Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Well, it isn't the first time we had to agree to disagree, and probably won't be the last, either. Usually, we can get to understanding but disagreeing, but no one promised that would always be the case. 
Last edited:
Yesway Jose
First Post
Time for a thought experiment?
At your next game session, a mind-reading neutral observer sits quietly in a very tall chair at the very corner of the room with a pen and pad of paper. (You may politely offer a drink, but otherwise are not permitted to interact with him/her, as to not introduce any bias into the experiment).
The observer assigns 1 point any time one of the following occurs:
- a player invokes a game mechanic as a direct result of a perceived fiction (ie., enemy is standing on a rug, so I'd like to use a Str check to pull the rug out from under him)
- a player refrains from using a game mechanic, despite the mechanic being legitimate or even optimal, because the imagined effect is perceived as lacking plausibility (ie., a zombie knocking a hydra prone)
In order to average out all the variances (such as subjective perceptions and tolerances for associating mechanics to fiction, per individual and per game mechanic), this experiment would theoretically be repeated across thousands of gaming groups and sessions.
The goal of this thought experiment will be to strip away all the rationalizations and observe how games are actually being played out in practice.
Would anyone hazard an hypothesis: if games like checkers and Monopoly will score zero points, and pure story-telling games will score maximum points, then a RPG system or edition that scores higher than another would mean....?
At your next game session, a mind-reading neutral observer sits quietly in a very tall chair at the very corner of the room with a pen and pad of paper. (You may politely offer a drink, but otherwise are not permitted to interact with him/her, as to not introduce any bias into the experiment).
The observer assigns 1 point any time one of the following occurs:
- a player invokes a game mechanic as a direct result of a perceived fiction (ie., enemy is standing on a rug, so I'd like to use a Str check to pull the rug out from under him)
- a player refrains from using a game mechanic, despite the mechanic being legitimate or even optimal, because the imagined effect is perceived as lacking plausibility (ie., a zombie knocking a hydra prone)
In order to average out all the variances (such as subjective perceptions and tolerances for associating mechanics to fiction, per individual and per game mechanic), this experiment would theoretically be repeated across thousands of gaming groups and sessions.
The goal of this thought experiment will be to strip away all the rationalizations and observe how games are actually being played out in practice.
Would anyone hazard an hypothesis: if games like checkers and Monopoly will score zero points, and pure story-telling games will score maximum points, then a RPG system or edition that scores higher than another would mean....?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
As evidenced by their lack of ability to avoid that death blow as well as they could when they were fresher. And that works well enough for me. There's all sorts of conflicting evidence about whether a person really enters a death spiral due to injury, particularly in a single fight where adrenaline may hide all ills. Implementing one in the rules may actually be anti-simulative.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I'll hazard a different one. There will be shown a high causality between a given person and points. People that score high will tend to always score high, and vice versa. There will also be a weaker but noticable correlation with systems. Some of this will be shown to be preferences at work--people gravitating to something that suits their methods.
Further testing, where the same individuals are retested with many different systems, will show that the correlation is definitely there (across the study), but subject to odd spikes in subsets of people. That is, there is no smooth system continuum, but a wave function.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
But if this is case, why can't the ankheg breathe a 15' foot line after 3 hours?
tomBitonti
Hero
An (unfair) example?
I thought I'd spend a moment reviewing the foremost example from The Alexandrian:
I'm thinking that the analysis slides off the mark: The elephant in the room here is the actual effect, not that it is a daily power.
You can make a separate analysis of whether you can accept daily or encounter powers, and make a decision about what powers "work" as either a daily or as an encounter.
I find that the power is defined too strongly in terms of abstracted game mechanics. That is, the trigger (an attack) and the result (a slide) are too game centric. To emphasize the point:
While you may find the initial effect acceptable, what do you think about this updated effect? There is a matter of degree here, with some folks finding the core example (Trick Strike) as funny as (Knight's Coup), while others are fine with both.
Note the difference between the similar but limited bull rush from 3E: Bull rush can be used "at will" but has a lesser effect, and has a more finely tuned effect chance (opposed strength, instead of an attack roll). I'm not aware of a use of feint that allows you to cause an opponent to move.
I think the problem here is really that one can reject the idea that a rogue's attack could produce this effect. That's what happens for me. I grok bull rush (a person pushing another back), but not this effect.
Tom Bitonti
I thought I'd spend a moment reviewing the foremost example from The Alexandrian:
TheAlexandrian said:
I'm thinking that the analysis slides off the mark: The elephant in the room here is the actual effect, not that it is a daily power.
You can make a separate analysis of whether you can accept daily or encounter powers, and make a decision about what powers "work" as either a daily or as an encounter.
I find that the power is defined too strongly in terms of abstracted game mechanics. That is, the trigger (an attack) and the result (a slide) are too game centric. To emphasize the point:
Me said:
While you may find the initial effect acceptable, what do you think about this updated effect? There is a matter of degree here, with some folks finding the core example (Trick Strike) as funny as (Knight's Coup), while others are fine with both.
