D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

[Ovinomancer]

No one here cares about your crusade against Alexandrian. Some of us however find 'disassociated mechanics' as somewhat useful descriptor, which helps discussing games.

Is the definition of dissociated mechanics you find useful the one the Alexandrian proposed or a different one? If it's the same as the Alexandrian, then dismissing the pretty clear criticism of that term, it's definition, and it's use as a crusade is not doing good work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No one here cares about your crusade against Alexandrian. Some of us however find 'disassociated mechanics' as somewhat useful descriptor, which helps discussing games.

Honestly, apart from this one thing, I literally don't have thoughts about them. This isn't a "crusade." It's simply a statement that, if you intend to use something (a) without actually invoking the metric buttload of edition-war context it brings, and (b) without actually relying on critical components of it which make objective declarations about what games should be, you should either make that clear, or use a different argument.

And I didn't even bring any of this stuff up originally. It was other people who brought it up, and other people who wanted to keep talking about it. I would personally be quite happy if I never saw any reference to "dissociated" mechanics ever again.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Disassociated mechanic is one where the decisions made by the character and decisions made by the player are not associated. I find this useful descriptor. It of course is not binary, the association may be weak or vague, or completely non-existent. But the concept is coherent enough to have use.

 

[Maxperson]

No one here cares about your crusade against Alexandrian. Some of us however find 'disassociated mechanics' as somewhat useful descriptor, which helps discussing games.

Now change "Alexandrian" and "disassociated mechanics" to alignment and you might understand where those of us on the other side are coming from.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Disassociated mechanic is one where the decisions made by the character and decisions made by the player are not associated. I find this useful descriptor. It of course is not binary, the association may be weak or vague, or completely non-existent. But the concept is coherent enough to have use.

A lot of people use it considerably more broadly, however, where they consider it "disassociated" if the mechanics don't have a clear one-to-one correspondence. The classic example is uses of abilities that can only be engaged once per day or once per encounter. That's clearly a game balance/tone mechanic, but it can usually be rationalized in somewhat abstracted way one way or another, but people will actively resist doing so and then claim that as "disassociation".

(Personally, I find a number of D&D's mechanics too abstract for my taste as a general principal, though I can tolerate them. I felt that all the way back to OD&D with the way armor, damage taken and spell management worked. But I don't try to cherry pick which ones are "okay").

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A lot of people use it considerably more broadly, however, where they consider it "disassociated" if the mechanics don't have a clear one-to-one correspondence. The classic example is uses of abilities that can only be engaged once per day or once per encounter. That's clearly a game balance/tone mechanic, but it can usually be rationalized in somewhat abstracted way one way or another, but people will actively resist doing so and then claim that as "disassociation".

I feel the association in such cases is at best vague or very weak, so I perfectly understand why people would call it disassociated. But as I said, in reality it is not binary. But I definitely prefer somewhat stronger association.

(Personally, I find a number of D&D's mechanics too abstract for my taste as a general principal, though I can tolerate them. I felt that all the way back to OD&D with the way armor, damage taken and spell management worked. But I don't try to cherry pick which ones are "okay").

Sure. I feel in many ways 5e is on the edge of my disassociation comfort zone, thus I prefer it to not to move any more into disassociated direction as then it would definitely be out of my comfort zone. Also, when I run it I try to forge stronger associations. I gave example of my spell circles earlier, and I also run loss of HP as actually being somehow hurt, and use gritty rests and healing kit dependency to strengthen that association.

 

[Lyxen]

Technically psionics were core in 1e. They were in the PHB. And I may be wrong about 3e. I don't see those mentioning molecules. It changed to matter.

Note that we are just discussing, not arguing, it's just that in 1e psionics were indeed in the PH, but in an appendix, as an option and labelled: "If your DM opts to include psionic abilities in your campaign..."

 

[Maxperson]

Note that we are just discussing, not arguing, it's just that in 1e psionics were indeed in the PH, but in an appendix, as an option and labelled: "If your DM opts to include psionic abilities in your campaign..."

The light spell mentions molecules as well.

"Explanation/Description: This spell causes excitation of molecules so as to make them brightly luminous."

As does heat metal.

"Explanation/Description: By means of the heat metal spell, the druid is able to excite the molecules of ferrous metal (iron, iron alloys, steel) and thus cause the affected metal to become hot."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Disassociated mechanic is one where the decisions made by the character and decisions made by the player are not associated. I find this useful descriptor. It of course is not binary, the association may be weak or vague, or completely non-existent. But the concept is coherent enough to have use.

So, Alertness(1) is dissociated. Second Wind(2) is dissociated. Using a hit die during a rest(3) is dissociated. Hitpoints(4) are dissociated. Extra attack(5) is dissociated. Sneak attack(6) is dissociated. All of these are dissociated. Is it useful to you to appreciate this, and what steps might you take to address your dislike of these mechanics?

1. you cannot be surprised. No one wants to be surprise. The PC isn't choosing to not be surprised. Actual fiction doesn't matter here at all, either.
2. what is the PC doing here that grants hp back? Why can't the do it whenever? Why is this only a fighter ability?
3. What is the PC doing here that grants HP? Why can't they do that anytime they want without limit?
4. I mean, hitpoints, right? The easiest here is that the PC isn't attacking the enemy to remove some ablative plot armor, but to injure, maim, or kill. The result of "no fictional change" doesn't really track.
5. The PC choosing to go all out looks different at certain only mechanical breakpoints. The reasons that classes other than fighter never get more than one of these, or even none of these (most common) has no fictional basis that makes sense. It's a purely mechanic differentiation to allow fighters to not completely suck due to no magic.
6. Sneak attack has the same problems extra attack does -- why not let everyone do this?

 

[Fifth Element]

No one here cares about your crusade against Alexandrian.

I care about it. I think it's great and I hope EzekielRaiden keeps at it.