D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Alex319]

Disassociated mechanics have nothing to do with realism. If you want your hands to block swords, talk it over with your DM and agree on a reasonable way to do it.

You may have misunderstood the point of the example. The point of the example is that the mechanic of "It only works if you can predict how the DM will interpret your fluff" can be just as dissociated as "It only works if the rulebook says it does." Whether the DM is making his decisions based on realism or some other factor is beside the point.

And as I understand what LostSoul is talking about, in his system you say your action, the DM makes whatever judgement calls are necessary to adjudicate the results, and that's that - you don't get a chance to "talk it over" any more than you get a chance to undo your action if you rolled poorly in regular D+D.

(And if you did get the opportunity to ask the DM about how he would rule in advance, then it seems like the optimal strategy would be to come up with as many possible actions as you can, ask the DM about how they would work, and essentially build up a library of "powers" that you already know how they work. So the system would likely reduce to something similar to the standard 4e system.)

What's needed, and what I tried to do in my hack, is to tell the DM what his job is, and give him certain principles to base his rulings on.

Can you elaborate a bit on what those "principles" are? Let's take my "blocking swords with your bare hands" example - what "principles" would you use to determine whether or not it works?

 

[CovertOps]

So, it'd play out like this:

Player 1: I shoot him in the face! (pushes forward 2 dice, a 6 and a 1 for 7 total).
Player 2: Well, I can't beat a 7 with two dice, I have to use 3. So, I use my 5, 1, and 1 to "Take the Blow". However, I still have dice, so I'm not out of the fight. "The gun goes off with a loud bang and smoke... Jebediah grabs his ear and screams, 'Holy crap! You just blew my ear off!'" (that's 3 d10 fallout dice to set aside [which could kill me later at the end of the conflict]).

I'm going to reverse your own argument. This is an example of the mechanics overriding the fiction.
DM: I shoot you in the face!
PC: Oh no you don't!
DM: Yes I do!
PC: No you don't because...

You're bitching about disassociated fiction and then provide an example of disassociated fiction to "prove" what exactly?

Notice how I HAVE to describe taking the blow based on the original fiction? I have to describe how I take the blow from being shot in the face? The fiction is supremely important because it directly ties into what I can say next.
Yeah. I would never do that. I'd just let the dice speak for themselves and have the player decide to invoke traits for more dice and justify it in the fiction (like you have to do to get more dice in Dogs...).

This is true because the "Mechanics" have trumped the fiction. You made your dice rolls and now you're just narrating the outcome. I really don't see any difference between this and 4e. Feel free to elaborate.

Sure he did. A great example (from the movie) is when the party is traveling in the dwarven ruins and they get swarmed by the horde (a gargantuan swarm) and only make it out because the Balrog roars. Now... Imagine Aragorn "grabbing" that swarm....

That wasn't a swarm. That was lots and lots of (1st? 5th? level) minions and a level (30?) solo. Of course they scattered.

I agree. This is what I've been saying for 10 pages. "Awesome. What are you doing? How do you do that? What do you say? How do you intimidate him? etc..."

We are at a fundamental agreement. You're arguing with me because you're taking me out of context (which is based on this entire thread).

I'm not saying all 4E mechanics are disassociated. I think you're misinterpreting me.

I now think that your main complaint about 4e combat is it's level of abstraction.

PC: I have this ability that lets me to A, B, and C if I hit.
DM: OK. You hit the creature and it falls A, looks B, and takes C damage.

The only difference between this and your example is the level of complexity involved before arriving at the outcome.

Another analogy would be if you're comparing the 3e "full attack" to 4e powers. They simplified a complex resolution mechanic (making multiple attack and damage rolls) and instead made attacks that just do more damage (the end result). I was with you up till this last post and now I'm thinking that you've shifted what you're arguing against.

 

[P1NBACK]

I'm going to reverse your own argument. This is an example of the mechanics overriding the fiction.
DM: I shoot you in the face!
PC: Oh no you don't!
DM: Yes I do!
PC: No you don't because...

You're bitching about disassociated fiction and then provide an example of disassociated fiction to "prove" what exactly?

