute in duration.


- Get Over Here
You pull one of your allies into a more advantageous position.
Encounter Martial
Move Action Melee 1
Target: One ally
Effect: You slide the target up to 2 squares to a square adjacent to you.


- Successful Saving Throw vs Breath Weapon (AoE attack). Target is immobilized and without cover.


- Armor Class as a combination of the ability to totally avoid attacks (Dexterity and Profiency bonus) and the ability to mitigate kinetic energy from physical impact (interposing Armor). This amalgamation then interacting with the amalgamation of attributes that make up Hit Points (luck, divine favor, profiency, meat, stamina).


- Arthropods (creatures with Exoskeletons) having unbound sizes (eg greater than the size of a chicken - the upper limits in our world due to biophysics and gravity) relative to our own worldly arthropods while biophysics and gravity in the "implied setting" are supposed to be parralel.


- Inspiring Word
You call out to a wounded ally and offer inspiring words of courage and determination that invigorates your comrade.
Encounter (Special) Healing, Martial
Minor Action Close burst 5 (10 at 11th level, 15 at 21st level)
Target: You or one ally in the burst
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge and regain 1d6 additional hit points.


- Open Locks Skill Bonus of + 18. Lock DC is 20. 5 % chance to fail. PC rolls a 1 and fails. The ability to open the lock moves from 5 % chance to fail to 100 % chance to fail until the PC levels/or puts a new Skill point in Open Locks.


- COMBAT CHALLENGE
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
In addition, you gain the Combat Challenge power.
Combat Challenge
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Immediate Interrupt Melee
Effect: Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you as a target, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy.


- Dragons and other excessively large creatures (with incoherent trim characteristics) within the "implied setting" defying "flight physics" (eg gravity, atmospheric friction/drag, propulsive thrust, aerodynamic lift requirements, mandatory trim characteristics, etc) thus implying that atmospheric drag/friction conditions and gravity may not be as binding as they are in our world. In spite of that, the rest of the "implied setting" maintains the position that other forms of musculo-skeletal kinesiology by mundane creatures are bound by "real-world" gravity/atmospheric drag/friction.


- A 0 % chance of a spellcaster to avoid "spell disruption" from melee attack despite gains in Alacrity, Dexterity, or Proficiency throughout the spellcaster's career...specifically relative to their melee attacker.


- A protagonist is fleeing pursuit through a frontier wilderness. This protagonist has stolen a sacred idol from a snake-men temple. He is attempting to bring it to a neighboring village so the local priests can perform a ritual that will break a curse that they believe the snake-men have leveled against their people. He knows the Local Geography reasonably well and is an accomplished Rider. While he tries to guide his steed through the treacherous terrain (laden with rocks, sinkholes, snagging tanglevine and thick scrub-brush), the snake-men are firing arrows and spells at him. As the stakes are high and the threat of the terrain and his pursuit is all-consuming, it takes all of his effort to maintain his composure and perceptive abilities while he attempts to spur his horse on at top speed and navigate. He fails a Ride check. The failure does not denote a linear response from mere horsemanship acumen (falls off the horse, fails to navigate a piece of treacherous terrain, fails to properly instruct the horse to maintain speed). Given the stakes, all of the impending sensory input that he must process (navigation of correct path, navigation of treacherous terrain, avoidance of missiles from pursuit, the response of the horse to his implicit beckoning, his own adrenaline), he fails to maintain concentration while riding the horse, bring to bear his Local Geography Knowledge, and properly navigate the path. Instead of moving through a narrow land-bridge that crosses a gorge...over the next high ridge, much to his dismay, the gorge blocks his path.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think this aspect of 4E is optional but poorly called out. I've said before that nothing stops a group from playng 4E exactly like Hero, in that powers are reskinned, but only at the time the character pick them--where upon the skin is locked and will now have an effect on the play. That would precisely be playing 4E as an effects-based game, removing any shred of player narrative ability.

There's still some potential shreds in how you define a given power. For instance, in some old Champions! campaign I was in, one PC had 'luck based powers,' one of which was an EB that was defined as 'something heavy happens to fall on the enemy.' It wasn't /always/ a piano, but it tended to be. Anyway, whenever he used that power, it worked as directed, but implied some stuff going on behind the scenes.

In such a game, if you define your CAGI as "taunts," then it won't work as well or even at all on creatures that would be resistant to such. If you define it as "appearing to drop your guard," then likewise.

