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="Hussar" data-source="post: 5998397" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>I'd agree with this. The only thing is, when we do ask for why it pulls people out of immersion, we get something like, "Well, it's dissociated. There's no correlation between what my character is doing and what I, the player, am doing."</p><p></p><p>Ok, fair enough as far as it goes. But, it begs the question, why does that break your immersion when these four or five other things, which do the exact same thing, not bother you? And that's where the carousel goes around again. Because now it's a bunch of typically post hoc justifications for why X and Y are ok, but, for some reason, a complete refusal to apply the same justifications to Z.</p><p></p><p>If people could explain why it's perfectly fine for some dissociation and not others, or why its ok to post hoc justify things for one thing and not others, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, "It pulls me out of immersion" basically only tells me that someone doesn't like X. It doesn't really get to any root cause.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's a difference though. I accepted what DannyA claimed, that he did not have the 15 MAD. What I could never get out of it though was <em>how</em> he didn't in such a way that I could apply his methods to my game. When I tried to drill down past just the fact that he didn't have a particular result (no 15 MAD), all I got was rather handwavey ideas about "smart play". Which is great and all, but, doesn't really help me a whole lot.</p><p></p><p>I've had that same sort of conversation about low level characters scouting. When I pointed out that the chances of scouting were very, very low, particulary in AD&D, I learned that the other person was actually playing pretty fast and loose with the mechanics and the reason his group succeeded in that form of play is because the DM strongly facilitated it. It comes back to the arguments of players having large amounts of fore-knowledge about what they are facing, so that they can pick and choose encounters. Only problem is, when you actually go by the rules of the game, it falls apart pretty quickly.</p><p></p><p>Unless of course, you start monkeying the mechanics to facilitate play. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It should be encouraged to do so. But, it does make it very, very difficult to talk about a game when one person is talking about what's written down, and the other person is talking about their own personal idiosyncratic take on the game that only applies to that table.</p><p></p><p>And, let's be honest here. It takes a LOT to get some people to admit they're wrong. Direct quotes usually does it for me. But, google the Medusa threads and you'll see some seriously stubborn takes. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> When the mechanics for a medusa are identical in every edition of the game, and people actually take the time to quote those mechanics, most people will admit they're wrong. Note, I said most.</p><p></p><p>But, quite often, in lengthy conversations like these, even quoting verbatim the rules doesn't always work. In one of these really long threads, I got into it about the listening rules in AD&D which I could actually quote (it's in the preview doc on the WOTC site). People STILL argued that I was wrong. To the point of putting me on ignore lists. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> </p><p></p><p>So, yeah, there's problems with actual play examples. Fair enough. But, if you're willing to back up claims with facts, I'll listen. Or, if you're willing to simply tack on an IMO onto something, again fair enough. But, make blanket claims without any facts or evidence to support and I'll argue 'till I'm blue in the face.</p><p></p><p>Like I said, I can see why people would criticise 4e for being a mini-skirmish game. At least if all they knew was a cursory glance at the rules anyway. But, OTOH, it's pretty easy to show that it doesn't have to be that way. Any more than AD&D has to be a hacked wargame.</p><p></p><p>Sorry, let my fingers get away from me there. Must be all those other walls of text around here. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> It's contagious.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5998397, member: 22779"] I'd agree with this. The only thing is, when we do ask for why it pulls people out of immersion, we get something like, "Well, it's dissociated. There's no correlation between what my character is doing and what I, the player, am doing." Ok, fair enough as far as it goes. But, it begs the question, why does that break your immersion when these four or five other things, which do the exact same thing, not bother you? And that's where the carousel goes around again. Because now it's a bunch of typically post hoc justifications for why X and Y are ok, but, for some reason, a complete refusal to apply the same justifications to Z. If people could explain why it's perfectly fine for some dissociation and not others, or why its ok to post hoc justify things for one thing and not others, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, "It pulls me out of immersion" basically only tells me that someone doesn't like X. It doesn't really get to any root cause. There's a difference though. I accepted what DannyA claimed, that he did not have the 15 MAD. What I could never get out of it though was [i]how[/i] he didn't in such a way that I could apply his methods to my game. When I tried to drill down past just the fact that he didn't have a particular result (no 15 MAD), all I got was rather handwavey ideas about "smart play". Which is great and all, but, doesn't really help me a whole lot. I've had that same sort of conversation about low level characters scouting. When I pointed out that the chances of scouting were very, very low, particulary in AD&D, I learned that the other person was actually playing pretty fast and loose with the mechanics and the reason his group succeeded in that form of play is because the DM strongly facilitated it. It comes back to the arguments of players having large amounts of fore-knowledge about what they are facing, so that they can pick and choose encounters. Only problem is, when you actually go by the rules of the game, it falls apart pretty quickly. Unless of course, you start monkeying the mechanics to facilitate play. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It should be encouraged to do so. But, it does make it very, very difficult to talk about a game when one person is talking about what's written down, and the other person is talking about their own personal idiosyncratic take on the game that only applies to that table. And, let's be honest here. It takes a LOT to get some people to admit they're wrong. Direct quotes usually does it for me. But, google the Medusa threads and you'll see some seriously stubborn takes. :D When the mechanics for a medusa are identical in every edition of the game, and people actually take the time to quote those mechanics, most people will admit they're wrong. Note, I said most. But, quite often, in lengthy conversations like these, even quoting verbatim the rules doesn't always work. In one of these really long threads, I got into it about the listening rules in AD&D which I could actually quote (it's in the preview doc on the WOTC site). People STILL argued that I was wrong. To the point of putting me on ignore lists. :uhoh: So, yeah, there's problems with actual play examples. Fair enough. But, if you're willing to back up claims with facts, I'll listen. Or, if you're willing to simply tack on an IMO onto something, again fair enough. But, make blanket claims without any facts or evidence to support and I'll argue 'till I'm blue in the face. Like I said, I can see why people would criticise 4e for being a mini-skirmish game. At least if all they knew was a cursory glance at the rules anyway. But, OTOH, it's pretty easy to show that it doesn't have to be that way. Any more than AD&D has to be a hacked wargame. Sorry, let my fingers get away from me there. Must be all those other walls of text around here. :D It's contagious. [/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