The mechanics don't override the fiction. As LostSoul said, there's an "I try to..." that is implied in this instance. It's the stated fictional intent, just like when I say, "Well, I'm going to intimidate him..." You don't actually intimidate him until we determine the effect. But, you need to say your intent in order for us to resolve the fiction. It's all part of the resolution process in RPGs.

This is basics. I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that this is disassociated from the fiction. The "oh no you don't" is strictly fictional. You're missing a lot in your example though. In Dogs, it'd look like this (I've used 3rd person and highlighted the text to show you the fiction vs. the ooc - notice there is always fiction combined with the dice):

DM: Jim shoots you in the face! (pushes forward two dice)
Player: Oh no you don't! Sam ducks! (pushes forward two dice to match)
Player: And, after you miss, Sam draws his gun and fires back! (pushes forward two dice)
DM: Crap! I can't match those. Well, Jim takes the blow. (pushes forward 4 dice) You shoot him right in the chest. Blood starts pumping out in time to his heartbeat. It spills all over his white shirt. But, he's not dead yet...

It's not disassociated because the dice have a direct impact on the fiction and actions of my character.

This is true because the "Mechanics" have trumped the fiction. You made your dice rolls and now you're just narrating the outcome. I really don't see any difference between this and 4e. Feel free to elaborate.

For one, Dogs uses fortune-in-the-middle for its dice resolution. Meaning, you roll dice first, then resolve the fiction. 4E uses fortune-at-the-end, which means we describe what we do, then roll dice to determine the outcome. It's completely irrelevant to this conversation and might be confusing you.

Where you roll the dice doesn't really matter or mean that the "mechanics have trumped the fiction". That only happens when the mechanics mean nothing to the fiction. In this instance, the mechanics do mean something to the fiction (they always do in Dogs).

That wasn't a swarm. That was lots and lots of (1st? 5th? level) minions and a level (30?) solo. Of course they scattered.

Not in your game. In my game, I'd never use 100 or more minions in one encounter. I'd use a gargantuan swarm.

Let's just assume they were a swarm (because I can make them one in my game). Now, let's assume Aragorn was a brawler fighter. Should he be allowed to grab that swarm?

I now think that your main complaint about 4e combat is it's level of abstraction.

PC: I have this ability that lets me to A, B, and C if I hit.
DM: OK. You hit the creature and it falls A, looks B, and takes C damage.

The only difference between this and your example is the level of complexity involved before arriving at the outcome.

Nah. Abstraction has nothing to do with it. I'm fine with "hit points".

Another analogy would be if you're comparing the 3e "full attack" to 4e powers. They simplified a complex resolution mechanic (making multiple attack and damage rolls) and instead made attacks that just do more damage (the end result). I was with you up till this last post and now I'm thinking that you've shifted what you're arguing against.

4E hasn't made attacks do more damage to replicate "multiple" attacks. Look at the Ranger class for example. Twin Strike is two distinct attacks. Or, how about area attacks from Wizards? You make an attack roll for each target.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The mechanics don't override the fiction. As LostSoul said, there's an "I try to..." that is implied in this instance. It's the stated fictional intent, just like when I say, "Well, I'm going to intimidate him..." You don't actually intimidate him until we determine the effect. But, you need to say your intent in order for us to resolve the fiction. It's all part of the resolution process in RPGs.

This is basics. I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that this is disassociated from the fiction. The "oh no you don't" is strictly fictional.

The "Oh no you don't" is negating previously established fiction. You're writing with a bottle of tip-ex in your hand.

You're missing a lot in your example though. In Dogs, it'd look like this (I've used 3rd person and highlighted the text to show you the fiction vs. the ooc - notice there is always fiction combined with the dice):

DM: Jim shoots you in the face! (pushes forward two dice)
Player: Oh no you don't! Sam ducks! (pushes forward two dice to match)
Player: And, after you miss, Sam draws his gun and fires back! (pushes forward two dice)
DM: Crap! I can't match those. Well, Jim takes the blow. (pushes forward 4 dice) You shoot him right in the chest. Blood starts pumping out in time to his heartbeat. It spills all over his white shirt. But, he's not dead yet...