Hero gives you advantages and limitations that let you customize your power, mechanically. So you wouldn't just define your power that pulls people towards you as 'taunts,' you'd take some point-saving 'limitations' on it - they have to hear you and understand your language, or you have to make a PRE check to activate the power, or whatever, and it'd play by the way it's written up. Hero has a provision for 'minor' bonus/penalties based on special effect, but generally goes by the mechanics.

4e, OTOH, goes by the mechanics, while games that aren't effects-based, at all, like pre-3e D&D (even 3e had /some/ effects-based stuff, like katanas being masterwork bastard swords), go by the mechanics from which the effects are inextricable.

If the original "essay" had said that the default 4E encourages variable, late association, and thus can interfere with immersion, no one would have batted an eye.

I doubt the exact terminology, even if a bit more precise, would have made that big a difference. The edition war needed talking points, and if they were suitable, they'd have been picked up, if not, others would have been.

 

[Nagol]

Against my better judgement, I'll take a shot.

An exercise to make sure that there is some level of coherency within this concept of "dissociation" and to confirm its limits. For each of the following please provide 1 or more of the following labels and the reasoning for the labels;

1 Dissociated.
2 Necessary Gamist Abstraction but not Dissociated. (NGABND)
3 Narrative Convention but not Dissociated. (NCBND)
4 Process-Sim.

- The Ability Scores of Dexterity and Strength being siloed away from one another (in terms of biophysics/kinesiology implications), despite their "real-world" synergy.
-- NGABND -- designers decided to model physical attrbutes and built a generation system where each is assigned indepdently.


- Come and Get It
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.
-- Disassociated, flavour text aside, ability has no association with the character or the opponents' forced movement

- 5 Melee/Ranged Basic Attacks every 2 rounds. Rounds are one minute in duration.
-- Results-sim (black box process sim).

- Get Over Here
You pull one of your allies into a more advantageous position.
Encounter Martial
Move Action Melee 1
Target: One ally
Effect: You slide the target up to 2 squares to a square adjacent to you.
-- Disassociated, character has no ability to inflict this movement.


- Successful Saving Throw vs Breath Weapon (AoE attack). Target is immobilized and without cover.
-- NGABND


- Armor Class as a combination of the ability to totally avoid attacks (Dexterity and Profiency bonus) and the ability to mitigate kinetic energy from physical impact (interposing Armor). This amalgamation then interacting with the amalgamation of attributes that make up Hit Points (luck, divine favor, profiency, meat, stamina).
-- NGABND and/or process-sim


- Arthropods (creatures with Exoskeletons) having unbound sizes (eg greater than the size of a chicken - the upper limits in our world due to biophysics and gravity) relative to our own worldly arthropods while biophysics and gravity in the "implied setting" are supposed to be parralel.
-- genre convention so NCBND


- Inspiring Word
You call out to a wounded ally and offer inspiring words of courage and determination that invigorates your comrade.
Encounter (Special) Healing, Martial
Minor Action Close burst 5 (10 at 11th level, 15 at 21st level)
Target: You or one ally in the burst
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge and regain 1d6 additional hit points.
-- process-sim with NCBND


- Open Locks Skill Bonus of + 18. Lock DC is 20. 5 % chance to fail. PC rolls a 1 and fails. The ability to open the llock moves from 5 % chance to fail to 100 % chance to fail until the PC levels/or puts a new Skill point in Open Locks.
-- (poor) process-sim


- COMBAT CHALLENGE
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
In addition, you gain the Combat Challenge power.
Combat Challenge
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Immediate Interrupt Melee
Effect: Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you as a target, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy.
-- NGABND and (poor) process-sim (poor because the mark continues even when the marker offers no possible threat to the marked so shouldn't be distracted)

- Dragons and Excessively creatures within the "implied setting" defying "flight physics" (eg gravity, atmospheric friction/drag, propulsive thrust, aerodynamic lift requirements, mandatory trim characteristics, etc) thus implying that atmospheric drag/friction conditions and gravity may not be as binding as they are in our world. In spite of that, the rest of the "implied setting" maintains the position that other forms of musculo-skeletal kinesiology by mundane creatures are bound by gravity/atmospheric drag/fiction.
-- NCBND


- An 0 % chance of a spellcaster to avoid "spell disruption" from melee attack despite gains in Alacrity, Dexterity, or Proficiency throughout the spellcaster's career...specifically relative to their melee attacker.
-- NGABND, NCBND depending on genre, or (poor) process-sim


