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

[Lokiare]

Uhm, what I'm saying is pretty common knowledge...Compare the skill DC's per level in the first three corebooks (PHB, MM, DMG) with those found in essentials...

That's not math, that's a minor errata correction. Its also not substantially different. Its 5 points...

 

[Imaro]

I do. My group does. We parked the 3.0 stuff and moved to 3.5 wholesale. We didn't have the same problems with 4e/essentials, we mixed happily. YMMV. If you could run content mixed from 3.0/3/5 on the fly more power to ya,but I found it a hassle and just moved over. I didn't have this problem with 4e. I found much easier to mix pre-essentials and post essentials stuff.

NOTE the monster math updates was pre-essentials MM3.

Then we don't have anything else to discuss... some people see it differently, I know I was able to run 3.0 adventures and use 3.0 magic items and campaign settings and monsters with the 3.5 rules with little to no problem. Different strokes and all that.

But if it's up to an individual group whether something is a new edition or not, when I or anyone else calls essentials a new edition, you shouldn't have anything to say about it since it's based on what an individual or group thinks is a new edition.

 

[Lokiare]

Then we don't have anything else to discuss... some people see it differently, I know I was able to run 3.0 adventures and use 3.0 magic items and campaign settings and monsters with the 3.5 rules with little to no problem. Different strokes and all that.

But if it's up to an individual group whether something is a new edition or not, when I or anyone else calls essentials a new edition, you shouldn't have anything to say about it since it's based on what an individual or group thinks is a new edition.

Nice circular logic there...

 

[Imaro]

That's not math, that's a minor errata correction. Its also not substantially different. Its 5 points...

Riiiighhht. It affects the success probabilities of all characters... it's part of the underlying math of the game. You don't see it as a big change, cool your perogative... but it is a change in the math of the game and you claimed there wasn't one.

 

[Imaro]

Nice circular logic there...

Not at all. If you tell me that the criteria for a new edition isn't objective but is instead decided by you and your group... well then that's the circular logic, isn't it? You've set up a situation where you define what's a new edition so whatever you say is one... is, and whatever you say isn't one... isn't. That's telling me there's no room for discussion because you have subjectively defined all criteria in the discussion... but then, if that's the way you decide what is or isn't a new edition... that should hold true for all groups.

 

[billd91]

And, just to reply back to El Mahdi. In your example with Gambit, it makes perfect sense for him to swing from the chandelier. Fine. No problems. How about Cyclops? Or Kitty Pryde? Now, Nightcrawler? No problems at all. But, there are a number of X-Men where it would be jarring for that character to swing across the room from a chandelier.

So, you're GMing a Marvel Super Heroes game where someone is playing Cyclops. How do you react to that player attempting to swing across the room on a chandelier?

I can see a few contexts in which I might expect Cyclops or Kitty to use a chandelier for locomotion or attack. But they are generally few and far between. In many ways, I expect the development of the character's abilities to not make that as attractive an option as it would be for Nightcrawler, Gambit, or Beast.

And if you have a player who frequently goes off character to do this sort of thing, you may have accept that he kind of sucks at that sort of immersion. He may be fun with certain kinds of characters, but if he keeps building more controlled characters and keeps going off his own character narrative, he may be the kind of player a group might not want to invite over.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Independent from author/actor/ect stance is effect vs process based resolution. Effect based resolution cares about what happens, but not necessarily how while process based resolution wants to model each step in the game world.

 

[Hussar]

I can see a few contexts in which I might expect Cyclops or Kitty to use a chandelier for locomotion or attack. But they are generally few and far between. In many ways, I expect the development of the character's abilities to not make that as attractive an option as it would be for Nightcrawler, Gambit, or Beast.

And if you have a player who frequently goes off character to do this sort of thing, you may have accept that he kind of sucks at that sort of immersion. He may be fun with certain kinds of characters, but if he keeps building more controlled characters and keeps going off his own character narrative, he may be the kind of player a group might not want to invite over.

Or, he might be what is known as an instigator and can be a ton of fun to have in the group because he isn't so hung up on role playing as "serious business". Your group might not want to invite him over, but, generally speaking, he's always welcome at my table.