It's not disassociated because the dice have a direct impact on the fiction and actions of my character.

As they do in 4e. And any other game with a resolution mechanic including monopoly. But you're changing what you're arguing. The problem with dissasociated mechanics is that the fiction does not impact the mechanics, not the other way round.

Not in your game. In my game, I'd never use 100 or more minions in one encounter. I'd use a gargantuan swarm.

So your argument is "I make a simplification because it's easier. Then find an edge case where it is dodgy."

Let's just assume they were a swarm (because I can make them one in my game). Now, let's assume Aragorn was a brawler fighter. Should he be allowed to grab that swarm?

As it happens, YES! I would! But given the size of the swarm and therefore that it's the best part of a tier above him, Aragorn is going to take his bloodied hit points or so in damage every round he starts his turn next to the swarm in addition to its normal attacks. And he's choosing to start next to the swarm. Aragorn grabs and blocks the front rank of the swarm - and the tidal wave of orcs goes crashing into him. He can hold it back briefly on a good day. He'll be unconscious by his next action on a bad one.

So the question is not "Would I let the grappler hold up the swarm?" It is "Would I let the grappler hold up the swarm for a few seconds to allow the hobbits to escape before he either had to run, bruised and bloodied, or was inevitably trampled under a tide of orcs wearing hobnail boots?" And the answer to that becomes "Why the hell not?"

Nah. Abstraction has nothing to do with it. I'm fine with "hit points".

Just because you are fine with hit points doesn't say a damn thing about whether or not hit points are a dissasociated mechanic. Which they are. One that is actively working against much fluff.

 

[Neonchameleon]

On thinking about it, Dogs in the Vineyard has the most dissasociated set of mechanics anywhere, ever. There is not one single arrow leading from the mechanics into the fluff or the fluff into the mechanics.

The resolution mechanics of DiTV are simply an abstract concealed auction dice game with elements of luck, chicken, and Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (defect = fists or guns). And have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in the world (in flat contrast to either 4e or Spirit of the Century where the narrative directly impacts the mechanics (terrain and aspects)). The only point in DiTV where the mechanics feed directly into the fluff is if there's enough fallout for character death.

What the mechanics in DiTV provide are an excellent and flexible framework around which you can build your story. They are therefore dissasociated mechanics done right. They work well. But that doesn't for one second mean they aren't disassociated.

To provide a further example, I can look at a photograph of a 4e battlemap with conditions marked and tell you roughly what is going on. The fluff comes directly out of the mechanics. If I just look at DiTV, I see two people rolling dice. That is disassociated in the way that 4e is not. Hell, it's more dissasociated than Monopoly - in Monopoly I can see the properties and who owns them. I can tell you who the slum landlord is, who's down on his luck, and who the fat cat rolling in dosh is. (Often the slum landlord). And who just wants to play with model trains writ large.

This doesn't mean that DiTV isn't integrated. It's got a very bare scaffold which is used to great effect. But the mechanics are fundamentally, thoroughly, and completely dissasociated. There is nothing there except an abstract dice rolling game. Still, it's a great RPG precisely because the skeleton is so bare.

The problem listed with 4e isn't dissasociation. It's all the noise. The arrows fly thick and fast in all directions, repeatedly bypassing the players. 4e comes with a rhythm of its own, and many people find this rhythm and bassline very enjoyable without wanting a melody over the top. Or without finding room to fit a melody over the top. Both happen. (I like the rhythm and the melodies I can make. But it isn't for everyone - and I'm glad to see the Essentials Martial classes where the baseline is often a military march rather than Rock Opera).

 

[P1NBACK]

On thinking about it, Dogs in the Vineyard has the most dissasociated set of mechanics anywhere, ever. There is not one single arrow leading from the mechanics into the fluff or the fluff into the mechanics.

Oh, it certainly does. The game is designed specifically to contribute to a particular kind of fiction. It can't do that with disassociated mechanics. There's a reason why guns get +1d4 to their dice for example.

Here's the basics, to even get dice, you have to do something fictionally. Are we talking? Then I roll my talking dice. Are we fighting? Then I roll my fighting dice.

