In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[BryonD]

I can't imagine playing 3E and forgetting that the rules exist.

I'm not saying that I forget the rules exist. I'm saying the systems I like I built with making the rules as low profile on the active play as possible. In 4E the idea is that the rules specifically impose themselves.

What can I say? - I agree with wrecan on this. I don't think that there is a sufficient chance for the pattern to emerge in the course of actual play, especially when there is so much overlap of effects for a typically-built PC (because 4e, like 3E, favours specialised builds).

I already spoke to this point.

If you are reading a book it could certainly take a very long time to discover the pattern. But once you did you would know it was there every time it showed up. If you later went back and reread the book, you would notice the pattern from the very first event.

In 4E, you already know the pattern is there. The pattern has emerged before you sit down to the table the first time.

 

[Hussar]

But, BryonD, the games, any edition, are full of patterns. Like, how random encounters only occur at specified intervals, or that surprisingly enough, you never (or at least almost never) meet elder dragons at first level or your characters generally have roughly the right amount of wealth for their level - you don't find Vorpal swords in a 1st level adventure forex.

These patterns exist because we're playing a game. Why specifically call out this one pattern as being too much? Particularly when the patterns are virtually indistinguishable from simply using random tables for critical effects or the like.

 

[pemerton]

In 4E, you already know the pattern is there. The pattern has emerged before you sit down to the table the first time.

At this point I really want actual play examples, or at least actual build examples.

I posted a precis of the polearm fighter in my game upthread. That character has three encounter powers, plus one or two dailies, that are close bursts. He has a slide at-will power (Footwork Lure), a pull encounter power (Come and Get It) which can also be used as a close burst even if no targets are pulled, and a push daily power (something-or-other The Battlefield). Footwork Lure also permits him to shift, and he has an encounter power that allows him to attack two targets with a shift in-between (Passing Attack).

He has an Athletics bonus of +14 - so can climb and jump pretty well - and he has an encounter power that enhnaces this and also permits him to ignore difficult terrain (which may or may not be relevant on any given occasin that he uses the power).

There is no pattern! This is a character who can attack multiple foes, move them about on the battlefield, stop them moving (whether via Come and Get It, Footwork Lure or a fighter's Combat Superiority on opportunity attacks), and move himself. In any given combat, it plays out differently, both fictionally and mechanically. For example, sometime Passing Attack is obviously different from a close burst - but not always (for example, if there are two foes adjacent, and he attacks both, and doesn't shift between the attacks).
Sometime Passing Attack is no different from Footwork Lure - attack one opponent, hit, shift, miss another opponent - to the observers in the fiction, this is no different from attack using Footwork Lure, hit, shift, choose (for whatever reason) not to slide, and then fail to hit another opponent (in this latter case the second miss is of course automatic, because no attack roll is permitted).

The ranger in the same game is similar. He uses Twin Strike, Biting Volley (which is an encounter Twin Strike that targets Reflex, adds stats to damage, and crits on an 18+) and Attacks on the Run (which is a daily Twin Strike for multiple damage dice and half damage on a miss, that also permits movement - but he doesn't always move when he uses this power). And he has an interrupt - Disruptive Shot - that is more bow fire.

Within the fiction, all this character is doing is shooting arrows - many of them, very quickly - and dealing more or less damage.

What is the pattern? What sorts of martial builds do you have in mind? (I assume that magic-using patterns are acceptable on roughly Vancian grounds.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In 4E, you already know the pattern is there. The pattern has emerged before you sit down to the table the first time.

I think I finally understand one of the areas in which we are not getting each other's point of view. If I get the kind of pattern you mean, the reason it doesn't stick out for me in 4E is that those kinds of patterns are there in every game I have ever played--usually before I sit down to play. AD&D 1E was probably the last time it wasn't immediately obvious, and that was as much because I was learning the system at 14, as any other reason.

