D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Neonchameleon]

1: I think some people are misunderstanding the word 'disassociated'. I've even seen a recent blog post by Keith Baker where he compares "Simulationism" in direct contrast to disassociated mechanics. It's a false dichotomy - and I think it's being used here also. Disassociated mechanics aren't mechanics that are "abstract". They are rules that function entirely outside of the realm of fiction. Abstract =/= Disassociated (although it can). Simulationist =/= Associated (although it can).

Abstract =/= Disassociated. But it can. And at a game design level DiTV is. But it's a light enough game that you treat it that way and you lose almost all of the game. So you don't.

Simulationist games are seldom disassociated. But it depends what you are simulating - if it's not relevant then that's how they become disassociated.

3: Many of us consider parts of 4E disassociated (in some ways, mostly in combat) because there are portions of the game where what you are imagining can have no bearing on what is happening with the real world cues (dice, maps, figures, condition markers, etc...). You can literally play a 4E combat using no fiction, no imagined events.

Walls are fiction. Pits are fiction. Pushes are imagined events. To take all the fiction out of 4e would involve fighting on flat featureless planes with no forced movement powers.

5: If you haven't played Dogs in the Vineyard. Buy it. It's cheap. And, play it. You'll see what LostSoul and I mean when we say the game breaks down when there is no imagined events. It's really the game that opened up my mind about what an RPG can do and how to not only play, but how to GM.

It is. And I second the recommendation.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the mechanics are disassociated. So far the only mechanic you've come up with that simply doesn't drop out if you want to play it purely mechanically is what intensity bid you are making on a four point scale. And that because at a mechanical level it is very slightly obfuscated by the fiction. The rules say that this value (even numbers 4-10) must be declared as fiction and that's the only reason it must be fiction.

The fiction provides the impetus to keep going and the rules are simple enough to provide a framework for resolving conflicts, and a framework for excellent detailed narratives of them. That they do this in a way that is theoretically almost entirely disassociated in no way reduces their utility.

But the two games have a different amount of depth. If you largely disassociate 4e then it can remain fun. If you treat DiTV as being disassociated rather than splice the rules to the narrative personally then you might as well just go home.

 

[Hussar]

3: Many of us consider parts of 4E disassociated (in some ways, mostly in combat) because there are portions of the game where what you are imagining can have no bearing on what is happening with the real world cues (dice, maps, figures, condition markers, etc...). You can literally play a 4E combat using no fiction, no imagined events. All those things are dice on the right and they can directly ignore the clouds on the left. You can play it exactly like you can play HeroQuest (a boardgame). This is why Dogs is entirely associated. You simply cannot play it without imagining what is going on in the fiction - and it has to be communicated to everyone clearly at the table so that they can apply the rules correctly.

Fair enough for an Indie game like DitV. But, what version of D&D couldn't you play exactly like this? In every version of D&D, you stand next to your opponent and throw dice at them until they fall down with absolutely no requirement for any sort of in game fiction.

Seems a bit strange to complain about it now.

 

[CovertOps]

3: Many of us consider parts of 4E disassociated (in some ways, mostly in combat) because there are portions of the game where what you are imagining can have no bearing on what is happening with the real world cues (dice, maps, figures, condition markers, etc...). You can literally play a 4E combat using no fiction, no imagined events. All those things are dice on the right and they can directly ignore the clouds on the left. You can play it exactly like you can play HeroQuest (a boardgame). This is why Dogs is entirely associated. You simply cannot play it without imagining what is going on in the fiction - and it has to be communicated to everyone clearly at the table so that they can apply the rules correctly.

Pretending for a moment that you have proven that 4e IS disassociated, you can't then use that fact to then make any assertion about Dogs. That's like saying "My favorite flavor of Ice Cream is vanilla, therefore chocolate sucks!".

