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

[Nagol]

Nagol, again, I appreciate you taking the time to scrutinize my survey and thoughtfully answer. I've taken the liberty of numbering these so I can ask a few questions about them to clarify my understanding of your thoughts. If you wish to continue, you can just use the number as a short-hand reference for the example you're answering.





What would it take to turn this gamist abstraction of modelling of physical attributes into a "dissociative" element? The science of kinesiology is well understood in our world and this gamist abstraction is apparently not dissociated even though it is not just abstract, but specifically incorrect. One would presume that the PC doesn't understand this. However, we do. So it seems that incoherency within the marriage of our meta-understanding as a real world person and our in-character actor-stance perspective does not, by itself, create a dissociated element. Let us say your character becomes a biophysicist and develops the science of bio-mechanics and kinesiology (absurd, I know...but reading the dissociative thread it seems that bridging the sublime to the ridiculous well traveled route). Given the incorrect nature of the model, and your PC's "front row seat" to it in the pioneering of the discipline, would this then create a dissociation?

I not sure you could turn it into a disassociated element. The very nature of characteristics is based upon in-game expression. Perhaps something along the lines of "A character can roll 1d12, 1d10, 1d8, 1d6, and 1d4 as checks against attributes over the course of the adventure. The player may assign dice as desired as each check comes up. Any further checks are assigned a result of '1'."

Is this because the "Target" line does not stipulate "Each enemy wielding a melee weapon or whose primary fighting style is melee based" (ranged characters are unaffected or perhaps get a bonus to save)? Is this because the Attack line stipulates "Strength" as the active attacking attribute and also has the keyword "Weapon" attached to it while the initial resolution is a "goad/trick"? Couldn't this just be an NGABND for expediency of handling considering what else we've allotted NGABND? It attacks Will. That seems correct. Is it the word "pull"? Pull is just an NGABND. It does not mean literally "pull by way of exerting physical force". It is just a gamist term meaning that the pulled creature moves in a direct linear path to the nearest available square toward the "puller". Is it all of the above and is just too much of a gamist abstraction with all of the elements?

No. It's because the character (humanish, martial power) has no ability to rely upon to move any and every enemy regardless of size, intellect, range preference, ability to recognise a taunt, or any other criteria we care to categorise by. Additionally, the fluff regarding the powers (as I have been told many times by 4e players) is really there as inspriation and the players are expected/encouraged to reskin as needed. It would become associated if the affected targets were narrowed -- say to a mind-affecting ability (so mindless enemies ignore the taunt) or to melee preference (which could be lulled into such an assault) or through choosing any other set of circumstances that help define the power in the game world or by granting the Martial power set "the ability to cloud minds".

What if it was this?

Come and Get It
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter Martial
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: You trick/goad each target to moving up to 2 squares nearer to you to a square adjacent to you.
Secondary Effect: You make a Melee Basic Attack against each adjacent enemy.

Is that ok or still dissociated?

Not much different, but a little more attached to the world. Some types of creatures (like mindless ones) should be immune, but I don't know 4e well enough to know if that's the case.

I'm really not sure why this is dissociated. Fluff text aside and disregarding the interests of "Outcome-based-Sim" over "Process-Sim", I'm certain that we've all seen genre tropes of allies fighting directly adjacent to one another (Melee 1) and a subtle manipulation of the positioning by one ally or the other pulls an ally out of danger or gives them an advantage against an unwary foe. This could be footwork-driven or an overt "grab the back of the shirt and tug" or "shoulder your ally out of danger" or a subtle "hip knock" or a "nod"...etc. Could you explain your thinking on this?

Unless Get Over Here is using the Voice a la Bene Gesserit, I don't understand why the target is forced to move. Perhaps,the character doesn't want to get over here? Perhaps the target is vehemently opposed to get over here? Where is the compulsion coming from? Is there anything in-game to explain why the people are forced to shift around the grid? If the power is directed at a different PC, it does not appear resistable (though I could be wrong). You can't even use the "I haul him over" since the effect has more range than the character's reach.

I've seen a lot of issues with Martial Dailies and Encounter Powers cited. Specifically they are brought up because, upon post-hoc examination by the PC who is the acting conduit for the Martial Exploit within the fiction, he cannot understand why he cannot attempt this Encounter Exploit more often than once per battle and Daily Exploit more than once per day. The affect of this being to cause "dissociation" and thus being such a mechanic. Now, I would think that the inverse would happen in this case as the PC attempts an examining thought experiment by way of reverse-engineering "what just happened?" If his STvsBW is exceedingly low he could go out and become a Chuck Norris-like circus performer. He could be chained to the ground in an open field and they could have an elephant with a tub of water. The elephant could suck up the water and spray it at him point-blank and he could "dodge" it with pretty close to perfect proficiency, RaW. It could be the "Water Gets Chuck Norrissed" attraction. I would pay a ticket to see that. That would seem very Houdini-like.

