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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5998241" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>What if it was this?</p><p></p><p><em>Come and Get It</em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em>Encounter Martial</em></p><p><em>Standard Action Close burst 3</em></p><p><em>Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst</em></p><p><em>Attack: Charisma vs. Will</em></p><p><em>Hit: You trick/goad each target to moving up to 2 squares nearer to you to a square adjacent to you.</em></p><p><em>Secondary Effect: You make a Melee Basic Attack against each adjacent enemy.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is that ok or still dissociated?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5998241, member: 6696971"] 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? 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? What if it was this? [I]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.[/I] Is that ok or still dissociated? 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? 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? 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? [/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