In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[wrecan]

Has anybody here really expressed concern for Zones of Truth and Walls of Iron affecting their own game (and not someone else's hypothetical game)?

That wasn't the issue. The issue was building a world consistent with the implications of the rules. You had made the claim that 4e was more difficult than 3e because improvising new rules is more difficult and I was pointing out that rules that already exist that could later be discovered to reaosnably alter the rules is also damaging and 3e has more of them. And so by way of example, I gave Zone of Truth, Wall of Iron, and Lyre of Building.

It doesn't matter whether anybody expressed a problem with them in play, because we're discussing world building and world building occurs before play. The DM builds a world consonant with the rules as they exist. Later, as he improvises rules, he improvises rules that fit his world.

Are you now dropping the whole worldbuilding point that you raised. I'd be thrilled as you still haven't expressed how this relates to the issue of dissociation.

You introduced the Wall of Iron so that you could make a point against a claim that doesn't exist on this thread.

So you didn't make a comparison about the ease of world-building between 3e and 4e?

 

[wrecan]

Did I kill the Prince? No! (The Prince fell onto a dagger; the fall together with the dagger killed the prince.

So in your view Zone of Truth because no statement is ever really untrue from someone's philosophical sense? So you've just house ruled Zone of Truth out of the game. Doesn't that prove the point that it affects campaign worlds if you have to got o these absurd lengths to avoid ti from having an effect on the world?

Looking at the Wall of Iron example, there is still the need to carve up the wall into usable pieces.

Fabricate can be cast by the same wizard who summoned the Wall of Iron. And it costs nothing.

Also, as a 6'th level spell, that gives you a 11'th level wizard, whom is rare in some environments.

As I said, under the demographics charts, every king's court would have one. And one is all you need to dramatically and permanently alter an economy into something resembling no economy in any historical fantasy world that D&D is supposed to be mimicking.

there is a lot that is world breaking in this regard.

Yes! In 3e, there is a lot that is world-breaking. As I said, I only gave a handful of examples. Decanters of endless water, elementals, candles of invocation, and numerous other items, spells and creatures cause all sorts of havoc with any attempt to create a recognizable magical fantasy world.

Generally, if you push too far in these lines, the game rather breaks.

3e does indeed break if you try to build a world around the rules as written. In 4e, magic is rare. Rituals are quickly beyond the reach of even kings. By the time adventurers have access to these rituals, they are at the Paragon Tier, and are supposed to be world-breaking. It would be difficult to break a world using only the rituals and powers available to Heroic characters.

 

[Yesway Jose]

You had made the claim that 4e was more difficult than 3e because improvising new rules is more difficult and I was pointing out that rules that already exist that could later be discovered to reaosnably alter the rules is also damaging and 3e has more of them. And so by way of example, I gave Zone of Truth, Wall of Iron, and Lyre of Building.
<snip>
So you didn't make a comparison about the ease of world-building between 3e and 4e?

I stated my opinion that "I don't think it's fair to state that 4E is better than or is exempt from 3E-like problems in terms of worldbuilding".

If you provide 3 anectodes, it doesn't prove otherwise, much less change my opinion.

Is your counterargument to tally/quantify all the many hidden problems in 3E, and then numerically compare to all the hidden problems in any one real or hypothetical 4E game world, and then prove that A > B? If so, you have a long way to go.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Generally, if you push too far in these lines, the game rather breaks. Then you are back to more of a question of player expectations: How does a player expect teleport to work? What do players find is "reasonable" for game abilities?

Good post! I'm pretty much a "spirit of the rules" kind of guy, and not likely to tolerate an extreme on the other side for very long (or them tolerate me--doesn't matter which way, we won't be gaming together). So I can make anything work, with the kind of group for which I'll actually run a game.

So from a practical point of view, I see the main question is not what the players find reasonable, but how and when they want to draw the lines.

That is, if the group rather likes that "rules as physics" style I mentioned a few posts back, but aren't hardcore unreasonable about it, then the whole point is to push up to the edge of reasonable without going over. That's part of the social contract at such a table. They might tolerate fabricate tricks as a one-time gimmick to make some critical money for whatever main quest they had, but it is understood that the game is about the main quest, not making money.

