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

[Nagol]

Nagol, I appreciate the lengthy post. I hope this one doesn't come across as snarky.

So to use your example of modelling Come and Get It in Champions: Are you telling me that:

I cannot model Come and Get It in Champions in a way that I find adequately connected to the game world when I play with my friends in my group?

Yeah, pretty much.

I mean take a look a the power: it is equally effective against a human fighter, a 6,000 lb dragon, a mindless and spell-immune golem, and a wizard whose only ability is to throw lightning bolts and is pathologically afraid of melee combat. It involves no ability inherent to the character since it is drawing opponents from beyond his ability to reach into striking range. It is based on puissant skill at arms and combat training and takes effect depending only on opponents being visible.

The only way to get that flexibility is disassociate the ability from the game world and apply rationales as to why it happened this time. It isn't an ability the character can draw upon; it a situation the player can engineer.

Imagine the scene, the fighter is being set upon by a small group of mooks -- a mixture of thugs, zombies, and longbowmen. "If only they came at me as a wave, I can take them quickly!" And then it happens. So what did the character do to get all three types to rush him? Wave at them? Unlikely to sway the zombies. Taunt them with "Try my steel"? Unlikely to sway the longbowmen or zombies. Feign weakness and draw them in? Unlikely to sway the longbowmen. a more likely reason can be created by using the opponent's motivations and tactical failure, but that's outside the character.

I can't see how you possibly justify such an assertion. And without justifying that assertion you can not say that the Champions version of Come and Get It is objectively disocciated. It must be subjective.

Given that, using your example, which of these tells us something:

a) Champions Come and Get is disocciated
b) I couldn't figure out whether Champions Come and Get it should be charisma-based, or intelligence based or something else

What information is associated and disocciated telling me? It tells me nothing that your example - without the use of the words associated and disocciated - tells me.

What it does do is provide the ongoing basis for believing (incorrectly) that the mechanic is the problem, rather than the mismatch between your priorities and preferences (which you stated quite honestly - kudos) and the mechanic.

Since I don't share those preferences I don't have the problem.

Can you now see how the concept of disocciation goes nowhere?

The mechanical mismatch between my priorities and disassociated mechanics is the problem. There's nothing inherently wrong with them. I just prefer to run my character without relying on them and will continue to prefer game systems where such mechanics are kept away from me -- especially when I'm engaged with the game world as opposed to bookkeeping.

Disassociated mechanics are at their best when they are being used to control outcomes in keeping with genre or table preferences that would directly contradict characterisation (for example, adding a complication to a rescue scene). They can be quite decent tools for shared world-building/shared narrative construction as well like -- Strands of Fate Declarations.

The concept of disassociation does go somewhere. It helps me categorise RPGs in a way that is conducive for me to find a game I'd like to run and/or play and to explain to others why I like chocolate, but don't like strawberry.

 

[Nagol]

Although this might not address all your concerns in all cases, [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], IIRC "Get Over Here" is a Melee Range 1 power. That means, it's only usable on someone adjacent to you to start with.

So, if "PC1 moves away from the group towards his love. He is unwilling to risk further harm to his love and wants to break the cage," then the Get Over Herer can't actually do anything about it.

Other "forced" ally movement abilities IM(limited)E generally don't have the "must end your mvoe adjacent" clause, meaning that they movement forcer could help your PC get closer to his ladylove.

At least then there is always the "grabbing the coattails and swinging him round" excuse.

 

[Balesir]

Let's pop over to a favourite game system of mine for a minute: Champions

In that game systems all abilities are created by the player from building blocks and all abilities start off disassociated.

<snip>

So let's see how we can model Come and Get It shall we?

The fluff suggests it should be a charismatic ability, but there are no limits to the sort of creatures can be taunted, teased, or otherwise convinced to come to the character.

As I tried to allude to in a post some pages up, though, I don't think that "Martial" or "Combat Art" abilities are usefully thought of as "superpowers" - they seem much more like "skills", to me. By this I mean that they are the coordinated application of a whole range of techniques to the world around the user, whith the precise techniques used at any one time being selected according to judgement and experience.

I see "forced movement" effects being used daily, in real life, when I look at things in a particular way. I see parents using them on their kids. I see posturing youths using them on each other. I see myself using them on our cats (and, in the past, I have used such techniques on horses and cows). Dogs seem to have extremely low defences against these 'attacks'!

In a slightly different way, I see similar techniques being used here on the 'net; how many folk say they are "bowing out of this thread" or "not interested in joining an unproductive discussion" and yet post several times over several days?

Making people do things they are not inclined to do is actually not uncommon - it seems quite natural to me that it should be included in roleplaying games.