It's directly tied to the fiction of what's going on.

It's the same thing when I say, "To roll your Intimidate check, do something intimidating fictionally."

Some people are opposed to this for some reason.

The resolution mechanics of DiTV are simply an abstract concealed auction dice game with elements of luck, chicken, and Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (defect = fists or guns). And have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in the world (in flat contrast to either 4e or Spirit of the Century where the narrative directly impacts the mechanics (terrain and aspects)). The only point in DiTV where the mechanics feed directly into the fluff is if there's enough fallout for character death.

Huh. Not at all. The mechanics specifically feed into the fluff. If I raise (basically, an attack), I have to directly describe how I attack. Mechanics = fluff. Everyone else is sharing this description in their imagination. The shared imagined space.

It's the same in 4E. If I roll a d20, it means I need to describe how I attack. The problem is, some people are advocating not describing it. Instead, I roll a d20 and activate Condition Red. It means nothing to the shared imagined space we have, and only directly impacts those colored tokens on the game board.

What the mechanics in DiTV provide are an excellent and flexible framework around which you can build your story. They are therefore dissasociated mechanics done right. They work well. But that doesn't for one second mean they aren't disassociated.

Again. I disagree. I think there's a specific difference between disassociated and "abstract" for one. Pushing forward two dice in Dogs is the same as rolling a d20 in D&D. Those dice, the two you push forward, directly send an arrow to the fiction, because you have to describe exactly what you are doing. Your opponent, has to respond to that fiction. So the arrow comes back to his dice. How does he respond? Based on his dice.

Rinse. Repeat.

Dice. Fiction. Fiction. Dice.

To provide a further example, I can look at a photograph of a 4e battlemap with conditions marked and tell you roughly what is going on.

You can tell me what is going on the battlemat. Not in the game. You can't tell me that Ogra is fighting the party because she is angry about their intrusion on her territory. You just can't. You can tell PC A has Condition B. Sure.

The fluff comes directly out of the mechanics. If I just look at DiTV, I see two people rolling dice. That is disassociated in the way that 4e is not. Hell, it's more dissasociated than Monopoly - in Monopoly I can see the properties and who owns them. I can tell you who the slum landlord is, who's down on his luck, and who the fat cat rolling in dosh is. (Often the slum landlord). And who just wants to play with model trains writ large.

Really? You can tell who the slum landlord is? How so?

Down on luck. I can tell you that from Dogs dice. Who has less numbers on their dice? Down on his luck.

Rolling in dough? The guy with the high numbers.

Really? That's your determination?

This doesn't mean that DiTV isn't integrated. It's got a very bare scaffold which is used to great effect. But the mechanics are fundamentally, thoroughly, and completely dissasociated. There is nothing there except an abstract dice rolling game. Still, it's a great RPG precisely because the skeleton is so bare.

I think you don't understand disassociated. It has nothing to do with the actual resolution and more to do with how that resolution impacts the fiction. Looking at the real world cues isn't going to tell you anything. You need to see the game in motion. See the fiction unfold.

The problem listed with 4e isn't dissasociation. It's all the noise. The arrows fly thick and fast in all directions, repeatedly bypassing the players. 4e comes with a rhythm of its own, and many people find this rhythm and bassline very enjoyable without wanting a melody over the top. Or without finding room to fit a melody over the top. Both happen. (I like the rhythm and the melodies I can make. But it isn't for everyone - and I'm glad to see the Essentials Martial classes where the baseline is often a military march rather than Rock Opera).

Care to elaborate? What do you mean by "repeatedly bypassing the players"?

 

[P1NBACK]

The "Oh no you don't" is negating previously established fiction. You're writing with a bottle of tip-ex in your hand.

The established fiction is, "I try to shoot you in the face." It's never negated by saying, "Sure, you do, but I duck to avoid the blow."

This is not complex.

As they do in 4e. And any other game with a resolution mechanic including monopoly. But you're changing what you're arguing. The problem with dissasociated mechanics is that the fiction does not impact the mechanics, not the other way round.