Note the difference between the similar but limited bull rush from 3E: Bull rush can be used "at will" but has a lesser effect, and has a more finely tuned effect chance (opposed strength, instead of an attack roll). I'm not aware of a use of feint that allows you to cause an opponent to move.
I think the problem here is really that one can reject the idea that a rogue's attack could produce this effect. That's what happens for me. I grok bull rush (a person pushing another back), but not this effect.
Tom Bitonti
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Yesway, your tack reminded me of a similarly off-beat slant I had on the "hit point versus assassination attempt" issue that was raised much earlier in the topic:
To preserve the main value of hit points (i.e. pacing and plot protection due to various elements presumed of the character such as toughness, luck, etc.), while allowing for the single "knife to the throat" kind of resolution, would it make sense to have hit point depleting abilities that involve stalking or otherwise setting up the target? And if so, can you provide these abilities in ways that are going to satisfy various peoples' requirements for relation to the fiction?
In 4E terms, I suppose this would be a rogue power (or similar) that produces hit point "damage" on a target, but is:
1. Dependent on sneaking, trickery, or the like, and
2. Negated if the final attack misses.
For a 3E version, I suppose this would be something like sneak dice that are accumulated over time with skill checks, and apply to the first attack delivered against the target, with surprise.
Those implementations are fairly rough, but I needed some kind of example. Anyway, if we take hit points as envisioned above, it would seem to make sense that something other than physical attacks can pull them down. Presumably, also, the target gets to act in his round to somehow "fight back" without the character actually knowing he is a target at that moment. This seems a rather trickier issue to satisfy for the "disassociated" crowd than the rogue itself.
OTOH, if RC is right and I'm wrong about the possiblities of embracing the theory, then this would seem to be an area where 4E is failing to pursue an avenue of its design that is unique to it.
To preserve the main value of hit points (i.e. pacing and plot protection due to various elements presumed of the character such as toughness, luck, etc.), while allowing for the single "knife to the throat" kind of resolution, would it make sense to have hit point depleting abilities that involve stalking or otherwise setting up the target? And if so, can you provide these abilities in ways that are going to satisfy various peoples' requirements for relation to the fiction?
In 4E terms, I suppose this would be a rogue power (or similar) that produces hit point "damage" on a target, but is:
1. Dependent on sneaking, trickery, or the like, and
2. Negated if the final attack misses.
For a 3E version, I suppose this would be something like sneak dice that are accumulated over time with skill checks, and apply to the first attack delivered against the target, with surprise.
Those implementations are fairly rough, but I needed some kind of example. Anyway, if we take hit points as envisioned above, it would seem to make sense that something other than physical attacks can pull them down. Presumably, also, the target gets to act in his round to somehow "fight back" without the character actually knowing he is a target at that moment. This seems a rather trickier issue to satisfy for the "disassociated" crowd than the rogue itself.
OTOH, if RC is right and I'm wrong about the possiblities of embracing the theory, then this would seem to be an area where 4E is failing to pursue an avenue of its design that is unique to it.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I think one of the ideas behind 4e was a perception (I'm not going to say its true, but you must admit that there was at least the perception) that in 3e combatants had a tendency of standing in one place duking it out. The designers wanted to see more movement this time around, and so it was expected that 4e combat would be a constantly moving affair. So you see a lot of movement based powers, both allowing you to move without opportunity attacks and to move others.
Part of the idea of all the forced movement is that this movement is already going on. You're just guiding their movement with your abilities, using their own momentum to get them where you want them to go instead. It's an idea based on a constantly shifting battlefield.
Nowhere is this stated in the rules. Nowhere in the PHB would you get this idea. It relies on several design intents that may or may not be true in actual play from group to group. Yay! But, that is, I believe, what the designers intended based on the comments I've pieced together from when 4e was released.
That's not me trying to get you to accept it or find it more realistic or whatever. I just thought its an interesting bit of trivia into why 4e has all these movement inducing effects. It's just the designers wanting a particularly movement-friendly battlefield. Whether they succeeded or not is up for debate (thought hopefully not in this thread)
.
Last edited:
Yesway Jose
First Post
Right, so there's no single bell curve, and that there's no "average" person? OK, so let's say there are 3 subsets: Group A scores highest, Group B is average, and Group C scores the lowest.I'll hazard a different one. There will be shown a high causality between a given person and points. People that score high will tend to always score high, and vice versa. There will also be a weaker but noticable correlation with systems. Some of this will be shown to be preferences at work--people gravitating to something that suits their methods.
Further testing, where the same individuals are retested with many different systems, will show that the correlation is definitely there (across the study), but subject to odd spikes in subsets of people. That is, there is no smooth system continuum, but a wave function.
Game A scores the highest and Game B scores the lowest.
Game A probably has a disproportionate number of Group A. Game B probably has a disproportionate number of Group C. So then isolate Group B and see if they score higher with Game A or Game B.
So then, in this highly theoretical thought experiment, if there's a significant difference, than one game encourages the "average" person to score higher than in the other game.
Did I get that right? I only took statistics in one university course a long time ago.
Similar Threads