What I've been saying all along is that when in 4e you use a power that IS the fiction. The same is true for Dogs. You can imagine all you want that you shot that guy in the face, but it didn't really happen until the mechanics says it happens.

That 4 point scale (4-10) is no different from "what weapon am I using?"

 

[Hussar]

Just so's that I've got it clear in my mind.

Is it ok to say that D&D places the fiction after the dice are rolled and DitV puts the fiction before the dice are rolled?

In other words, the dice DitV don't necessarily determine the outcome of an action, they determine how effective an action was. Whereas in D&D, the dice are almost always used to determine whether or not an action occurs at all.

In DitV, I can state, "I shoot him in the face", and I WILL shoot him in the face. Whether or not that actually kills him, depends on the dice.

In D&D, I can state, "I try to hit him in the face" and whether or not I connect and how effective the blow is, depends on the dice.

Is that accurate?

 

[P1NBACK]

Pretending for a moment that you have proven that 4e IS disassociated, you can't then use that fact to then make any assertion about Dogs. That's like saying "My favorite flavor of Ice Cream is vanilla, therefore chocolate sucks!".

What I've been saying all along is that when in 4e you use a power that IS the fiction. The same is true for Dogs. You can imagine all you want that you shot that guy in the face, but it didn't really happen until the mechanics says it happens.

That 4 point scale (4-10) is no different from "what weapon am I using?"

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but my first instinct is to say, "I like vanilla and chocolate."

Using a 4E power is not the fiction. I disagree with that. It can produce fiction, if we describe it (most people here are arguing against description). What weapon I am using and my "At-Will 1st Level Attack Power" are two different things.

Just so's that I've got it clear in my mind.

Is it ok to say that D&D places the fiction after the dice are rolled and DitV puts the fiction before the dice are rolled?

No. You roll all the dice before you determine the fiction in Dogs. Literally.

In 4E, I announce my intent, "I lunge at him striking both my swords on either side of his neck..." Then, we determine what happens. I roll a d20, and whether it's a success or a failure we determine the effect.

In other words, the dice DitV don't necessarily determine the outcome of an action, they determine how effective an action was. Whereas in D&D, the dice are almost always used to determine whether or not an action occurs at all.

I'm kind of confused because "outcome" and "effect" are usually used interchangeably. Do you mean "intent" and "effect"?

In D&D, dice are never used to determine whether an action occurs. I say, "I climb up the wall..." When do I roll dice? Not until the DM says, "Ok. The DC to climb the wall is 15, give me an Athletics check."

So, my action began before we rolled dice. Then, we determine how effective my action was. Intent (to climb the wall), the DM acknowledges that with an "Ok." meaning, I (my character) begins to climb the wall. Then, the DM wants to determine how effective I was at climbg. So, he sets a DC and I roll the dice. We look at the dice and determine success or failure. I rolled an 18. So, the DM says, "Yeah, you climb up and over the wall." The effect.

In DitV, I can state, "I shoot him in the face", and I WILL shoot him in the face. Whether or not that actually kills him, depends on the dice.

In D&D, I can state, "I try to hit him in the face" and whether or not I connect and how effective the blow is, depends on the dice.

Is that accurate?

Not quite accurate.

You will try to shoot him in the face. It's the same as saying, "I stab him" in D&D. You are trying to stab him. Only, in Dogs, you push forward the dice (roll beforehand) before you announce your action. In D&D, you roll afterward.

Let's do two examples:

Dogs.

The setup. We're outside my brother, Sam, his barn. He's got his wife, Molly, snatched up by the hair. He caught her cheating and he's got a big shotgun to her head. We set the stakes, "Does he let Molly go?"

I could talk to him, but I don't wanna. I want go in guns blazing. I roll my "gun fighting dice" which is maybe 5d6 and 2d6+1d4 (for my gun). I roll a 3, 2, 5, 1, 1 and a 6, 2, 1. Right? I order my dice from highest to lowest. I have 6, 5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1.

