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

[Neonchameleon]

The problem though is that it is not collective unconsciousness. You've used a straw man example. Those people believe a million different things. They are not unified in their thinking at all. The CIA, the Mafia, Fidel Castro, bla bla bla you can go on forever. So this is a false analogy.
...
It would be amazing and worth note if the vast majority of people after examining the evidence came to the SAME conclusion about it.

What do you mean "the vast majority of people"? A lot of people have independently come up with the idea September 11 was an inside job from the US government.

I'm becoming more convinced every day. It's like you can't see the color red and you keep trying to explain how it's just like black. Whereas those who can see red keep scratching our heads.

Oh, no, it's not that. When I was sixteen I'd probably have agreed with you. I've learned a lot in the meantime - and when I was sixteen I made a lot of mountains out of molehills.

Here is a mental exercise to help you. The follow are completely and absolutely unrelated. There may be correlations but there is no true connection.
1. Realism.
2. Abstraction.
3. Plot Coupons/Dissociative Mechanics/Metagame Dissonance

Until you can truly understand that those three are unrelated. I can have a thing which is 1,2,3 or Not 1, Not 2, 3 and I can have every other combination.

And once again you turn out to make a statement that is almost completely wrong.

Plot Coupons are absolutely linked to abstraction. The link is not, however, a directly causal one normally. The link is that both are saying "We want the world to work this way, and to not sweat the small stuff". They are focussing on different areas; abstractions are about not getting bogged down in operational details whereas plot coupons are generally about pacing and narrative ebb and flow, and giving people incentives to do things that would work out badly from an operational standpoint. Without some sort of plot coupon you end up with almost all fights ending up like Indiana Jones vs the swordsman. And while that's one of my favourite fight scenes in film it works precisely because it's a subversion.

Both abstraction and plot coupons are about getting the game to flow smoothly without getting bogged down in mechanics - and to have both inputs and outcomes like the ones you'd expect based on the setting. They just do it at slightly different levels of zoom and control. If you want me to understand that they are unrelated then you are asking me to understand something that simply isn't true.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'll leave @Manbearcat to answer what techniques and mechanics of play he(?) regards as important. I've already given an example upthread of an episode of immersive play that depended upon "plot coupons" to take place. So I need "plot coupons" (ie metagame mechanics that support director stance on the part of players) to get that sort of experience in my games.

I'm also curious about why you see a "per minute" limit on attack rolls in AD&D, or a "per level" limit on open lock checks in AD&D, as fundamentally different from a "per day" or "per five minutes" limit on some particular maneouvres in 4e.

Yes. He From your posts, I would expect that you can extrapolate my tastes to be pretty close to your own. If "plot coupons" are "metagame mechanics that support director stance on the part of players", then yes, I want them...and need them for genre trope emulation and fiction that is satisfactory to my tastes.

On another note, I really do hope 5e has sufficient Process Sim to please Emerikol, Imaro and all of the others who want it. In fact, I hope that it does a better job of Process Sim than all of the other DnDs beforehand. However, if it will do so, I would all but guarantee that it will have to do so by way of Process Sim Modules that adds granularity of detail to task resolution and relentlessly couples cause and effect to support an internally consistent physical model. I hope they have these kind of modules available for those that want them. The last thing I want is for people to not be able to enjoy our mutual hobby.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For me, the core problem is it makes me think about the situation away from the perspective of my character and forces actions from me as a player that the perspective of the character cannot participate in.

In effect, I find it forces me to take a view where my character is a pawn on the board and brings my focus to the game. That's not the experience I want from the RPGs I play (the few times I get to play as opposed to run).

Now this I can understand. My take is twofold.

1: I'm an INTJ. Sometimes known as a Mastermind. In high stress situations I often regard myself as a pawn on the board. Doing the same with a PC therefore isn't a problem. Of course INTJ is thought to be the rarest personality type.