Nah. Disassociated mechanics means the mechanics don't impact the fiction. That's why it's called disassociated mechanics and not disassociated fiction.

You're right though. This is a different argument than what we were talking about earlier.

So your argument is "I make a simplification because it's easier. Then find an edge case where it is dodgy."

Exactly. Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. You can't apply the rules to every situation without negating the fiction. In some cases, the grab attack won't function.

It doesn't have to be the DM being the final arbiter. Everyone at the table should generally agree. This is why I propose a discussion about the tone and color we're trying to project at the table. Anime or Tolkien?

As it happens, YES! I would! But given the size of the swarm and therefore that it's the best part of a tier above him, Aragorn is going to take his bloodied hit points or so in damage every round he starts his turn next to the swarm in addition to its normal attacks. And he's choosing to start next to the swarm. Aragorn grabs and blocks the front rank of the swarm - and the tidal wave of orcs goes crashing into him. He can hold it back briefly on a good day. He'll be unconscious by his next action on a bad one.

Yeah. See I wouldn't. The rules say that you can't grab a creature more than one size category larger. It makes sense fictionally. So, I'd go with that rule and not make up other penalties.

So the question is not "Would I let the grappler hold up the swarm?" It is "Would I let the grappler hold up the swarm for a few seconds to allow the hobbits to escape before he either had to run, bruised and bloodied, or was inevitably trampled under a tide of orcs wearing hobnail boots?" And the answer to that becomes "Why the hell not?"

Yeah. See. I'd just have them run from the gargantuan swarm, like they do in the movie.

Just because you are fine with hit points doesn't say a damn thing about whether or not hit points are a dissasociated mechanic. Which they are. One that is actively working against much fluff.

Nah. Abstract does not equal disassociated.

 

[AllisterH]

Here's a question:

Why is something like the 3e version of "Trip" seen as not abstract yet if it is an encounter power in 4e, it is considered one?

My problem has always been that I'm not sure "repeatable mechanics" like Trip actually ARE realistic and have any conncetion to a game world.

To me, they resemble old school videogames in that the AI/opponent is NOT a living thing.

I can more easily see how "Trip" is an encounter power since I can easily say to myself "once you use it, the opponent(s) are wise to your trick" versus the Trip-monkey syndome where the opponent falls for the SAME damn trick every time.

 

[CovertOps]

First let me say that...no I have never played Dogs so comments related to that are based on what has been said here. Second I caught up on the page and a half that I missed over the weekend after I posted the previous reply that I had mostly finished. Third, on the previous page Alex319 did a much better job of explaining the debate here.

The mechanics don't override the fiction. As LostSoul said, there's an "I try to..." that is implied in this instance. It's the stated fictional intent, just like when I say, "Well, I'm going to intimidate him..." You don't actually intimidate him until we determine the effect. But, you need to say your intent in order for us to resolve the fiction. It's all part of the resolution process in RPGs.

This is basics. I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that this is disassociated from the fiction. The "oh no you don't" is strictly fictional. You're missing a lot in your example though. In Dogs, it'd look like this (I've used 3rd person and highlighted the text to show you the fiction vs. the ooc - notice there is always fiction combined with the dice):

DM: Jim shoots you in the face! (pushes forward two dice)
Player: Oh no you don't! Sam ducks! (pushes forward two dice to match)
Player: And, after you miss, Sam draws his gun and fires back! (pushes forward two dice)
DM: Crap! I can't match those. Well, Jim takes the blow. (pushes forward 4 dice) You shoot him right in the chest. Blood starts pumping out in time to his heartbeat. It spills all over his white shirt. But, he's not dead yet...

It's not disassociated because the dice have a direct impact on the fiction and actions of my character.

For one, Dogs uses fortune-in-the-middle for its dice resolution. Meaning, you roll dice first, then resolve the fiction. 4E uses fortune-at-the-end, which means we describe what we do, then roll dice to determine the outcome. It's completely irrelevant to this conversation and might be confusing you.

Where you roll the dice doesn't really matter or mean that the "mechanics have trumped the fiction". That only happens when the mechanics mean nothing to the fiction. In this instance, the mechanics do mean something to the fiction (they always do in Dogs).

