In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Neonchameleon]

That's a good thing for me! That's what great sci-fi is all about -- imagining how technology transforms society. Most D&D did a bad job of it, but the potential was there and it could be fun to explore.

It could be. But that only gives you an extremely limited number of worlds. In fact the only published one I can think of that did that was Eberron. Many of the other D&D worlds (Dark Sun and Planescape being obvious cases) really had to fight hard against the ruleset.

How does 4E handle this -- because it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong -- that spells only work in a certain way in the heat of combat, and then are either undefined or don't work at all outside of combat, which still leaves the DMs and players at loss to figure out how that fits into worldbuilding.

Saying spells only work a certain way in the heat of combat to me says about as much as saying guns only work a certain way in the heat of combat. Which is true - and most RPG stats cover guns for combat purposes. The spells that aren't barely controlled displays of raw magical force, designed to be set off in only a few seconds and allowing the wizard to keep an eye on the people trying to stab him are mostly rituals. Rituals take a minute or more to cast, some financial cost as well, and are open to anyone with the right feat (which certain classes like Wizards get for free). It's normally the dribbly candles and incense approach and it's entirely possible for the party fighter to be as good at rituals as the party wizard (unlikely, but possible).

And rituals can be brought into world building without being as overwhelming as 3e magic.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Now from an outside perspective, it doesn't seem as if Bry or Yesway wants to entertain any other stance than what they decided upon entering the thread, and I'm not certain anyone else really does either.

Speaking for myself only, just on the previous page, I stated that the same picture can look like a young lady or an old hag, not to mention a number of previous statements about the subjectivity of it all.

I'm not sure what more you expect of me, other than asking me give up altogether.

Note that other posters, like innerdude and timbitoni, also mentioned issues of "disassociation" and the only reason they're not being singled out in your post is because they're not as stubborn as me. Likewise, there is a handle of equally stubborn forum users like pemertron, etc.

This has been one of the most civil discussions of this nature that I can remember, and I thought we were doing just fine, even if the results are unsatisfyling circular.

 

[Mallus]

But from the people sitting at the table's point of view, the ones who are there to have fun, the daily is a daily. The difference in result is not the effect of fate on otherwise equivalent activities.

Hypothetical question: what if the 4e martial Encounter/Daily power effects were made part of a critical hit system? They now occur as the result of a random die roll, instead of player choice. The chart is set up, given an average expected number of encounters, to produce an equivalent number (and intensity) of critical hits/effects per level as the 4e Encounter/Daily powers schedule.

Would that work better for you? There's still a pattern, in fact, on average, the same pattern.

And a new reader also would not. But after a dozen times, maybe more, maybe less, the reader would learn. And on going back to re-read the book, it would stick out like a sore thumb from the first instance. Players already know.

Always bet on Captain Kirk in a fistfight.

In a pure narrative an awesome event could happen four times in a row then not for three days of trying.

Untrue. In all the pure narratives I'm familiar with, awesome events occur a) when the author decides they should, and 2) when they're dramatically (or perhaps comically) appropriate.

 

[Yesway Jose]

You are wrong. Anything in combat can work out of combat. Not all things that work out of combat can work in combat because combat is divided into discrete six-second rounds that presume a certain amount of adrenalin induced concentration on survival, and many things one does out of combat requires more than six seconds and/or a certain degree of self-composure unavailable to combatants in the heat of the moment.

It did work like that in every previous edition of D&D and other fantasy RPGs. Your interpretation above is simply that, a subjective interpretation of fiction.

Now I don't disagree that adrenaline and time constraints would not change what a character could do in combat. But IMO 4E does so more starkly in a way I cannot agree with. For example, in older editions, there were spells with 1 full round casting time that would be disrupted with a hit, and 4E doesn't allow for that AFAIK.

So, to bring back the Hypnotism spell you so enjoy. A wizard who knows this spell can cast a spell every few seconds that (assuming the wizard overcomes the victim's will) causes someone within 50 feet of the wizard (if the wizard knows the victim's approximate location and there are no large physical barriers like walls between them) to move up to 15 feet, or to try to hit someone with whatever the victim has at hand. The wizard can do this in or out of combat (though if he chooses the "attack" option, we're probably entering combat).

So a wizard has the time to say "attack" but not the time to say "fall down"?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You can tell the difference between a true argument and this false circling by the pattern. Bry and Yesway will defend their points and the others theirs, and then on ENWorld, the edition camps will defend their points and the others theirs, until... until... Well, there's a depressing notion. It'll never end.

