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

[Hussar]

We also get up and physically act things out if they are confusing, so that helps.

LARPER!!! Heretic!!! Burn the witch!!!!

-----------

Edited because Pem got in a reply before mine.

Yeah, I gotta admit, the whole gate guard comment didn't faze me in the slightest. I took it as "Don't sweat the small stuff". Which is generally good advice in any game. If the players don't care about X, then don't try to make them care.

I once had a DM who insisted on in-character role play with EVERY SINGLE NPC. No matter what. Buying a crossbow as a half hour of small talk with the shop keeper. One of the other players ate it up. She loved that sort of thing. Me? I totally tuned out. Did not care. We had other, bigger issues going on and I couldn't believe that I spent a significant part of a session (our sessions were only 3 hours) talking about the weather to random shop keeper #1 .

I actually finally quit the group because I just found it so frustrating all the time. Total mismatch of playstyles. Great DM, good campaign, but SOOO not to my taste.

So, is skipping the gate guard a good piece of advice or not? Well, for me, it's totally spot on. But, I have seen others for whom the point of play is talking to that gate guard. I guess the better advice would have been to identify what your players want and go from there.

 

[pemerton]

I once had a DM who insisted on in-character role play with EVERY SINGLE NPC. No matter what. Buying a crossbow as a half hour of small talk with the shop keeper.

That would drive me nuts too!

 

[billd91]

Pretty much what Pemerton said. The only difference between Combat Superiority and Daily Martials in terms of dissociation is that you, Bill91, choose an interpretation that makes sense to you. There's no actual difference between the two otherwise, other than one came out of a 4e book.

Which seems to be the basic message of this entire line of discussion. A dissociated mechanic is only a bad thing if it came from 4e. Otherwise, we'll bend over backwards to do any mental gymnastics required to make this mechanic (whatever it is) acceptable to us. It's unbelievable.

This seems pretty much divorced from reality, if you ask me. There is a substantial difference between combat superiority and daily martial powers with respect to dissociation.

This whole drum you're beating about dissociative mechanics only being "bad" if they come from 4e is getting old particularly when I, at least, have provided examples of how people have had problems with dissociative mechanics in the past (though we didn't have the dissociative term to use then). Somehow, those cases don't exist for you and I can't begin to understand why.

 

[Argyle King]

Pretty much what Pemerton said. The only difference between Combat Superiority and Daily Martials in terms of dissociation is that you, Bill91, choose an interpretation that makes sense to you. There's no actual difference between the two otherwise, other than one came out of a 4e book.

Which seems to be the basic message of this entire line of discussion. A dissociated mechanic is only a bad thing if it came from 4e. Otherwise, we'll bend over backwards to do any mental gymnastics required to make this mechanic (whatever it is) acceptable to us. It's unbelievable.

For me, I view both as being somewhat disassociated. However, I view Combat Superiority more favorably because of the implementation. The implementation strikes me as being an effort to at least compromise with me and take a few steps toward where I'd like the game to be. Realistically, I accept that I am pretty far outside the target audience for D&D Durango.

I don't believe the style of play I want is anywhere near what should be expected from the game. (I'd be pleasantly surprised if I were to be proven wrong.) However, CS somehow finds a space which -imo- is a better compromise for me than some of the mechanics of previous editions. In part, I think it might be because it's a little more flexible. Also, I'm a fan of active defenses instead of static ones; CS mimics that a little bit too, and I find that to be good for my tastes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would debate that any of those, or any non-D&D rpg is "well-known", or has a comparable influence in how rpg players think about game design.

D&D is certainly the only well-known RPG outside of the hobby, but within the hobby, there are plenty of other games most of us have likely heard of. As far as shaping how people think about game-design, D&D didn't engage in much innovation between 1e and 3e, a period of about 20 years. Anyone who was thinking about game-design in those two decades was thinking of games other than D&D, because that's where game design was happening.

Open-source d20 changed that, of course.

I think, in retrospect, though, it was d20, not D&D that innovated during the run of 3e. D&D was a flagship - or an anchor - of d20 development, not a driving force.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pretty much what Pemerton said. The only difference between Combat Superiority and Daily Martials in terms of dissociation is that you, Bill91, choose an interpretation that makes sense to you. There's no actual difference between the two otherwise, other than one came out of a 4e book.

Which seems to be the basic message of this entire line of discussion. A dissociated mechanic is only a bad thing if it came from 4e. Otherwise, we'll bend over backwards to do any mental gymnastics required to make this mechanic (whatever it is) acceptable to us. It's unbelievable.

And, since it's not believable, that makes the whole thread dissociated, right?

 

[Balesir]

Who is "we" in this sentence?

Me, and the other posters who indicated they couldn't imagine D&D without hit points

That's an odd conflation; I couldn't imagine D&D without hit points, but that doesn't mean in the slightest that I think of hit points as an essential part of RPGs. D&D is just one (and first, chronologically) among a plethora of RPGs that have tremendous variety and scope.

