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

[Nagol]

Sure I have!


The one the character makes when the players uses CaGI is extra mean!


Why are you assuming the taunts are all identical? The more reasonable thing to assume is the one that corresponds to the use of CaGI is different.

To my mind, your example is a willful attempt to sabotage the association of the mechanic and the fiction by declaring all the taunts to be identical from the viewpoint of the character. If you choose to declare the CaGI taunt as different, more emphatic, ruder, whatever, from the character's POV then your problem goes away.

The reason the mechanic is disassociated is its use has no bearing on character action or frankly, choice.

The power works regardless of taunt (un)used or (in)action taken by the character. A player can decide to try and add colour to the power use -- but that does not associate the power with character choice. I've used manoeuvres like CaGI that are associated in other game systems (Bluff check to appear to stumble and sraw the opponent in, minor charm-like spell in combat, a bardic taunt). In each of those situations the character makes a choice and allocates resources/actions accordingly and tries to achieve the result. That's not how the pre-errata CaGI operates. CaGI depends entirely on player choice and any attempt to attach it to fiction is up to the player's intiative.

Imagine a scenario where players Alice and Carol are running characters Ted and Bob, respectively.

Alice and Carol are good friends. Ted and Bob are rivals and don't like one another. In fact, Ted has been overheard plotting Bob's death.

A fight breaks out and the nasty mean opponent is tearing Bob a new one. Ted is feeling triumphant. Alice on the other hand is feeling queasy. She knows Carol really likes playing Bob. So Alice plays CaGI. Ted hasn't done anything to try and attract the meanies attention. He wants Bob to eat dirt. Suddenly the critter turns and beelines for him so Ted carves it up.

The power activation rests entirely outside the actions of the character and neither the character nor anything else in the environment can associate any reason to its activation.

 

[Underman]

I gave an actual play example in this thread - about the paladin who got polymorphed and turned back - to show how metagame mechanics can serve rather than hinder a player's immersive inhabition of his/her PC. I'd be interested to hear what those who don't like metagame mecahnics think about it - eg do they think it's a different sort of immersion from what they're after? do they not like the idea that the player's first person narration, in the voice of his/her PC, can also operate in director's stance to set other parameters of the fiction? have they ever had this sort of play experience themselves? etc

Wow, this thread suddenly had a growth spurt. Nagol said something which, although nicely concise, basically recapped what I thought was written by everybody else for hundreds of post beforehand on various threads, but suddenly, this time the thread takes a whole new tone. Well, whatever happened right, I'm glad.

Regarding the polymorph example, I agree it delivered immersion for the player of the paladin. It doesn't happen to deliver immersion for me the same reason I touched upon before:

the former mechanic (originally dissociated, then associated) could be dissociated yet again if the players start thinking or asking awkward questions about the scope of the Raven Queen's interventions and other polymorph-like spells that end so quickly as the adventure continues.

(Remember at the time of the quote, I was just adopting the going label of 'dissociated' at the time, I'm re-using the quote to save time, not to regurgitate the 'dissociated' label) Your reply was vague:

This sort of thing is handled through negotiation and give and take at the table - as one aspect of the general implementation of "yes, but . . .".

But that's not something I feel I could implement to my preferences. (Do I have to explain why? I see that people are still arguing, now with Nagol)

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

But a 4e fighter can swing their sword an unlimited number of times per day. However, they get a limited number of super moves/golden opportunities to strike, which is congruent with the a lot of the source fiction.

I wasn't trying to use 4e's mechanics here. I was trying to build a Fighter that worked like a 1e M-U. A Fighter may attack no more than 4 times a day. Many more players would have trouble with that restriction than the E-D Martial powers, but the complaints would be the same. And its not even that people would use their (incorrect) knowledge about sword fighting -- they's say that doesn't make sense -- people do more strenuous things all the time and if it's because the Fighter is tired, shouldn't a quick rest refresh him? In essence that constraint may make great game balance sense but it violates player expectations for how basic things like human endurance and capacity for action work,

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I'm not taking a position on whether the obvious correlations among those three are or aren't evidence of some causation or direct or indirect relations, but, I'd be curious to see you throw out a few examples of mechanics that are both realistic and concrete, but at the same time dissociative...

The reverse sounds easier, to me, but I wouldn't mind seeing it, as well.

 

[BryonD]

So, no, 4e didn't narrow the play field. It simply recognized what's been there all along - a fairly strong segment of the gaming community that's been trying to do this sort of thing for years. Unfortunately, that has also managed to alienate a rather large segment of the D&D community who has dug in their heels and refused to even acknowledge that other playstyles have ever been part of the tradition of D&D.

First - As your quote clearly demonstrates, the style you prefer was supported all along. I acknowledge they exist. I don't ackowledge they represented any major element of the overall popularity of D&D.

Second - Your "dug in their heels" line is simply shallow and closed minded. 4E supports my playstyle. But it does a rather remarkably poor job of supporting my playstyle. It is great that you love 4E. It is absurd that you be so hostile to others who choose to play a different game when that different game is head and shoulders superior at delivering so completely different a goal.

And OBVIOUSLY you get that point because you yourself are saying it with the shoe simply on the other foot when you complain about prior systems not catering to you as well. All editions are not equal. I AGREE that 4E does the things you advocate far better than other eidtions. Why can't you agree that other editions do some things far better than 4E and therefore it is completely reasonable to prefer those other editions, thus claims of dug in heels and refusal to acknowledge are completely unfair and counter-productive.

I am certain that your "fairly strong segment" statement is far from accurate.
I am certain that your characterization of non-4E players is unfair.
I get why those positions are comfortable to you.