- A protagonist is fleeing pursuit through a frontier wilderness. This protagonist has stolen a sacred idol from a snake-men temple. He is attempting to bring it to a neighboring village so the local priests can perform a ritual that will break a curse that they believe the snake-men have leveled against their people. He knows the Local Geography reasonably well and is an accomplished Rider. While he tries to guide his steed through the treacherous terrain (laden with rocks, sinkholes, snagging tanglevine and thick scrub-brush), the snake-men are firing arrows and spells at him. As the stakes are high and the threat of the terrain and his pursuit is all-consuming, it takes all of his effort to maintain his composure and perceptive abilities while he attempts to spur his horse on at top speed and navigate. He fails a Ride check. The failure does not denote a linear response from mere horsemanship acumen (falls off the horse, fails to navigate a piece of treacherous terrain, fails to properly instruct the horse to maintain speed). Given the stakes, all of the impending sensory input that he must process (navigation of correct path, navigation of treacherous terrain, avoidance of missiles from pursuit, the response of the horse to his implicit beckoning, his own adrenaline), he fails to properly navigate the path. Instead of moving through a narrow land-bridge that crosses a gorge...over the next high ridge, much to his dismay, the gorge blocks his path.
-- poor NCBND and D (I say poor because if the other abilities (perception, geography, navigation, AC) are present in the game they should have been tested and the failure should reflect those skills that fail; the actual result is disassociated from the player input, but still a possible result from the character's point of view; the feedback received shows failure against abilities that were untested and the ability tested has no bearing on that failure mode in much the same way that inflicting an arbitrary amount of hp loss from arrows hitting him because of the failed Ride check). If the nature of the challenge only allows the testing of a single attribute then it is also poor process-sim

 

[pemerton]

The Fighter's increasing strikes per round is meant to model his improved proficiency for finding openings in his opponent's defence. The combat model takes this into account by having all additional blows delayed in sequence until after all initial strikes are accounted for. I don't see the improved attack progressions from previous editions as such a form of player input any more than the increase in to-hit gained from leveling. Both attempt to model increased proficiency from different angles.

Is the difference from Rain of Blows, then, that with Rain of Blows the increaesed proficiency doesn't manifest itself except consequent upon a player choice?

It seems to be a check whether a particular character can test against a particular obstacle. I always took the result to be the eventual result of the test regardless of how long the character wanted to try. (I never said any game system was perfect.)

So is this "dissociation", or "Let it Ride", or "abstraction", or something else (assuming that they differ)?

Again, the main difference from Rain of Blows (which tells us that all subsequent attempts at a second or further attack after RoB is used will fail, until 5 minutes pass) seems to be the element of player discretion in triggering finality when RoB is used.

I'd treat it more as an issue of abstraction/gamist convenience.

<snip>

Additional player knowledge like hp depletion are game constructs to make up for the limited ability to perceive the environment.

I think that could be one way of thinking about encounter powers. But that wouldn't eliminate the player's decision-making role, which (if I'm following properly) seems to be at the core of the issue.

 

[Nagol]

Is the difference from Rain of Blows, then, that with Rain of Blows the increaesed proficiency doesn't manifest itself except consequent upon a player choice?

So is this "dissociation", or "Let it Ride", or "abstraction", or something else (assuming that they differ)?

Again, the main difference from Rain of Blows (which tells us that all subsequent attempts at a second or further attack after RoB is used will fail, until 5 minutes pass) seems to be the element of player discretion in triggering finality when RoB is used.

I think that could be one way of thinking about encounter powers. But that wouldn't eliminate the player's decision-making role, which (if I'm following properly) seems to be at the core of the issue.

I had to go look up Rain of Blows; I don't know 4e well. Rain of Blows is associated -- the character has an ability to "turn up the heat" as it were. He knows it, it conforms to the genre, and he can take advantage of the ability. The only disassociated point is the recovery.

Imagine a scenario where the character uses RoB in round one killing his opponent and is stuck on a overlook watching the rest of the combat and resting. Two minutes later, a demon teleports up to him and the character is still too tired from his single action to repeat it, but finds he can still do <insert other heavy strenuous activity like encounter powers, daily powers, or stunts>. The character can't say "I'm too tired" because he can do more intense stuff still. How does the character rationalise his inability to perform that one move?

My preference would have recovery mechanisms that tie into the nature of the power and world fiction rather than simple flat periods, but the game designers wanted consistent game elements more than associated elements. I can wink at encounter powers if I need to, but I find they're pretty gamist.