2: I find the stories from games with meta-mechanics are a closer match for the outcomes, whether narrative or operational, than those without.

But this is a case of different people having different tastes. Immersionists vs Storytellers is mostly where I see this faultline.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think various objections to the vegetable/sweet analogy have mostly been answered. Let me add that, like all analogies, it breaks down when pushed too far--not least because in a broader sense D&D is more "main course" than either vegetable or dessert.

I used vegetable talking about the process-sim claim in particular, because I grew up in an area where there was a lot of farming of vegetables, ranging from extremely bitter to very sweet, and this range pretty much fits in an analogy of gaming styles in D&D. The range has moved from edition to edition, but it has always been rather wide. Just like you can drift some editions of D&D to be noticably more process-sim than others, if you know what you are doing, you can make some really sweet asparagus. (And if you don't know what you are doing, it will be one of the most bitter things you ever tasted--which come to think about it parallels a game of D&D where the DM is trying hard for process-sim, but clueless on how to go about it. )

No person with any real experience of a better alternative for process-sim play (and they are legion) would ever say that D&D is directed strongly at process-sim. Can you drift D&D in that direction? Sure. Does it matter which version of D&D you start with if you intend to so drift? Absolutely. Is this your best route for process-sim, if you really enjoy it? No way, if you've got any opportunity to try those alternatives.

Contrawise, if someone says they've tried a bunch of those alternatives and found them too lacking in the process-sim equation compared to D&D, I can only conclude that said someone does not have a very intelligible definition of "process-sim" and/or doesn't like it as much as they think they do. For example, it's not at all uncommon for someone to like a patina of process-sim, but heavily smoothed by DM fiat. D&D is a darn good system for that, since nearly all of its process-sim is patina.

Me, I like the real thing. When I want sweet, I want sweet. Not a vegetable with enough sweet that you can pretend it is a dessert to stay on your diet. (Well, ok, sometimes that's good too. Analogies break down; it's what they do!)

 

[Mallus]

For me, the core problem is it makes me think about the situation away from the perspective of my character and forces actions from me as a player that the perspective of the character cannot participate in.

This is a nice, clear statement of the problem. Thanks.

But my question is: doesn't this occur, and frequently, under a system like 3e/Pathfinder, too? My take is it's a product of any complex rule system where a character's success is closely tied to system mastery, ie at the player's skill at manipulating the rules-layer of the game.

Think about it this way, the suggested situational modifier in 3e is what, +2/-2. In 3e terms, that's peanuts. Meaning the most significant portion of a character's chance of success comes from the player's ability to stack bonuses, find rules exploits, and to otherwise approach situations from a metagame, rules-first perspective, assuming they're actually interested in succeeding at in-game challenges.

My experience with 3e and Pathfinder bears this out. Bonus stacking, combing the books for specific Feats, class abilities, magic items, and spells, and so on, are an important part of play, which all happen to reside squarely in the metagame realm. We certainly try to relate all the subsequent choices we make to our character's perspectives. But they do not originate there. The player needs to be willing to provide bridging fiction. If they don't, the two perspectives remain disconnected.

Which isn't a criticism of 3e/Pathfinder. It just an aspect of play under that system, and my group finds reconciling the in-game and metagame decision-making process pretty damn entertaining (and this has been true under every system we've played).

In effect, I find it forces me to take a view where my character is a pawn on the board and brings my focus to the game.

You don't have a similar experience with other rules-heavy games?

It could just be me. I don't find switching between actor/director/pawn stances, as the need, or desire to do so, arose, to be problematic. It seems, for lack of a better, non-prejudicial term, like the normal way to play an RPG -- and I say this a someone who was primarily a DM, ie an observer of how other people played characters.

I also don't find mechanical specifics to be particularly relevant when it comes to immersion. My own sense of character immersion is dependent on a) me creating an interesting fictional persona to play and b) the DM, with help from the other players, creating an interesting fictional world to explore/interact with, and, in the case of D&D --let's be honest-- set on fire with flasks of flame oil .