The world moves of an accord that seems detached from the standard expectations of reality...and the PC experiences this regularly. Does the PC or the player who is playing him experience dissociation? If not, then why?

The player can be distracted -- it's often referred to a breaking the suspension of disbelief, but if there is an in-game expression, it's not disassociation.

Let us say that at some point in the future of our D&D world, our cavemen come out of their caves and begin to understand that the Sun-God is actually a giant ball of hydrogen perpetually in nuclear fusion and creating heavier elements (helium on down). So here we have the defiance of the mundane laws of gravity, friction, drag, lift (etc) and musculo-skeletal system/kinesiology locomotion (and mere existence) at work here. Later, our cavemen begin to understand these scientific principles as well and they become mathematical constructs rather than mere abstract principles ("what goes up, must come down"). Let us say our Fighter is one such "warrior-scientist". He is in a dance of death with a colossal dragon and down drops two giant spiders from their webs. He says to himself "Huh? Must be magic. Yo, Bob the Wizard-Guy. Detect Magic. Something is funny here." Bob casts Detect Magic. "Nope, Sciencey-Fighter-Guy. All clear." Sciencey-Fighter-Guy says: "Uh. Why can't I defy gravity and leap up and grab that flying dragon...and how do those spiders breathe?...move?...why aren't they crushed under all of that weight? How is any of this possible? Some cruel God is at work here restricting me by gravity, encumbrance (rules), etc while allowing them impossible, physic-circumventing capabilities. I should have stuck to Chuck Norrising Water in the circus."

The world moves of an accord that seems detached from the standard expectations of reality...and the PC experiences this. Does Sciencey-Fighter-Guy then experience dissociation? Is he only dissociated when he doesn't understand the scientific principles that underwrite the movement of particles within a medium and biophysics and gravity? Does the player who is playing him experience it? If not, then why?

Certainly, if scientific laws do function for our heroes, they differ at least in detail and in some cases in gross. But in fairness to the scientificy Fighter he too takes advantage of the details -- like falling 200+ feet and walking away, consistently.

Players get distracted by elements too far from expectation -- see suspension of disbelief, above. Normal genre tropes usually don't cause this because they are part of the implicit contract for playing in that genre. Poor mechanical representations can cause distraction and the worse the mechanic the more likely such distraction is. But a simulation need not be perfect -- in fact can't be perfect and should only be good enough to get the desired range of outcomes in the simplest way.

For clarirty, I'll repeat. Disassociation is when a game element has no in-game rationale. For myself as a player, this means when I choose to affect the game environment in ways other than through my character's choice or when a game element's mechanics so very poorly represent the desired outcomes that I can't find an in-game rationale that fits the problem space.

 

[JamesonCourage]

However, this is a somewhat interesting conversation, so I'll bite.

Heh, I'm not greatly invested in it or anything. Just a thought exercise, I guess.

So if a player makes a check without thieves' tools he takes a penalty, even if he uses a simple tool.

The sentence structure for that is what carries ALL the meaning. So I'll use something else as an example to illustrate.

Attempting a Walk on Coals check without a set of good shoes imposes a negative modifier, even if a rubber sandal is employed. If you use Iron-soled Shoes, you gain a positive modifier.

I'd quibble with this, since you've named specific tools. It should be something like "even if a foot covering is employed. If you use Iron-soled Shoes, you gain a positive modifier." Foot covering could be anything that helps me walk across coals, just like a "simple tool" could be anything that helps me pick the lock.

So, I could use some tree bark strapped to my feet to attempt to Walk on Coals, or a piece of sharp metal to attempt to pick a lock. At least, that's my general interpretation, and why I phrased things the way I did, and made the inferences I did. This is also based on thieve's tools, as I'll note below (as you do as well).

At no time in that sentence did the designer prohibit the Walk on Coals check.

I can see the valid argument for this. The "without thieve's tools = -2 penalty" can definitely stand on its own without the "even with a simple tool." So, I can agree with your interpretation, here.

The thieve's tools descriptions says "This kit contains the tools you need to use the Disable Device and Open Lock skills. Without these tools, you must improvise tools, and you take a -2 circumstance penalty on Disable Device and Open Lock checks." This obviously means that you need to improvise tools, but as to what you were commenting on from Open Lock, I can agree. I'd disagree with the ruling based on thieve's tool, but not if only Open Lock was read.

Which is my least favorite knock-on effect within 3.x. The listing of thieves' tools makes it look like they are required, with the use of "MUST improvise". But neither the Open Locks or the Disable Device rule read in any way to show that they "require" the tools.