 

[Hussar]

Just to add to Pemerton's point. My fighter has now had 4 combats. In those four combats, he used Come and Get It once, Sweeping Blow twice (both encounter powers) and, one use of a couple of dailies. He did not use one of his dailies before the final rest.

In other words, every combat has been different and different powers have been used.

In a system where, by even fairly low levels - say 8th or 9th - you have about a dozen different effects, more than half of which are encounter or at-will powers, the odds that you will actually see any sort of pattern emerge is pretty small.

Never minding, of course, that by Paragon tier, you begin replacing encounter and daily powers with newer powers, so any pattern that was recognized before that would be broken simply by the fact that you don't actually use the same powers from 1st to 30th level.

Isn't it funny though. 3e gets a free pass despite the fact that many combats will run very, very similarly - move and single attack, shift and full attack until the baddy falls down - a pattern that is easily recognizable to anyone who's played any amount of 3e. But 4e, despite having many, many more in combat options for every character, will have a noticeable pattern emerge.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Neither Clancey nor Lovecraft used externally imposed patterns on the plot elements of their narratives. I don't want those (amongst other specific elements of 4E) in my preferred RPG experience.

Honestly, in my experience, 4e has the lowest weight of externally imposed patterns that are relevant to the plot in any version of D&D. 3e has the highest - the magic system warps worlds, and the crafting system is arguably even worse. In 4e, most PC magic is combat magic - that's a direct alternative to swinging a sword. And most of the parts that aren't (rituals) cost strategic resources for a tactical benefit. The magic isn't as worldbreaking, and the items aren't (see the Decanter of Endless Water vs its 4e equivalent).

And just to take one illustration, 2e Dark Sun was an excellent world. Evocative. Fun. And needed to perform absolute contortions in order to get it to run under the 2e rules. In 4e it just drops in. You ban the divine power source and add weapon breakage rules and defiling rules. It's trivial. (And the 4e defiling temptation mechanic is a much better match for the fluff than the 2e "Preservers have an xp track like this, Defilers have an xp track like that").

 

[Yesway Jose]

These patterns exist because we're playing a game. Why specifically call out this one pattern as being too much? Particularly when the patterns are virtually indistinguishable from simply using random tables for critical effects or the like.

Yes, there's something to be said for 3E patterns that are expected to crop up by the player, but there's something to be said for 4E patterns like the length and breadth of combat and the structure of a game day that self-regulates to resource management of healing surges and encounter/dailies. In-game and metagame cliches are rampant.

There's something to be said for the "feel" of patterns that emerge naturally from probablities to match the pleasant surprise of the character when it happens once or more vs those that are imposed by a God-like Author like a fate that you predicted in advance and waiting impatiently for it to happen only once.

Yes, there's something to be said for years of tolerance to old school patterns, but there's something to be said for a pattern that emerges in when you read it in the rulebook and you refuse to play the game and you go off to Pathfinder etc and annoy the heck out of 4E fans on forums.

There's something to be said for a rule that reads "the sun rises and sets 1/day" vs "your character can do this 1/day and each day you must figure out why and each day you must agree and self-conform to this outcome".

Yes, there's also something to be said for actual gameplay in which the noise of player choice and multiple options obscures the individual patterns.

There's also something to be said for a mechanic that reads 'your PC can do this 1/day' vs 'your PC can do this successfully 1/day' vs 'you can use this mechanic 1/day' and clarifying the differences in published books isn't give the time of the day.

I'm not trying to prove anything, and I'm purposefully leaving the "something to be said" unsaid. But there are many expectations and factors in play here. I don't think it's fair to say there's no difference and all things are equal. We can all look at the same picture and see a young lady or an old hag.

 

[BryonD]

At this point I really want actual play examples, or at least actual build examples.