The nitty-gritty of the task resolution mechanics and character ability modeling come in a very distant third (if they rank at all).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

@Manbearcat , my contention since the infamous "essay" was written was that the author went to a great deal of trouble to obscure the definitions and meanings, so that the inherent contradictions in presenting a rant as a "theory" would not be so obvious. This became very apparent early, when his disciples flooded message boards and refused to ever be pinned down on any thing, much less clarify--preferring to shriek and fling poo.

It is this characteristic that caused me to say in that long discussion linked by pemerton that the concept of "disassociation" was in need of a new name and rescue from it's originators, as there is a kernal of a real idea hidden in all the monkey poo. The more thoughtful proponents on this board have attempted that rescue. I think they have been extremely handicapped by the off and on again visits to the zoo.

It is not unlike the silliness that surrounds literary academic discussion of Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey"--which is a kernal of real insight (the same mythic idea recur frequently) hopelessly entangled in trying to make myth nothing but "the same ideas recur". In the process, it has to turn every "guy goes into a dark place" as "hero descends into the underworld" when maybe said guy was just stumbling around looking for the light switch so he could find his pants. Such discussions rapidly reach the point where you realize that turning a guy looking for his pants into a descent into the underworld says more about the critic than it does the story.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Which isn't a criticism of 3e/Pathfinder at all. It just an aspect of play under that system, and my group finds reconciling the in-game and metagame decision-making process pretty damn entertaining.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that a big part of the difference is timing of when the elements are considered. That is, even a complex build done before play starts, and reconciled into a single number (i.e. a particular skill check) is not considered an impediment to immersion, because it happens away from the table.

This is really just a more detailed example of separating the activities, same as a pre-campaign discussion of "my fighter is going to have this kind of personality so that he can get along with the rest of the group" might not be out of place, but is not expected to then arise that explicitly during play.

Of course, the issue here is that those of us who like metagaming decisions affecting the course of play explicitly like them in play, not before.

Runequest goes to an almost ridiculous amount of trouble to excise such decisions during play, to the extent that some people felt like various versions over-simplified certain mechanics to reduce them to their barest essentials. This is the root about the various disagreements about how precise and fiddly tracking "usage of a skill" for later XP gain can get.

That's the main issue of process-simulation in a nutshell--balancing fidelity to process with mechanics that "disappear into the background" and thus allow immersion. One common way to handle that is to move that fidelity out of play into between session work--thus the RQ "check" on a skill that gets resolved as a process outside of play. Burning Wheel takes a directly counter position on this question, resolving it all fully and consciously at the moment the "check" occurs, even to the extent of someone gaining insight into a skill in the middle of a fight.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat , my contention since the infamous "essay" was written was that the author went to a great deal of trouble to obscure the definitions and meanings, so that the inherent contradictions in presenting a rant as a "theory".

Roger that. That is a big 10-4. I'll jump on board with your whole post.

 

[Nagol]

Now this I can understand. My take is twofold.

1: I'm an INTJ. Sometimes known as a Mastermind. In high stress situations I often regard myself as a pawn on the board. Doing the same with a PC therefore isn't a problem. Of course INTJ is thought to be the rarest personality type.

2: I find the stories from games with meta-mechanics are a closer match for the outcomes, whether narrative or operational, than those without.

But this is a case of different people having different tastes. Immersionists vs Storytellers is mostly where I see this faultline.

I'm an INTJ as well, a really extreme one according to the testing. I don't think personality types as measured by those tests really offer insight into what people want from a game. Seeing myself as a piece with which to affect an outcome still is a viewpoint for me. Some of my characters will take that viewpoint as well and want to take action that drives to their goals. I still don't like having the more general omniscience forced upon me as a player to adjust the environment outside of the levers the character can control.