But, that was my point originally. I wasn't talking about specialized characters who are doing their schtick. Nor was I really talking about characters like, say, Colossus, where swinging from a chandelier is not only pretty darn silly, it's almost outright impossible. I was talking about average characters doing something that is a bit outside of their regular routine, not because it makes sense "in character" to do so, but because the player thinks it would be cool.

Now, different DM's will react to this differently. I've had DM's who will shut this type of play down simply by making any attempt like this fail, or at least have very high probabilities of failure. Which means that the players won't try stunts and whatnot because it almost never works, unless, of course, the character is built with this in mind in the first place. Other DM's roll with it, love the cool factor and are much more willing to gloss over things like "is this really in character" or "is this fitting with my genre" to such a strong degree.

My point was, originally, that given a fairly average situation with a middle of the road DM and player and character, events like this are almost never "in character". From a character standpoint, stunts are last desperate efforts because nothing else is going to save your bacon. From a player standpoint, stunts are cool and should be tried as often as possible. The whole "play outside the box" approach to gaming is generally outside of actor stance. After all, the character is inside the box. The character IS the box. It's the player's attempt to circumvent the box that makes it an out of character action in the first place.

And we applaud players for it. Players that never try anything but what is on the character sheet are boring. We want people to try crazy stuff because that's what gaming stories are made of. No one remembers that hit for 6 points of damage. They do remember when you surfed down the stairs on a shield and plonked two orcs while doing so. (granted, that particular example was pretty much in character for Leggylass, who had be established as a pretty acrobatic combatant previously. But, without some sort of AEDU framework? Good luck playing that character)

-----------------

On the whole spamming powers thing. I suppose my warlock spams his curse power. That's generally the first thing I do any round - but, outside of that, I can't think of a single routine that I constantly follow. I have some powers that will be more effective in certain circumstances (such as a burst power that lets me teleport away and imobilizes enemies - great for when I'm surrounded). But, a rigorous standard proceedure of powers? I can't really see anyone doing it. It's just such an enormously bad idea.

 

[Emerikol]

Independent from author/actor/ect stance is effect vs process based resolution. Effect based resolution cares about what happens, but not necessarily how while process based resolution wants to model each step in the game world.

They are interconnected. I'm very much process based. I don't want the player interpreting raw stats and then saying what happened. I'd prefer the player like his character to say I am casting a fireball spell and that be something well defined.

I guess my playstyle is process-actor. I'm guessing though that if you are process your pretty actor based too.

 

[Emerikol]

Or, he might be what is known as an instigator and can be a ton of fun to have in the group because he isn't so hung up on role playing as "serious business". Your group might not want to invite him over, but, generally speaking, he's always welcome at my table.

This conversation is kind of alien to me to be honest.

But, that was my point originally. I wasn't talking about specialized characters who are doing their schtick. Nor was I really talking about characters like, say, Colossus, where swinging from a chandelier is not only pretty darn silly, it's almost outright impossible. I was talking about average characters doing something that is a bit outside of their regular routine, not because it makes sense "in character" to do so, but because the player thinks it would be cool.

I am definitely not the character police in my games.

Now, different DM's will react to this differently. I've had DM's who will shut this type of play down simply by making any attempt like this fail, or at least have very high probabilities of failure. Which means that the players won't try stunts and whatnot because it almost never works, unless, of course, the character is built with this in mind in the first place. Other DM's roll with it, love the cool factor and are much more willing to gloss over things like "is this really in character" or "is this fitting with my genre" to such a strong degree.

Maybe it's because I don't play super heroes games but I judge success or failure on the likelihood of it's success from a cinematic perspective.

My point was, originally, that given a fairly average situation with a middle of the road DM and player and character, events like this are almost never "in character". From a character standpoint, stunts are last desperate efforts because nothing else is going to save your bacon. From a player standpoint, stunts are cool and should be tried as often as possible. The whole "play outside the box" approach to gaming is generally outside of actor stance. After all, the character is inside the box. The character IS the box. It's the player's attempt to circumvent the box that makes it an out of character action in the first place.

I don't agree with your thinking on what actor stance means. It's about the decision make process and not why the decision is made. Thats another thing. A character can do something completely out of character as long as the character could in theory work or do it then it's ok.