Notice I've rolled my dice before I decided to "do" anything. The only thing we've determined is what arena we're in (guns) because he's got a gun and I'm planning on using my gun. At first, at least.

I push forward two dice. A 6 and a 5. That's a total of 11. That's my "attack roll" called a Raise in dogs (poker style yah?). The dice have been rolled. I can't say, "I attack!" That's a player action right?

So, I say, "I draw my gun and shoot the shotgun right out of his hands." I describe my attack fictionally. That's my character's action.

The GM then looks at his dice. He has 3 options, he can Reverse the Blow (but only if he has one single die that can match 11), or he can See/block (by pushing forward two dice of his own that match 11), or he can Take the Blow (if he has to use three or more dice to match my 11).

Let's go with the See/block. Because, this is the example where the "I shoot him..." does not mean you WILL shoot him just because you are saying you want to.

So, the GM looks at his dice. He has two 6s. Easily blocks my 11 I put forward. So, he pushes forward his two sixes. Oh no, he says. Sam blocks that crap. But, how? We gotta know how. "I block" just isn't good enough. So, the GM describes, "Just as you draw your gun, Sam spins Molly in front of him and pushes her out toward you, using her as cover. You stop before you fire knowing you'll hit her if you do." Sam just blocked.

So, "I shoot his shotgun out of his hand..." gets blocked (much like in D&D I can block your attack with a shield or something). Because it wasn't "I shoot his shotgun..." it was "I try to shoot his shotgun..."

Right? With me so far?

Let's do D&D.

We're outside the barn still. Sam's not there. But, Molly is. She's got a kobold leader there holding her captive. He's got a rusty blade against her throat. What's the stakes? I don't know. Kill the kobold and save the girl? We don't determine those. But, I'm dead set on not talking to this kobold (hell, I don't speak Draconic anyways). So, instead I want to attack, swords blazing. We roll initiative or whatever, and let's assume I win.

No dice have been rolled. Instead, I look at my sheet and I've got these At-Will powers. One of them is called Iron Tide or whatever. I know that pushing the kobold will end his grab on Molly. Say, I say, "I move 5 squares up to the kobold and I use Iron Tide." (not, I try to use Iron Tide...) Using Iron Tide is not a fictional action. It's a player action. Fictionally, it might be, "I slam my shield against the kobold hoping to release his grasp on Molly." But, I don't have to say that. Not like in Dogs. I don't need to say that for the action to be resolved.

Then, we determine what dice we use. A d20 yeah? It's Str vs. Fort or something right? So, I roll a d20 and get a 5 plus my Str and modifiers and all that. Let's say, +6. So, I get an 11. I tell the DM. The DM has two options. Either the attack hits or misses. He says, well, the kobold's got a 14 Fort, so you definitely miss.

So, what's the difference? Not as much as you're thinking.

1. In both system, "I do this..." has an unstated "try" in there. I use Iron Tide. I shoot the shotgun out of his hands. Neither one goes through unless the dice say so. In 4E, it's my attack roll dice vs. his static defense. In Dogs, it's my attack dice vs. his block dice. Not really much difference in resolution. The reason we don't have to say "I try" is because most of the time those fictional actions will just happen. "I walk over to the man..." I don't have to say, "I try to walk over to the man..." Not unless... Someone is trying to block me. Right? "I walk over to the man..." Wait! I stop him. You do? Yeah... "I grab his shoulder before he gets out of reach..." That's what dice are for in RPGs. They're to resolve differences of what we want to happen in the fiction. If I want to walk over to the man, and you want to stop me. Well, we've got a difference of opinion right? But, if you don't want to stop me, we just continue with play. We all agree it happens. And, so it does.

2. In Dogs, we roll the dice before we determine our intent. In 4E, we roll the dice after we've determined our intent.

3. In Dogs, the fiction is required to go on. In 4E, the fiction can be ignored entirely.

Does this help?