Here are some well-known RPGs that don't use D&D-style hit points:

Tunnels and Trolls: damage is rated numerically, and comes directly off CON;

Rolemaster/MERP/HARP: damage is rated in concussion hits, which are "meat" (bruising and blood loss), and in numerical penalties (eg -10 to all actions) and disabilities (eg blinded) of various sorts;

RuneQuest: damage is rated numerically, comes of hit points, which are "meat", and hit point loss leads to both numerical penalties and disabilities (eg maimed) of various sorts;

Burning Wheel: damage is rated on a scale, and the scale determines a numerical penalty (eg -1D to all actions) which in turn, as part of the healng mechanics, can lead to disabilities (eg maimed) of various sorts;

Traveller: damage is rated numerically, and comes directly off physical stats.​

Hit points are not at all ingrained in how I think about RPGs. In fact, I see them as pretty distinctive to D&D.

I would debate that any of those, or any non-D&D rpg is "well-known", or has a comparable influence in how rpg players think about game design.

What?? Those must be some of the most well known RPGs out there - so, what you're saying is, basically, "only D&D counts"??? FFS - recognise that there are a whole range of roleplaying games out there, and they all have different design aims (well, many of them do, at any rate) and they support many styles of play. You don't need to warp D&D to the "one true style" of play you want to play - there will be a game out there that does it much better already.

As for the hit points thing; I would actually count all those games as doing "hit points lite" - along with the World of Darkness games and the like (which give saving throws to avoid losing each hit point, and name each hit point, to boot!)

For "non-hit-point" games, I would look at games more like HârnMaster (the original "a wound is a (bad) thing that you gain, not a pool of 'life' you lose", game), PrimeTime Adventures, Fiasco, Universalis and the like. It's true that these are not so well known - a shame, in my view - but for a simulationist game this approach works much better on several levels. It would actually not be too hard to do something similar using 4e mechanisms; each wound becomes essentially a "disease" that is tracked on the disease track. Of course, the whole combat system changes fundamentally, since taking the number of "hits" that D&D combat typically dishes out is completely unmanageable in this sort of system.

Thanks for the insightful reply. I wanted to go into a little detail on these two quotes.

I think you describe a very valid concern. It's hard to get everyone on the same page, and if someone has a privileged role in judgement that can spell problems. I've had my share of issues with this style of play in the past. However, that role can be powerful if used well.

I think I (as DM here) don't have many problems with fictional positioning influencing mechanical resolution because I take the view that we're all in this game together. I rarely say "No" flat-out; usually it's "I can't see that working; help me out here." When it comes to modifiers, I prefer to let the players add their own - because it's easier and I trust them - while everyone accepts the fact that I have final say.

We also get up and physically act things out if they are confusing, so that helps.

As for rewarding players for having the same world-physics model: I think that's true, but I think it's a powerful tool. It helps get people on the same page, imagining together. I also think that you have to be willing to give and change your perception of the world-physics model as either DM or player.

I think this is similar to the "don't be a dick" rule, but maybe it's a little more... nuanced. I think the game should make it clear that everyone is working at the same goal - an enjoyable experience - and everyone should keep that in mind while filling their roles and responsibilities.

I can't xp you at the minute, but thanks for more food for thought.

If I put my "running Hârn" hat on, I think I can see the uses of this tool. For D&D I have found it unnecessary (and have been put off it - see below), so I just avoid it, for the most part.

I think so. It removes most of the high-stress situations, especially the socially high-stress situations. You're not worried about creating compelling fiction all the time.

I wonder if DMs who take on that role (that is, the responsibility to describe the details of abstract actions in a compelling way) suffer more burnout than those who don't.

This is a really good insight, I think. I can recognise elements of burnout around the time I "fell out of love" with the "describe everything" style of roleplaying. I think there is an element of players demanding the GM create a whole world for them to play with - and they had better damn well make it believable - out there. Nowadays I expect the players to take a role in envisioning the world and making it real for themselves; if they aren't prepared to engage to that extent on their own initiative I don't see why I should spend time preparing stuff to support their play.

I once had a DM who insisted on in-character role play with EVERY SINGLE NPC. No matter what. Buying a crossbow as a half hour of small talk with the shop keeper. One of the other players ate it up. She loved that sort of thing. Me? I totally tuned out. Did not care. We had other, bigger issues going on and I couldn't believe that I spent a significant part of a session (our sessions were only 3 hours) talking about the weather to random shop keeper #1 .

That is very much a play style thing tied to the aims/agenda of play. For D&D it would bug me no end; the aim of play is to explore "dungeons" (where a "dungeon" could be above ground, even on a cloud, or could be a plot or intrigue just as well as it might be an actual hole in the ground) - to go on an "adventure", basically - so time spent making small talk with a grunt is time wasted.

When I run Hârn, though, the players will likely want to chat to the gate guard, because he may well have news that they want to know. The kind of "interesting stuff" the characters are involved in - and the players are engaging with - are very different between the two games. Time for an example:

A recent sequence of events led the Hârn PCs to investigate a murder in a fairly remote manor. The situation was complicated considerably by a young man who, while very much enamoured of a maid who clearly had feelings for him, refused to consider marriage to her. It turned out that this was because, on a trip to a town on a neighbouring island, he had apparently been seduced by a local girl while rather drunk and had married her and slept with her while inebriated.