I posted a precis of the polearm fighter in my game upthread. That character has three encounter powers, plus one or two dailies, that are close bursts. He has a slide at-will power (Footwork Lure), a pull encounter power (Come and Get It) which can also be used as a close burst even if no targets are pulled, and a push daily power (something-or-other The Battlefield). Footwork Lure also permits him to shift, and he has an encounter power that allows him to attack two targets with a shift in-between (Passing Attack).

He has an Athletics bonus of +14 - so can climb and jump pretty well - and he has an encounter power that enhnaces this and also permits him to ignore difficult terrain (which may or may not be relevant on any given occasin that he uses the power).

There is no pattern!

Yes there is.

He can do a lot of things that ignore the patterns. At will and simple skill use CERTAINLY don't have this issue. But the encounter powers and the daily powers have a pattern. And those are very important parts of the character.

Your counter-argument is to simply point out that not everything is a slave to the pattern. I agree with that, but it is not relevant.

I won't try to put any number of the portion of time that daily and encounter powers come into play. But it would be silly to claim they are not significant.

For a very charitable sake of argument, lets just call it 10%. I'll strongly prefer 0%.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly, in my experience, 4e has the lowest weight of externally imposed patterns that are relevant to the plot in any version of D&D. 3e has the highest - the magic system warps worlds, and the crafting system is arguably even worse. In 4e, most PC magic is combat magic - that's a direct alternative to swinging a sword. And most of the parts that aren't (rituals) cost strategic resources for a tactical benefit. The magic isn't as worldbreaking, and the items aren't (see the Decanter of Endless Water vs its 4e equivalent).

OK, so being constrained to doing something daily, with the only option being to choose to not use the power at all is not a pattern.

I'd be perfectly happy to agree with you that there are problems with the 3E RAW crafting system. And magic is very potent in 3E. Agreed.

I will also agree that 3E takes more skill to run well. If you are having troubles with 3E then absolutely a different game will be better for you. I don't remotely claim that 3E is the game for everyone.

But, nothing you have said demonstrates a mechanically mandated pattern on the narrative built using the 3E system and nothing you have said challenges the idea that the 4E system dictates patterns into the narratives creating using it.

 

[pemerton]

Yes there is.

He can do a lot of things that ignore the patterns. At will and simple skill use CERTAINLY don't have this issue. But the encounter powers and the daily powers have a pattern. And those are very important parts of the character.

Your counter-argument is to simply point out that not everything is a slave to the pattern. I agree with that, but it is not relevant.

I won't try to put any number of the portion of time that daily and encounter powers come into play. But it would be silly to claim they are not significant.

For a very charitable sake of argument, lets just call it 10%. I'll strongly prefer 0%.

I think you may have misunderstood, but I'm not sure. So I'll have another go - if you haven't misunderstood, maybe you could be clearer in explaining what exactly you see the pattern as being. (Maybe I've misunderstood, or missed something!)

With the archer, in respect of which the encounters and dailies are just more bowfire - where is the pattern? Arrows are shot, some hit, some wound, some kill - within the fiction, what exactly is the pattern?

With the halberdeer, the encounters and dailies are more complex - but with the overlapping abilities to attack multiple foes, move them, stop them, etc, I again want to know - what is the pattern in the fiction that "breaks the fourth wall"?

Of course for the players of the game there is a pattern - I use this power once per encounter, this power once per X encounters (where X i= 3 to 5 or so, depending on the daily encounter rate). But I don't see the pattern within the fiction - because these various mechancial techniques are different metagame routes to a coherent and cohesive fiction.

I can see how the metagame/ingame split might be disruptive to a certain sort of simulationist sensibility, and perhaps to a certain sort of immersive play. But I'm having trouble seeing how the split manifests itself in the form of an intolerable pattern in the fiction.

EDIT: This is the particular claim that I am finding puzzling:

nothing you have said challenges the idea that the 4E system dictates patterns into the narratives creating using it.

I'm assuming here that "narratives created" refers to the fiction. And I'm just not seeing where these patterns in the fiction (as opposed to at the game playing table) are occurring.