Honestly, there's a lot more nuances that you need to know in Dogs. Like, when we have a conflict, we're not determining how effective our actions are. We're determining how effective we are at reaching the stakes.

Just explaining the dice resolution mechanics isn't going to give you the whole picture here. The best you can do for yourself to really understand the differences is pick up a copy of Dogs and play the game for yourself as a one-shot or something.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks for the info. That's interesting.

I'm kind of confused because "outcome" and "effect" are usually used interchangeably. Do you mean "intent" and "effect"?

In D&D, dice are never used to determine whether an action occurs. I say, "I climb up the wall..." When do I roll dice? Not until the DM says, "Ok. The DC to climb the wall is 15, give me an Athletics check."

So, my action began before we rolled dice. Then, we determine how effective my action was. Intent (to climb the wall), the DM acknowledges that with an "Ok." meaning, I (my character) begins to climb the wall. Then, the DM wants to determine how effective I was at climbg. So, he sets a DC and I roll the dice. We look at the dice and determine success or failure. I rolled an 18. So, the DM says, "Yeah, you climb up and over the wall." The effect.

See, I think this right here is where we have a fundamental breakdown.

No, your action didn't start until you rolled the dice. Until such time as you rolled the result, you have no idea what actually happens in the game world. Other than, I suppose, walking over to the wall and spitting on your hands. Those things aren't controlled by the dice anyway.

But, at no point did you actually start to climb that wall until you rolled the dice.

In the same way, you never made any sort of attack until such time as you roll the dice.

The narrative in D&D always comes after the dice are rolled, never before.

In earlier editions, a round was a full minute and during that time, it was assumed that you were moving around, changing position, feinting, and doing all those other sword fighty things.

But those things had zero effect on the mechanics. Nothing I said would change the fact that I have a +X to hit and the bad guy has an AC of Y.

About the closest I can get to having the narrative affect the mechanics is while using a skill, the rules allow for the DM to award a +2 to my check. That's about it. It doesn't matter if I narrate going up the wall carefully or leaping up it Jackie Chan style. My chances remain exactly the same.

And, until I roll the dice, I don't actually do anything. That's always been true in D&D. The narrative comes after the action is mechanically resolved, not before. There is nothing in D&D that allows me to affect mechanical resolution with in game fiction.

Why is 4e being singled out here?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Now. Let's do Dogs in the Vineyard in the disassociated style.

I say "Guns." I push forward a 6 and a 5.

The DM looks at that and pushes back two 6s.

Absolutely nothing has changed mechanically. The mechanics still hold and are complete. And what do we know about what happened? Someone used a gun. And failed. In the entire description given, that was the only mechanically relevant part.

Let's compare with the disassociated 4e example. (And I assume you meant Tide of Iron, not Iron Tide).

What can we see from there? Someone carrying a shield closed in on the kobold fast, then tried to use the shield to drive the kobold backwards and away from Molly, breaking his grip and attacking the kobold as they did so. We have a bare bones narrative that comes just from the mechanics. And a much bigger one than "Guns." Block. This is why DiTV has disassociated mechanics and 4e does not.

 

[P1NBACK]

Absolutely nothing has changed mechanically. The mechanics still hold and are complete. And what do we know about what happened? Someone used a gun. And failed. In the entire description given, that was the only mechanically relevant part.

Except, "guns" isn't a description of what your character is doing. Therefore, the DM can't push forward two dice because she doesn't know what dice to push forward or what traits she can bring into play, etc... etc...

At this point, I'm happy to say that you don't get it Neonchameleon. Clearly, something is wrong if both LostSoul, myself and Vincent Baker are on a totally different page than you are.

 

[MrMyth]

Using a 4E power is not the fiction. I disagree with that. It can produce fiction, if we describe it (most people here are arguing against description).

