Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5993244" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>So you house-ruled AD&D saving throws. That's fine - you woudn't be the only person ever to drift AD&D in a more process-sim direction than the rulebooks indicate.</p><p></p><p>Huh? What is <em>not</em> process sim is the passage of a minute, the failure to resolve all the other attempted attacks, the failure to resolve any active defences (eg parry, shield block) by the victim of the attack, etc. Shorter rounds, and active defences, are two of the most basic moves that any process-sim combat RPG makes (eg RQ, RM, and I'm pretty sure GURPS, HERO and C&S).</p><p></p><p>But how does the PC who is on 5 hit points <em>know</em> that the next orc attack, if it hits at all, will be a severe wound rather than a scratch? The player knows that because s/he can look at the hit point total on the scratch paper in front of him/her. But how does the PC know? As far as I can tell s/he can't. That is the most fundamental reason why hit points aren't process sim.</p><p></p><p>Admittedly I was talking about AD&D, where this is ture. In 3E, though, casters can spend it as currency. How does that work for the process sim player?</p><p></p><p>And there is your solution to martial dailies. "I tried it again, but this time I just couldn't do it."</p><p></p><p>Just like, in AD&D, you can try again after a level, so in 4e you can try again after an extended rest.</p><p></p><p>Now maybe that solution (I hesitate to call it a house rule, because it is not really changing or contradicting any of the published rules text - but if you disagree with me on that, you might think of it as a house rule) isn't palatable to you for whatever reason. That's fine: no one's trying to force you to play 4e. But this is why I don't think there's anything special about the so-called "dissociative" mechanics in 4e, compared to AD&D, except perhaps that 4e has a greater variety of them on the active side.</p><p></p><p>All this proves was that some process-sim lovers stuck to D&D through 3 editions but not a fourth. But what about all the process-sim lovers who quit D&D as soon as they discovered RQ, RM, C&S, GURPS, HERO etc? Does the existence of them - and there were very many of them (at one time, I think ICE was the second-biggest RPG company after TSR, admittedly on the back of its MERP licence) - prove that AD&D was unplayable? Or intolerably narrow in its appeal? All it proves is that some people like somethings and not others.</p><p></p><p>Except for those playing the serious simulationinst games out there! Do you have figures for how many people dropped Rolemaster or Runequest for 3E D&D?</p><p></p><p>Thanks. Like you, I can't quote a page number but it's in the discussion of combat rules.</p><p></p><p>Different editions can be drifted different ways. But I don't think AD&D is especially broader in the range of playstyles it supports well than is 4e. (It may be broader in its appeal, but that's a different thing. Maybe heaps of people love a rather narrow range of playstyles.)</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you mean by "proper noun" here, but as far as I'm aware there is no "popular" definition of so-called "dissociative" mechanics - as far as I can tell, it is intended to refer to a certain category of metagame-heavy action resolution mechanics, but is not uniformly applied to all mechanics that exhibit the feature in question (eg hit points - how does the PC know the next blow will be deadly rather than a scratch? or open locks - what is the explanation, <em>in the fiction</em>, for a new attempt being possible only after a level has been gained? or attack rolls in minute-long combat rounds - what decision, taken by the PC, does the rolling of the d20 correspond to?) </p><p></p><p>As I've said above - what decision, made by the PC, does the player's rolling of a d20 as part of the resolution of a 1-minute combat round correspond to? This is fortune-in-the-middle - you can't narrate it until the dice are rolled and resolution is in train - but martial encounters and dailies are just the same. I mean, whatever narration you use to explain why only one attack has even a chance of getting through in a minute, you can use to explain why only one Rain of Blows has any chance of getting throuh in five minutes!</p><p></p><p>As [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] posted upthread, one thing that the player is thinking about is rolling his/her d6, and the GM rolling the NPCs' and monsters' saving throws. Is the PC thinking about those things?</p><p></p><p>In the same way that we assume the PC is <em>not</em> thinking about those things - the mechanical expressions of his/her fictional capabilities and good fortune - so we assume that the PC is not thinking about some deft combat manouevre being an encounter power - which is, likewise, a mechanical expression of the PC's fictional capabilities and good fortune.