Yep. This shouldn't happen. The rules should agree. And you should be able to read the skill and get all the information you need there, without having to cross reference it with tools that you may not know you need to look up. Especially since the reading is could be read as contradictory.

Again, I'd say that's a formatting or editing issue, but I get the dislike for it. The potential there is big. Gotta be careful. Again, though, clear rules help to empower players, and I love that. I also like complex (not necessarily complicated) rules, but that's not necessary for "clear" rules. It's just a preference thing.

Good thoughts, by the way. It's why I originally mentioned the thieve's tools, and noted their page numbers. It's unfortunate that I need to, but I was speaking to the theoretical ruling, not necessarily the sole wording of Open Lock. Good fun, though. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

And you think that arguments the other way don't give 4e critics the same impression? I can assure you, they do. I love hearing that because I like +x weapons, differences in attack bonuses, rolling stats and so on that I'm making WotC design an objectively broken game that will damage the youth of America.

So, people have been repeating that to you ad nauseum for about four years now? On a pretty much weekly, if not monthly basis?

 

[billd91]

So, people have been repeating that to you ad nauseum for about four years now? On a pretty much weekly, if not monthly basis?

Pretty much, yes. That and Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit, quadratic wizards and linear fighters, wizards being auto-win buttons, that any impression-based criticism of 4e is a falsehood, that there was some vast conspiracy of complainers who killed 4e, all sorts of stuff every bit as controversial as saying 4e is a skirmish board game. I will say it has certainly gotten a lot worse with the D&D Next discussions.

 

[Hussar]

I do not believe the common usage of "even" in the language means what you are inferring here. However, this is a somewhat interesting conversation, so I'll bite.

The use of even in this sentence is used to emphasize.

So the rule says:


So if a player makes a check without thieves' tools he takes a penalty, even if he uses a simple tool.

The sentence structure for that is what carries ALL the meaning. So I'll use something else as an example to illustrate.

Attempting a Walk on Coals check without a set of good shoes imposes a negative modifier, even if a rubber sandal is employed. If you use Iron-soled Shoes, you gain a positive modifier.

At no time in that sentence did the designer prohibit the Walk on Coals check. The same way that it's not prohibited on the Open Locks check. The use of even is there to illustrate that rubber sandals are not considered good shoes for the purpose of Walk on Coals. The same way that a simple tool is not considered a thieves' tool for the purpose of Open Locks. Obviously the Iron-soled Shoes are in some way better than good shoes. In the same way that Masterwork tools are better than regular tools.

Some may consider the "rule" ambiguous, as indeed it is within the context of the other rules. But on its own it's rather clear. Which is my least favorite knock-on effect within 3.x. The listing of thieves' tools makes it look like they are required, with the use of "MUST improvise". But neither the Open Locks or the Disable Device rule read in any way to show that they "require" the tools.

This is why you have to open up your 3.5 PHB.

Open Lock (Dex; Trained only)
You can pick padlocks, finesse combination locks and solve puzzle locks. The effort requires at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort (a pick, pry bar, blank key, wire or the like. Attempting an Open Lock chekc without a set of thieve's tools (page 130) imposes a -2 circomstance penalty on the check, even if a simple tool is employed (note, any typoes are mine and the underline is mine)

So, yeah, you need a tool.

 

[Nagol]

If [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and/or [MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION] think that what I'm saying is unfair, I'm very willing to engage.

Commenting on the original post:

From my point of view, the situation is slightly different. Some of the posts in this thread are the latest in a long line of posts arguing that "dissociated" mechanics impede immersion, and hence roleplaying, and hence (i) are a marker of shallow, "board game" play, and (ii) ought not to be part of D&D (or other RPGs).

I don't care about any particular person's preferences and experiences, if I have never RPGed with them and am never likely to. But I don't think it's unreasonable of me, and others, to contest (i) and (ii).

As a player, I find disassociatd mechanics impede my immersion and hence my roleplaying. They are distracting, steal focus from my character, and I must guard from additional meta-gaming.

Disassociated mechanics are used in some games that are more shallow -- the typical board game is only applying disassociated mechanics, after all. It does not follow that any use of such mechanic makes a game more shallow than a game that doesn't have such mechanics.

In RPGs, disassociated mechanics have advantages for making scene outcomes more in keeping with genre and/or table preferences and help enrich the game world through shared authorship. They can be used to complicate scenes in ways the players would like that would be directly against their characters' desires without compromising characterisation.

As for whether such mechanics should be part of RPGs in general, sure why not? The continuum is wide enough to handle a variety of games that support various forms of gameplay.

