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="LostSoul" data-source="post: 6002507" data-attributes="member: 386"><p>This is why I think the longer combat rounds of TSR-D&D work better. Both WotC- and TSR-D&D use very abstract combat systems, so much so that the details of your "melee attack" are unimportant. When you combine that level of abstract resolution with 6-second combat rounds, I think it's <em>easier</em> to ask what, exactly, is my guy doing?</p><p></p><p>I think that's why, when I play pre-4E D&D, I usually say "I attack the orc" without going into detail. Maybe there's some level of detail if I'm using Power Attack or whatever, but that's limited to what my PC is holding in his hands.</p><p></p><p>Because of that, one feature of play that I experienced was that the DM shouldered the responsibility of narrating what was happening. A simple, made-up example:</p><p></p><p>Player: I attack the owlbear!</p><p>(roll, hit, 4 damage)</p><p>DM: You stab your spear into its side and leave a thin line of blood!</p><p>Player: Wow, my guy is awesome.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure that's true, but since I'm not particularly demanding of associated mechanics, I could be wrong. Let me touch on the "lethal ballet" for a second and get back to this point.</p><p></p><p>When I designed the combat system for my 4E hack, I wanted players to make choices that leveraged the fiction to their advantage - or disadvantage, in the case of poor play. I also wanted to picture the scene in my head. (I think that's immersion but I am not sure.) This doesn't demand associated mechanics; it demands (certain detailed) fictional positioning having influence on resolution.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">This is why I like 4E - I think that the system makes it easy for fictional positioning to influence mechanical resolution. Dissociated mechanics may play a part here, because the player creates, at run-time, the connection between the game world and the mechanics. Which means that you can create your own fictional positioning - fiction that's relevant to you, in the moment, and can make as much sense as you want it to - instead of relying on the mechanic's connection to the game world.</p><p></p><p>Anyway. I'm playing my hack with a guy who is really into the medieval martial art recreation scene. After our first session he noted that my system got the "beats" of combat right, for him at least. (I think he had an Italian term for it.) After a few sessions, though, he went back to saying "I attack the gnoll" instead of using his greater knowledge of combat to his advantage.</p><p></p><p>After playing with this guy for a while, I think he went back to "I attack the gnoll" instead of more detailed actions because he didn't want the responsibility to narrate what was going on. He wanted to make a simple choice - "I attack the gnoll" - and then have the DM describe his character's actions.</p><p></p><p>I think this creates a reward system for a certain type of "Right to Dream" play. You make a character, but you don't want to have to risk that character's integrity by possibly screwing up with your choices - you want your choices to be low-stress. You pass the ball to the DM, and a good DM will "get it right" and describe your character in the "right" way - passing the ball back to you. Then you express your character well enough for the DM to pick up on what your PC's about, and round and round it goes.</p><p></p><p>That's what I see as the main benefit to associated mechanics: you aren't forced to create compelling fiction moment-to-moment during play. The mechanics do that for you.</p><p></p><p>I think that's a pretty controversial statement. Since I don't naturally "get" associated/dissociated mechanics, I think I could easily be wrong, especially if someone who naturally gets the theory says so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 6002507, member: 386"] This is why I think the longer combat rounds of TSR-D&D work better. Both WotC- and TSR-D&D use very abstract combat systems, so much so that the details of your "melee attack" are unimportant. When you combine that level of abstract resolution with 6-second combat rounds, I think it's [i]easier[/i] to ask what, exactly, is my guy doing? I think that's why, when I play pre-4E D&D, I usually say "I attack the orc" without going into detail. Maybe there's some level of detail if I'm using Power Attack or whatever, but that's limited to what my PC is holding in his hands. Because of that, one feature of play that I experienced was that the DM shouldered the responsibility of narrating what was happening. A simple, made-up example: Player: I attack the owlbear! (roll, hit, 4 damage) DM: You stab your spear into its side and leave a thin line of blood! Player: Wow, my guy is awesome. I'm not sure that's true, but since I'm not particularly demanding of associated mechanics, I could be wrong. Let me touch on the "lethal ballet" for a second and get back to this point. When I designed the combat system for my 4E hack, I wanted players to make choices that leveraged the fiction to their advantage - or disadvantage, in the case of poor play. I also wanted to picture the scene in my head. (I think that's immersion but I am not sure.) This doesn't demand associated mechanics; it demands (certain detailed) fictional positioning having influence on resolution. [indent]This is why I like 4E - I think that the system makes it easy for fictional positioning to influence mechanical resolution. Dissociated mechanics may play a part here, because the player creates, at run-time, the connection between the game world and the mechanics. Which means that you can create your own fictional positioning - fiction that's relevant to you, in the moment, and can make as much sense as you want it to - instead of relying on the mechanic's connection to the game world.[/indent] Anyway. I'm playing my hack with a guy who is really into the medieval martial art recreation scene. After our first session he noted that my system got the "beats" of combat right, for him at least. (I think he had an Italian term for it.) After a few sessions, though, he went back to saying "I attack the gnoll" instead of using his greater knowledge of combat to his advantage. After playing with this guy for a while, I think he went back to "I attack the gnoll" instead of more detailed actions because he didn't want the responsibility to narrate what was going on. He wanted to make a simple choice - "I attack the gnoll" - and then have the DM describe his character's actions. I think this creates a reward system for a certain type of "Right to Dream" play. You make a character, but you don't want to have to risk that character's integrity by possibly screwing up with your choices - you want your choices to be low-stress. You pass the ball to the DM, and a good DM will "get it right" and describe your character in the "right" way - passing the ball back to you. Then you express your character well enough for the DM to pick up on what your PC's about, and round and round it goes. That's what I see as the main benefit to associated mechanics: you aren't forced to create compelling fiction moment-to-moment during play. The mechanics do that for you. I think that's a pretty controversial statement. Since I don't naturally "get" associated/dissociated mechanics, I think I could easily be wrong, especially if someone who naturally gets the theory says so. [/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