</p><p></p><p>This is a pretty good summary of my position.</p><p></p><p>Agreed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5993244, member: 42582"] So you house-ruled AD&D saving throws. That's fine - you woudn't be the only person ever to drift AD&D in a more process-sim direction than the rulebooks indicate. Huh? What is [I]not[/I] process sim is the passage of a minute, the failure to resolve all the other attempted attacks, the failure to resolve any active defences (eg parry, shield block) by the victim of the attack, etc. Shorter rounds, and active defences, are two of the most basic moves that any process-sim combat RPG makes (eg RQ, RM, and I'm pretty sure GURPS, HERO and C&S). But how does the PC who is on 5 hit points [I]know[/I] that the next orc attack, if it hits at all, will be a severe wound rather than a scratch? The player knows that because s/he can look at the hit point total on the scratch paper in front of him/her. But how does the PC know? As far as I can tell s/he can't. That is the most fundamental reason why hit points aren't process sim. Admittedly I was talking about AD&D, where this is ture. In 3E, though, casters can spend it as currency. How does that work for the process sim player? And there is your solution to martial dailies. "I tried it again, but this time I just couldn't do it." Just like, in AD&D, you can try again after a level, so in 4e you can try again after an extended rest. Now maybe that solution (I hesitate to call it a house rule, because it is not really changing or contradicting any of the published rules text - but if you disagree with me on that, you might think of it as a house rule) isn't palatable to you for whatever reason. That's fine: no one's trying to force you to play 4e. But this is why I don't think there's anything special about the so-called "dissociative" mechanics in 4e, compared to AD&D, except perhaps that 4e has a greater variety of them on the active side. All this proves was that some process-sim lovers stuck to D&D through 3 editions but not a fourth. But what about all the process-sim lovers who quit D&D as soon as they discovered RQ, RM, C&S, GURPS, HERO etc? Does the existence of them - and there were very many of them (at one time, I think ICE was the second-biggest RPG company after TSR, admittedly on the back of its MERP licence) - prove that AD&D was unplayable? Or intolerably narrow in its appeal? All it proves is that some people like somethings and not others. Except for those playing the serious simulationinst games out there! Do you have figures for how many people dropped Rolemaster or Runequest for 3E D&D? Thanks. Like you, I can't quote a page number but it's in the discussion of combat rules. Different editions can be drifted different ways. But I don't think AD&D is especially broader in the range of playstyles it supports well than is 4e. (It may be broader in its appeal, but that's a different thing. Maybe heaps of people love a rather narrow range of playstyles.) I'm not sure what you mean by "proper noun" here, but as far as I'm aware there is no "popular" definition of so-called "dissociative" mechanics - as far as I can tell, it is intended to refer to a certain category of metagame-heavy action resolution mechanics, but is not uniformly applied to all mechanics that exhibit the feature in question (eg hit points - how does the PC know the next blow will be deadly rather than a scratch? or open locks - what is the explanation, [I]in the fiction[/I], for a new attempt being possible only after a level has been gained? or attack rolls in minute-long combat rounds - what decision, taken by the PC, does the rolling of the d20 correspond to?) As I've said above - what decision, made by the PC, does the player's rolling of a d20 as part of the resolution of a 1-minute combat round correspond to? This is fortune-in-the-middle - you can't narrate it until the dice are rolled and resolution is in train - but martial encounters and dailies are just the same. I mean, whatever narration you use to explain why only one attack has even a chance of getting through in a minute, you can use to explain why only one Rain of Blows has any chance of getting throuh in five minutes! As [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] posted upthread, one thing that the player is thinking about is rolling his/her d6, and the GM rolling the NPCs' and monsters' saving throws. Is the PC thinking about those things? In the same way that we assume the PC is [I]not[/I] thinking about those things - the mechanical expressions of his/her fictional capabilities and good fortune - so we assume that the PC is not thinking about some deft combat manouevre being an encounter power - which is, likewise, a mechanical expression of the PC's fictional capabilities and good fortune. This is a pretty good summary of my position. Agreed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top