Sure it will. It ends when all the people doing it are getting nothing out of it or get too tired to continue or both. It seems to go revolving more than it is because people are dropping out for awhile and then getting back in.

And besides the civility that Yesway just noted (remarkable given the passion demonstrated in the arguments thus far), I'll repeat an earlier observation: The value is not in the main argument or winning or convincing someone. The value is in the peripheral stuff that gets touched on, understood, learned, appreciated, etc. It would be nice to get all of the good stuff without the big central argument, but I don't think it works that way. The big central argument has been allowed to hide that other stuff frequently, but you don't get to the other, useful stuff by totally ignoring the big elephant on the gaming table, especially when the elephant has been eating miniatures, pooping on character sheets, and generally making a complete nuisance of himself.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The value is not in the main argument or winning or convincing someone. The value is in the peripheral stuff that gets touched on, understood, learned, appreciated, etc. It would be nice to get all of the good stuff without the big central argument, but I don't think it works that way. The big central argument has been allowed to hide that other stuff frequently, but you don't get to the other, useful stuff by totally ignoring the big elephant on the gaming table, especially when the elephant has been eating miniatures, pooping on character sheets, and generally making a complete nuisance of himself.

You must spread XP around...

 

[wrecan]

It did work like that in every previous edition of D&D and other fantasy RPGs.

Agreed.

Your interpretation above is simply that, a subjective interpretation of fiction.

My explanation is an interpretation, but, as you said, it's the same interpretation that has applied to all the prior editions to explain why something that can be done out of combat can't be done in combat, so I think it's a pretty reasonable interpretation. Feel free to substitute any interpretation that makes more sense to you.

IMO 4E does so more starkly in a way I cannot agree with.

Okay. As I said, the mechanics that cause someone to feel dissociated from a game are going to be personal to each.

So a wizard has the time to say "attack" but not the time to say "fall down"?

A wizard can fall down in combat. In fact, I'm pretty sure a wizard can attack and fall down all in the same turn.

 

[Yesway Jose]

My explanation is an interpretation, but, as you said, it's the same interpretation that has applied to all the prior editions to explain why something that can be done out of combat can't be done in combat, so I think it's a pretty reasonable interpretation. Feel free to substitute any interpretation that makes more sense to you.

To rephrase, there were things you could do in previous editions (ie., full round casting) that are not permissible in 4E, even though the fictional interpretation is the same. I never said the interpretation was unreasonable, I questioned that your interpretation invalidates my comment to Neonchameleon about worldbuilding or distinguishes the 4E combat paradigm from 3E.

A wizard can fall down in combat. In fact, I'm pretty sure a wizard can attack and fall down all in the same turn.

I meant the wizard can[not] hypnotize the target to fall down. (Specifically, the wizard says [telepathically to the target] "fall down", not the player to the wizard).

 

[wrecan]

To rephrase, there were things you could do in previous editions (ie., full round casting) that are not permissible in 4E

Yesway, you asked people to correct you if you were wrong about there being things you could do in 4e in combat that you cannot do in 4e out of combat. I corrected you, as you requested.

Now you are raising a different point about whether there are things possible in combat in prior editions that are not possible in 4e. And I'd be happy to answer you, but first I'd like to make sure you understand the correction I gave you on your prior point.

I questioned that your interpretation invalidates my comment to Neonchameleon about worldbuilding or distinguishes the 4E combat paradigm from 3E.

My interpretation was only color to the actual answer: there is nothing you can do in 4e in combat that you can't do out of combat.

I meant the wizard can[not] hypnotize the target to fall down.

Not with the hypnotism power, no. But that's true in and out of combat. If you want a spell that makes a target become prone, then take Horrid Whispers, Phantom Chasm, or any of the many other powers with the psychic keyword that knocks people prone.

But please keep in mind that the point you now appear to be making is unrelated to the initial point of whether there are things you can do in combat in 4e that you can't do out of combat in 4e.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Now you are raising a different point about whether there are things possible in combat in prior editions that are not possible in 4e.

My point was "...which still leaves the DMs and players at loss to figure out how that fits into worldbuilding". Powers that are defined out-of-combat by their in-combat application (which only applies with adrenaline and time constraints) does not help me with worldbuilding. Thus not making 4E any easier than 3E in the original discussion with Neonchamelon about 3E powers like Zone of Truth, etc. which is the original point.