Since I have misunderstood how Dogs works, with your clarification I will say that this supports my "level of abstraction" comments. Since you weren't clear on that I'll try to clarify. In both Dogs (as I understand it) and in 4e the fiction is "I swing my sword at x target(s)". There is no difference between the systems in that regard. I'm using "abstract" the same way you're using "fortune-in-the-middle" vs. "fortune-at-the-end". I would also use this method to describe the change from 3e -> 4e between "full attack" where you roll multiple times (still with each attack being "fortune-at-the-end") vs. the 4e method where you just roll once and your (higher level) power does more damage. One goal of 4e (of the many) was a simplified/streamlined combat system (in comparison to 3e). There were many causalities of this process (full attack among them). A "fortune-in-the-middle" mechanic (if such a mechanic had existed in 3/3.5e) would also have been on the editing room floor.

The other reason that "level of abstraction" is appropriate to this situation is that your basic premise is that "I Twin Strike the orc" (mechanic) is not the same as "I swing both my swords at the orc" (fiction). I would argue that your premise ignores this stated goal of 4e (combat simplification) and that the two statements ARE in fact INTENDED TO BE the same exact thing. This however, apparently rubs you the wrong way for taste reasons (grabbing a swarm and skill usage aside for the moment...as I have said repeatedly - I personally am not arguing against the fiction requirements of skill usage).

Not in your game. In my game, I'd never use 100 or more minions in one encounter. I'd use a gargantuan swarm.

Let's just assume they were a swarm (because I can make them one in my game). Now, let's assume Aragorn was a brawler fighter. Should he be allowed to grab that swarm?

Lets face it. This is an obvious corner case. To quote a famous show..."He's dead Jim." I'm not sure here what you're trying to protest about. Is it the fact that you shouldn't be able to grab creatures that are much larger than you (in which case the swarm keyword has nothing to do with your position), OR are you trying to say that JUST swarms in general can't be grabbed (remembering that swarms being treated as a single creature is in and of itself an abstraction) OR perhaps both. That said, there are only two things that matter to me about this:
1) There is a build of fighter that relies on grabs in order to function correctly (mechanically).
2) If you're going to make it so you're limited to only grabbing Large and smaller size creatures then the players should know this before they build their PCs.

Beyond those 2 points it's all house rule territory and what do in your game doesn't matter to me. If I was sitting at your table I'd expect to either have the rules work as written OR be told ahead of time that you use a house rule regarding the Brawler build Fighter as part of the social contract. The rules have never been about corner cases like this. They are to ensure that when the players sit down they know what to expect (within reason).

Nah. Abstraction has nothing to do with it. I'm fine with "hit points".

4E hasn't made attacks do more damage to replicate "multiple" attacks. Look at the Ranger class for example. Twin Strike is two distinct attacks. Or, how about area attacks from Wizards? You make an attack roll for each target.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant.

These are just more examples of "level of abstraction". I hope the above cleared up what I mean by that. Twin Strike is going for a specific "flavor", but in general if you look at any class you'll see that the higher level an ability is the more damage it does. This "scaling" replaces "full attack" in general (again specific cases - such as Twin Strike - can break this "general" rule).

As for area attacks you haven't changed the amount of dice rolling going on, but merely changed who's rolling the dice. In 3e the caster would roll damage and each target would possibly make a saving throw or check magic resistance. In 4e you roll to hit each target (replaces saving throw) and magic resistance doesn't exist any more (simplification). The "Miss" line of a power replaces what happened if you "saved".

 

[P1NBACK]

I can more easily see how "Trip" is an encounter power since I can easily say to myself "once you use it, the opponent(s) are wise to your trick" versus the Trip-monkey syndome where the opponent falls for the SAME damn trick every time.

Yeah... No kidding... Like, melee basic attack shouldn't be "reusable" because I mean, like, once I use it, they are wise to me using it on them. MBA should be an encounter power, right?

We should have a unique power for each round of combat.

No.

Using your logic, what if I fight the same guy in two encounters? Does the trip encounter power I used in the first encounter not work because the opponent is "wise to my trick"?