Thus it was that our 'heroes' pitched up at the said town - on business of their own - with an interest in finding and interrogating the lass whom the rather gullible lad had "married". Despite impromptu "pirate raids" (actually a clever ploy by a thief seeking to rob a rich smithy in the town) and sundry red herrings, the PCs did manage to track down and obtain a confession from the guilty locals.​

In a setting like this, talking to gate guards (and market traders, and innkeepers, laundry maids, fishermen and smiths) can be a vital step towards getting what you want done actually done.

 

[pemerton]

I view Combat Superiority more favorably because of the implementation. The implementation strikes me as being an effort to at least compromise with me and take a few steps toward where I'd like the game to be.

<snip>

CS somehow finds a space which -imo- is a better compromise for me than some of the mechanics of previous editions. In part, I think it might be because it's a little more flexible. Also, I'm a fan of active defenses instead of static ones; CS mimics that a little bit too

I am also guessing that it helps you that the recharge period - one round - is also the smallest period within which the player can make decisions for the PC. So every time you have to call your PC's action, your CS dice have refreshed.

Whereas 4e requires you to make lots of decisions for your PC without your encounter or daily martial powers available, which - I am hypothesising - tends to rub your nose in their metagame nature.

 

[pemerton]

Those must be some of the most well known RPGs out there - so, what you're saying is, basically, "only D&D counts"??? FFS

I share your reaction here.

As for the hit points thing; I would actually count all those games as doing "hit points lite"

I think that's fair for T&T and Traveller, and perhaps BW (though it has hit locations and complex healing rules). I think it's a little unfair for RQ, which has hit location which means the wound descriptors ("things you gain") outstrip the hit point loss. And I don't think it's true at all of RM (or MERP or HARP, which are the same in this respect). In RM damage is overwhelmingly in the form of wounds ("things you gain") - the main significance of concussion hit loss is that it is in fact another way to gain penalties (-10 per 25% lost) plus provides a counter for blood loss - it is very rare for a creatures (other than really big meaty things like elephants and dragons) to be defeated in combat by concussion hit loss, as opposed to being unable to act because of the wounds they have accrued.

Of course, the whole combat system changes fundamentally, since taking the number of "hits" that D&D combat typically dishes out is completely unmanageable in this sort of system.

This is certainly true for RM and RQ. Also BW, I think. And Traveller as well, because of the rule that the first hit taken must be applied all to one stat.

When I run Hârn, though, the players will likely want to chat to the gate guard, because he may well have news that they want to know.

<snip>

In a setting like this, talking to gate guards (and market traders, and innkeepers, laundry maids, fishermen and smiths) can be a vital step towards getting what you want done actually done.

To some extent this is what I had in mind when I talked about the players escalating an encounter out of a "mere colour" encounter. But I wouldn't tend to go as full-on as you describe - at least bits of it I might abstract into a Streetwise check or something similar. Also, in my game the information they're seeking would be about something gonzo like cultists of Torog or Orcus, rather than real world stuff like who is secretly married to whom!

I think there is an element of players demanding the GM create a whole world for them to play with - and they had better damn well make it believable - out there.

I guess so. Although in my personal experience there are perhaps more GMs who think (or at least act as if) this is what GMing is about. Both when GMing, and when playing alongside others, I've generally found that most players are interested in contributing to the fiction once the GM makes space for this, and makes it clear that the player contributions will be properly honoured.

 

[Argyle King]

I am also guessing that it helps you that the recharge period - one round - is also the smallest period within which the player can make decisions for the PC. So every time you have to call your PC's action, your CS dice have refreshed.

Whereas 4e requires you to make lots of decisions for your PC without your encounter or daily martial powers available, which - I am hypothesising - tends to rub your nose in their metagame nature.

Overall, I'm not sure I noticed powers much. Maybe I didn't notice because they were overshadowed by other things, or it could be that I got to a point where I accepted them as simply being part of the style 4E encompassed. I'm not really sure. When I think about it more deeply, I ask myself why I can only use certain moves a certain amount of times, but -generally speaking- I think there were certain powers which produced results which stuck out to me; the worst offenders weren't necessarily martial ones. I remember playing a wizard and using Mirror Sphere against a creature which tried to swallow me whole; having an enemy be forced to swallow themselves was pretty funny. As far as the power mechanic in general, I remember thinking of it sort of like a collectable card game.

The only martial powers which really bothered me were the ones which seemed to force the enemy to move in a way which would be idiotic at best and suicidal at worst. "What? The fighter taunted me? I'll charge right through this wall of flaming blades to get to him and teach him a lesson!" I often struggled with what exactly was going on there. (I did, however, come up with a few pretty good ways of portraying it.) Though, on the upside, the image in my head was a pretty amusing comedy.