Games with meta-mechanics can drive outcomes closer to what the player/group/DM wants than games without, but typically I don't care about the narrative as a narrative. For me narratives are put together after the fact -- session play is more a game of exploration. I want to see how my character's actions based upon his understanding of the situation affect the world.

 

[Nagol]

This is a nice, clear statement of the problem. Thanks.

But my question is: doesn't this occur, and frequently, under a system like 3e/Pathfinder, too? My take is it's a product of any complex rule system where a character's success is closely tied to system mastery, ie at the player's skill at manipulating the rules-layer of the game.

It can depending on the character choice and player strateigies. I tend to choose both such that I minimise the issue.

Think about it this way, the suggested situational modifier in 3e is what, +2/-2. In 3e terms, that's peanuts. Meaning the most significant portion of a character's chance of success comes from the player's ability to stack bonuses, find rules exploits, and to otherwise approach situations from a metagame, rules-first perspective, assuming they're actually interested in succeeding at in-game challenges.

Typucally, I'll lateral think a solution and/or approach the situation with an eye to maximise tactics during the encounter. That's different than using Strand of Fate's "declaration" to impose a new Aspect on the environment

[sblock= quick sidebar]
Strands of Fate is a Fate spin-off. If the game a player of a character with expertise in a area can decide to Declare a new aspect to a situation.

For example, when fleeing to a desert planet, the player can decide to Declare that the planet is subject to common dust storms of such intensity that they interfere with most sensor systems. If the player makes a roll the desert planet has that feature that can be invoked by a player or the GM.
[/sblock]

My experience with 3e and Pathfinder bears this out. Bonus stacking, combing the books for specific Feats, class abilities, magic items, and spells, and so on, are an important part of play, which all happen to reside squarely in the metagame realm. We certainly try to relate all the subsequent choices we make to our character's perspectives. But they do not originate there. The player needs to be willing to provide bridging fiction. If they don't, the two perspectives remain disconnected.

Which isn't a criticism of 3e/Pathfinder. It just an aspect of play under that system, and my group finds reconciling the in-game and metagame decision-making process pretty damn entertaining (and this has been true under every system we've played).

I don't think (most) class abilities, magic items, spells, or (most) feats are meta-game level. They have in-game expressions that the characters can perceive, conceive, and use. Bonus stacking -- although certainly less granular in the game -- is also in the game. Striking down on an opponent is better than the opponent striking down on you. If the Bard is singing then the lift is spirits is helpful. The Prayer spell provides some deific help The enemies better really worry when we get all of them going at once!

You don't have a similar experience with other rules-heavy games?

Not really or it depends on the game. In many ways the continuum of rules-light <---> rules-heavy is immaterial if the game lets me plan/react as the character then we apply the rules to determine effect of action. That said, I will allow that the rules of the game do inform my character about likely tactics and expected chances of success; I figure that's a tradeoff of having limited perceptions/memories as the character. What I find jarring as a player is leaving the character viewpoint to work with the game engine directly.

It could just be me. I don't find switching between actor/director/pawn stances, as the need, or desire to do so, arose, to be problematic. It seems, for lack of a better, non-prejudicial term, like the normal way to play an RPG -- and I say this a someone who was primarily a DM, ie an observer of how other people played characters.

I normally DM as well. Changing viewpoints there is a matter of course. I think that's why I find it so jarring as a player. It's a rare time where I can actually take the time and spend the energy inside a single viewpoint. If the game is dragging me out of it, I might as well be DMing.

I also don't find mechanical specifics to be particularly relevant when it comes to immersion. My own sense of character immersion is dependent on a) me creating an interesting fictional persona to play and b) the DM, with help from the other players, creating an interesting fictional world to explore/interact with, and, in the case of D&D --let's be honest-- set on fire with flasks of flame oil .

The nitty-gritty of the task resolution mechanics and character ability modeling come in a very distant third (if they rank at all).

Pretty much the same except I want to explore my character's place in that world -- not adjust the world or its other inhabitants to accomodate my character.