As for whether or not such mechanics should be in D&D, I'm a bit more conservative. If such mechanics are continued in D&D, they should be scrutinised to verify the disassociation is desirable and preferably in a excisable set of rules.

 

[Ratskinner]

I mostly agree with this, I find your analysis truest of 2nd ed AD&D and 3E, and find that 4e doesn't irritate me much at all!

4e took a big, explicit step to the Gamist side of things. If you're okay with that (I am, but many aren't), then 4e can be a great game. In fact, if that's the way a person "sees" rpgs, 4e is perhaps the best version of this game ever. Of course, conversely, people who don't share this perspective tend to find 4e profoundly wanting.

My take on 4e is that it uses this "rules-light" resolution out of combat (skill challenges), but a very rules-heavy resolution in combat. The complexities that arise when the two resolution systems have to interact is one of the weaker points of 4e, in my view.

I tend to agree with this assessment. I would add that I find the OoC a little too light, and the Combat stuff to be a little too specific/heavy. I think its one of the things that leads many to say that 4e is a combat-only or skirmish game.

 

[Hussar]

Pretty much, yes. That and Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit, quadratic wizards and linear fighters, wizards being auto-win buttons, that any impression-based criticism of 4e is a falsehood, that there was some vast conspiracy of complainers who killed 4e, all sorts of stuff every bit as controversial as saying 4e is a skirmish board game. I will say it has certainly gotten a lot worse with the D&D Next discussions.

I'd point out a few things.

1. The Angel Summoner vs BMX bandit is a criticism of 3e that is based on some pretty strong evidence found in the mechanics of the game. Basically, it's a jokey take on quadratic wizards linear fighters. But, LFQW is again, strongly based on very, very strong evidence taken straight from the game itself. It's not based on how people feel or how people play the game. It's based on the fact that the game itself SAYS that wizards go from zero to god while fighters stay pretty much the same all the way along.

2. Do you deny that there are a number of spells for casters (I'm going to expand that from just wizards because it really applies to most casters) that constitute auto-win buttons? 1e Sleep spell is an auto-win button. And, let's be honest here, it's not that it's auto-win 100% of the time that's the problem, because the criticism is right, you can fail. But, it's that it auto-wins AT ALL.

3. Do you deny that there have been people and still are people who will jump onto every single thread and thread-crap any positive news about 4e? Do you deny that there were people who would go on to news sites, for the simple goal of crapping on any good news that mainstream media might have about WOTC or 4e?

Hey I'm not saying it's all one sided here. OF course not. It always takes two to tango. Fair enough. But, again, going by your specific example, have people spent the last four years telling you that your game is not really D&D and that you shouldn't be involved in any further development of D&D? That your ideas are so bad, that they are actually antithetical to what D&D is?

 

[Hussar]

/snip


I tend to agree with this assessment. I would add that I find the OoC a little too light, and the Combat stuff to be a little too specific/heavy. I think its one of the things that leads many to say that 4e is a combat-only or skirmish game.

Honestly, I cannot really blame anyone who opens up the 4e PHB and thinks it's a combat only game. It's brutal. You get a half dozen pages of sort of fluffy stuff like character name and whatnot, then you get slammed with this mountain wall of powers, most of which are combat oriented, to the point where the non-combat stuff is pretty buried in the scrum, then you get feats which are mostly combat related, then you get equipment, almost all of which is combat related, then you get the combat rules. Finally, buried at the very back, is a section on rituals that is tacked on like an appendix.

So, yeah, I totally get why people would think the game is so combat focused. 4e's biggest enemy is 4e itself.

 

[pemerton]

I think the objection is that the game was "wrong" for their perception of D&D, and that people continuing to insist on those mechanics want to hurt the game they want.

<snip>

I've seen you make that claim multiple times, and your assertion that the game prior to that point didn't hold up to that thematic play style well. People take exception to that, because they felt they achieved it.

And I take exception to people saying that Come and Get It ruins immersion per se, because I play in a game where Come and Get It is regularly used, and immersion doesn't suffer.

This is why I asked, upthread, for actual play examples. I have given actual play examples that illustrate how Come and Get It (and other "dissociated" mechancis) are used in my game, and how immersion was achieved and maintained. I've linked these to a discussion of stance: for example, a player can be in director stance in a "logical" sense while still being in character in a psychological sense, as when - playing a Cthulhu-esque freeform - I held the imaginary crucifix around my neck and prayed: thinking the crucifix there is an episode in director stance, but because it is motivated and utterly rationalised from the character's point of view, doing so doesn't detract from being in character at all.

Nothing would interest me more than to see actual play reports of the techniques used to achieve thematic play using Moldvay Basic. I mean, I've never claimed it can't be done by others, just that I haven't done it (and, perhaps, couldn't do it).