If you want a fantasy world where part of the "fantasy" is that such events do not happen, then fine - but to say that it seems "unnatural" and thus "immersion breaking" I'm still struggling to understand, sorry.

 

[chaochou]

Yeah, pretty much.

You can tell me what I find unacceptable playing with my friends in my group?

Gotcha. Presumably this holds true across the world? Anyone can tell me what I find disconnected. Or is it just you that has this god-given power? Or maybe its Justin Alexander?

Can he tell you what's disconnected? Can anyone? Can everyone tell everyone else what mechanics they can and can't connect to the game world during their play in their games?

If you can't make the distinction between 'I can't imagine this' and 'It can't be imagined' then there's nothing more to say.

I'd be rolling on the floor laughing if I weren't so astonished at the sheer lunacy of that claim.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think he was intentionally using hyperbole to draw a parallel against criticism of 4e. I may be wrong but I think you might have entirely missed the point.

I can see why some could read that, especially if they know my posting style--but in this particular case all I was doing was using an extreme example to contrast to some more moderate ones--specifically to argue the boundaries of good criticism and, err, "less good" criticism--still exist within Neonchameleon's point, which I was supporting.

Not that I don't think there are some parallels that could be drawn between respective criticisms, too, but that particular example was crafted to be ridiculous, not parallel to anything.

 

[Nagol]

You can tell me what I find unacceptable playing with my friends in my group?

Gotcha. Presumably this holds true across the world? Anyone can tell me what I find disconnected. Or is it just you that has this god-given power? Or maybe its Justin Alexander?

Can he tell you what's disconnected? Can anyone? Can everyone tell everyone else what mechanics they can and can't connect to the game world during their play in their games?

If you can't make the distinction between 'I can't imagine this' and 'It can't be imagined' then there's nothing more to say.

I'd be rolling on the floor laughing if I weren't so astonished at the sheer lunacy of that claim.

Sorry about that. I thought you were posing a rhetorical question I should ask myself... So I answered for myself.

 

[chaochou]

Sorry about that. I thought you were posing a rhetorical question I should ask myself... So I answered for myself.

Ahhh, I see.

Rewind........brrrrrrr

No. I'm asking whether you can tell me? Can chaochou connect Come and Get It in Champions to chachou's satisfaction or not?

If you can't tell me, then disocciation must be subjective.

If it's subjective then it contains no information beyond preference.

Currently its use is limited to 'To what extent do my preferences match those of Justin Alexander'.

I don't find that a useful benchmark for discussion of rpgs.

 

[Nagol]

Ahhh, I see.

Rewind........brrrrrrr

No. I'm asking whether you can tell me? Can chaochou connect Come and Get It in Champions to chachou's satisfaction or not?

If you can't tell me, then disocciation must be subjective.

If it's subjective then it contains no information beyond preference.

Currently its use is limited to 'To what extent do my preferences match those of Justin Alexander'.

I don't find that a useful benchmark for discussion of rpgs.

Can you tell me if I like chocolate? No? then I guess chocolate doesn't exist except subjectively.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I like some cars and not others. I can articulate why that particular car doesn't meet my standards for liking it. Other may like it for exactly the same reason I don't --the liking part is subjective, the distinguishing feature is not.

I like some RPGs and not others. One of the reasons I can articulate as to why that one doesn't meet my standards for liking it is disassociative mechanics in the hands of the players.

 

[chaochou]

Can you tell me if I like chocolate? No? then I guess chocolate doesn't exist except subjectively.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

You mean: Can I tell you if you like the taste of chocolate?

No, I can't.

Yet the taste of chocolate is entirely subjective.

The exitence of an rpg book is not in dispute. It is the properties of using that rpg book that is in dispute. Like the properties of chocolate (is 'taste').

So, yes, it does work that way. The game world exists only in the minds of the players. As do connections to the mechanics. So they are entirely subjective.

Re-read my post you responded to and start back at the beginning. How can a connection to a game world exist independently of players creating a game world and making connections?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Two general thoughts invoked from general flow of the conversation:

1. Having played all versions of D&D but the very first OD&D pamphlets, I think that 4E is seen as more extreme in part because in some ways it was a direct rejection of the ways that 3E was itself extreme (while keeping some mechanical similarities and bloat). For example, however "sim" of any type you want to say D&D in general is, I don't think it is controversial that 3E is the most sim version and 4E is the least. It's the contrast that really stands out.

2. A truly narrative mechanic is one in which a player can consciously direct the story in ways that independent of the character. Any association between such a mechanic and the fiction will always run the risk of being required as a rationalization after the fact. Any color to conceal this will be mere color--i.e. subject to losing its force if the illusion is sufficiently pierced. (I'm least sure about that last sentence, which is here a very strong, unsupported assertion.)