But in the end Mearls still said "If you like world building 4E may not be the game for you." He said that before it was ever released. Cool. They accepted that they would lose some players for legitimate reasons. You should do the same. Now they have accepted that vastly more people than expected felt those legitamite reasons. You should do the same.

 

[Underman]

I haven't made time to parse and recompile all the posts and different voices over the last dozens of pages. So I have some questions about the labels:

Note: I've italicized help and likely and frequently on purpose to avoid binary black-and-white arguments (those are rarely or never helpful). I've put "Simulationist" and "Process Sim" in quotations marks on purpose in case we have different usage of those labels.
​

1) is it controversial to suggest that an important purpose of "Simulationist" mechanics is to help keep everyone on the same page within the fiction? (ie., when I use mechanic X, my PC is swinging my sword and every player knows it)

2) is it controversial to suggest that "Process Sim" mechanics also help keep everyone on the same page (as above)?

3) is it controversial to suggest that "Process Sim" mechanics also help keep players in actor stance? (ie., the action is resolved by default with the same linear cause-and-effect that the player would experience through the POV of the PC)

4) is it controversial to suggest that with non-"Simulationist" and non-"Process Sim" mechanics, players are more frequently realigning their understanding of the shared fiction as it is shaped throughout the course of game play.

5) is it controversial to suggest that an abstract mechanic (like hit points) can be pragmatically simulationist (lower case 's') if/whenever all players are on the same page in the way they associate the mechanic to the game world?

6) is it controversial to suggest that the quantity and quality of "Immersion" (or "in-character roleplaying") is increased when everyone has the same/similar understanding of the shared fiction (as helped by the rules/mechanics)?

Concise answers would be great, thanks! This is more like a survey for me to realize where everyone is at (because I'm pretty damn confused to be honest).

 

[Hussar]

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).

Swimming a bit upthread to respond to this. I agree that the 4e mechanics can do this. However, it's fairly trivial to prevent it as well. We're talking some fairly minor modifications to the mechanics and now you're back to "deep immersion" play.

In other words, don't choose powers and effects that are meta-game in nature.

 

[Nagol]

I'm not taking a position on whether the obvious correlations among those three are or aren't evidence of some causation or direct or indirect relations, but, I'd be curious to see you throw out a few examples of mechanics that are both realistic and concrete, but at the same time dissociative...

The reverse sounds easier, to me, but I wouldn't mind seeing it, as well.

I'll take a stab at a few.

The first is my Come and Get it scenario a few posts up - Alice invokes the effect to save Carol's character, an in-game rival to her own character.

2) Whimsy Cards -- each player is dealt a card at the beginning of the session and can play the card at any time. Sample cars include

• Spectacular Success -- whatever was just attempted was much more successful than expected. A normal hit is converted into a critical hit, a brokered deal yields more than bargained for, etc.
• Abrupt Change of Events -- something happens that changes the current situation in an unexpected way.

The game is post-apocalyptic. The characters are cautiously exploring the upper floor of a multi-storey building shell. Abrupt Change of Events is played and a deer comes crashing through the roof. Characters scramble to figure out what's going on. Much later in the campaign, the group finds an enclave of high tech that has been collecting local fauna via air raft for genetic study and use as lab animals. Inside a mission log they find that one of the air raft lost a deer over the city leading to the original encounter.


3) Strands of Fate Declaration

Players may use their character's Knowledge Ability to state facts about things, or Reasoning to draw logical conclusions, to introduce entirely new facts into play. The chances of a successful Declaration depend on the character's abilities, but the effect effectively adds or substracts from the game world without the character's input.

Here is one of the examples from the game

Garrog Ironjaw and his partner Phelix have just entered the abandoned mines beneath the town of Beggars Leap. Garrog decides to make a Declaration, declaring that the mines are Prone to Cave Ins. Since he's a dwarf he knows a thing or two about mining. His player thinks he can use this to drop the roof on enemies. The GM calculates the difficulty as follows:
Interesting ‐ Yes
Interesting Results ‐ Yes (The GM can also use it to block the players' retreat.)
Interesting Course of Action – No
So that's 2 yes‐es and 1 no, each no adds two to the base difficulty of zero
so the declaration difficulty is 2. Garrog rolls the dice coming up with a +2.
His Knowledge is 2, giving a total of +4, easily beating the difficulty. Garrog
(or Phelix) can now invoke or compel this Aspect (for free the first time)
until the GM rules that it is no longer in effect.

Later in the session any player of the GM can invoke the Prone to Cave-in aspect to have one happen immediately. Further cave-ins can also be invoked through the use of Fate points as the players desire.

I think all the situations are realistic within the genre/game world, concrete during play, and disassociative involving player choice and no input from character voice and no way for the environment or characters to perceive or react to the use of the mechanic at the table.

 

[billd91]

In other words, don't choose powers and effects that are meta-game in nature.

Isn't this, generally, the answer to anything that gives people trouble in RPGs? Don't use the stuff that gives you trouble? And isn't that response often met by people claiming the Oberoni fallacy (as it it's possible to design a game where there is no element that will give groups and their play styles trouble)?

 

[Nagol]

Swimming a bit upthread to respond to this. I agree that the 4e mechanics can do this. However, it's fairly trivial to prevent it as well. We're talking some fairly minor modifications to the mechanics and now you're back to "deep immersion" play.

In other words, don't choose powers and effects that are meta-game in nature.

If I'm forced to use a system then sure I'll try to choose abilities that work for me.

My preferred solution is to choose a system that does what I want to achieve or at least doesn't do what I dislike.