I'm not sure if most people are actually arguing against description. Well, ok, Hussar did at the start of this discussion, but the person in the actual original example, Tony Vargas, then went to on to note that he did indeed give a description of the scene.

But fair enough - let's say you can indeed reduce the game to a series of rolls, and the description is not required as it is in Dogs in the Vineyard.

Yet... that's the case for most games, isn't it? If that's what it takes for a mechanic to be fully disassociated, is this any different for the majority of mechanics of every version of D&D out there, as well as the bulk of most RPGs in existence?

So just to clarify - do you feel that the same is true every other edition of D&D (in which you could walk up to a monster, say, "I roll a 17", or "I hit AC -4 for 6 damage" or "DC 16 Reflex or take 13 fire damage") and that all versions of D&D "are more like a board game and less like a roleplaying game"?

 

[P1NBACK]

Thanks for the info. That's interesting.

See, I think this right here is where we have a fundamental breakdown.

No, your action didn't start until you rolled the dice. Until such time as you rolled the result, you have no idea what actually happens in the game world. Other than, I suppose, walking over to the wall and spitting on your hands. Those things aren't controlled by the dice anyway.

But, at no point did you actually start to climb that wall until you rolled the dice.

In the same way, you never made any sort of attack until such time as you roll the dice.

The narrative in D&D always comes after the dice are rolled, never before.

In earlier editions, a round was a full minute and during that time, it was assumed that you were moving around, changing position, feinting, and doing all those other sword fighty things.

But those things had zero effect on the mechanics. Nothing I said would change the fact that I have a +X to hit and the bad guy has an AC of Y.

About the closest I can get to having the narrative affect the mechanics is while using a skill, the rules allow for the DM to award a +2 to my check. That's about it. It doesn't matter if I narrate going up the wall carefully or leaping up it Jackie Chan style. My chances remain exactly the same.

And, until I roll the dice, I don't actually do anything. That's always been true in D&D. The narrative comes after the action is mechanically resolved, not before. There is nothing in D&D that allows me to affect mechanical resolution with in game fiction.

Why is 4e being singled out here?

See, I disagree. I think you are doing something, or trying to do something as soon as you say your character is.

If I say, "My character swings his sword at the kobold!" I'm doing something at that point.

Then, we roll dice to determine how that action is resolved. Do I hit the kobold? Do I miss the kobold? If I hit, how much damage do I deal? Do I push him when I hit? etc...

Certainly though, I don't say, "Alright... I'm gonna roll this d20. Ok, got a 15. Hmmm. I'll attack with my Iron Tide now! That's a +6, so I got a 21. Does that hit?"

Do you do this in your D&D game? I don't know anyone who plays D&D this way. Not one person in my lifetime (and I've played D&D with dozens of people, literally).

No. It goes like this usually:

I swing my sword at the kobold.
Ok, roll your attack.
Ok, I got a 15 + 6. That's a 21. Do I hit?
Yup! You hit. How much damage?
8 damage.
Ok, he's down to 4 hit points.

All the mechanical stuff happens after I determine I am swinging my sword at the kobold.

Maybe you play differently? Do you let your players roll the dice then determine what action they are taking? Does it go like this:

I rolled a 15 + 6. That's a 21.
Ok, what do you do?
Well, I swing my sword at the kobold.
Awesome! You hit!

If so, that's a far cry from how I've seen D&D played.

As far as fictional stuff not changing things mechanically in D&D, in some cases it certainly does! I knock him down! Sweet, you get a +2 to attack a guy who's lying down. I get behind him! Sweet, you get a +2 for flanking. I hide! And, then, when he walks by without noticing me, I spring out and attack him! Great! You get a +2 to attack and bonus damage for attacking from concealment.

Those are associated mechanics in D&D. They are fictional things that allow a character to get mechanical advantages.

What about your wall example? What if I... go get a ladder? Does that help my chances? What if I... use a grappling hook and tie a knotted rope? Does that help my chances? In my game it does.