Or you might have a group like mine, that doesn't want to push up to the edge on the letter of the rules. They want to engage the narrative (the story about that main quest), with a general understanding that rules gimmicks by and large don't work. There isn't, automatically, any oddball things like fabricate--unless and until such are established in the fiction. Making that critical money to support the main quest will probably be some harebrain mercantile scheme based on a fictionally established shortage of halfing wigs in a local town.

The former rewards system mastery. The latter rewards narrative mastery. That is, in the most generous intrepretation of both, the former rewards marrying system mastery with observed game situation, while the latter reward marrying narrative mastery with observed game situation. The premium put on remembering (through notes, actual memory, or whatever) prior established game situation is, I think, somewhat different in the two styles as well. But I'm not as sure of that, and it might be an independent element.

 

[wrecan]

I stated my opinion that "I don't think it's fair to state that 4E is better than or is exempt from 3E-like problems in terms of worldbuilding".

Do you have a basis for that opinion? Because I was responding to it by showing how 4e is exempt from one aspect: it doesn't have built-in mechanics that break worlds in the way that 3e does. To show 3e does I gave a handful of examples. If you want to show that 4e has similar problems, be my guest. I've looked and didn't see them. But just a you never saw issues with Zones of Truth, Lyres of Building, Fabricate Spells, Wall of Iron Spells, Decanters of Endless Water, Candles of Invocation, Make Whole spells, and other issues, maybe I've missed it in 4e. Since it's your opinion, it's up to you to find a counter, rather than demanding that I prove the negative (i.e., prove that 4e has no hidden problems).

Is your counterargument to tally/quantify all the many hidden problems in 3E, and then numerically compare to all the hidden problems in any one real or hypothetical 4E game world, and then prove that A > B? If so, you have a long way to go.

Actually, since I don't see any "hidden problems in any one real or hypothetical 4E game world", B=0, and since I've alread shown A>0, then by the transitive property, A>B. QED.

Now, feel free to counter this with an equal or greater number of hidden but existing worldbuilding problems in the 4e rules system.

 

[prosfilaes]

Actually, since I don't see any "hidden problems in any one real or hypothetical 4E game world", B=0, and since I've alread shown A>0, then by the transitive property, A>B. QED.

What happens to the economy when a dragon's hoard gets dropped on it? What happens when any rogue can open a lock? How do gnomes get along with humans without the first exterminating the latter? How do Roman Catholic priests work in your world (since getting rid of masons from some sort of real world simulacrum matters, sure so would getting rid of RC priests?)

 

[tomBitonti]

What I've seen in 3E, for example, when I tried to make some extra gold by finding the relative supply and demand between Sharn and the Lhazar Principality, when the party was planning to teleport from the former to the latter, was general refusal of the other players and GM to entertain the idea. They rather flatly declined to allow my player to engage in such trade. Partly because my player didn't have any skill at commerce, and partly because they just didn't want to go there. That is in spite of our players being often short on ready cash. But they had a point: Our characters were mercenaries of high renown, not simple commercemen!

That makes the answer, in 3E, "just don't go there". Which is unsatisfying, depending on how you want to play the game.

In 4E, though, I have to say, the rules simply take away the explanation. To "is it magic" I hear "don't ask", or "maybe, but it doesn't matter".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How do gnomes get along with humans without the first exterminating the latter?

This is one of those questions that "Man Was Not Meant To Know". You ought to be ashamed for bringing it up in this peaceful topic. All I know, is if an elder god shows up at your house tonight, don't come crying to me for help.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That makes the answer, in 3E, "just don't go there". Which is unsatisfying, depending on how you want to play the game.

In 4E, though, I have to say, the rules simply take away the explanation. To "is it magic" I hear "don't ask", or "maybe, but it doesn't matter".

I'm not sure I fully follow what you are saying here, but to the extent that I have it, I'd say the 4E answer is not that it doesn't matter, but "If it matters to you, you decide." That "if" is important.

This is analogous to how I already handled all kinds of details in the game, 4E, 3E, and previous. If a player wants to know, and I don't have a preference, I get them to tell me the answer. It is not as if the little half-elven girl apples had no name before the player named her. In the fictional world, she has always had a name. Whether provided by a player or me at the moment, or me earlier, or a published module--is immaterial.

From a narrative point of view, "how and why things work," is just another detail. It might matter now, that someone has cared enough to ask. It didn't matter until then. And critically, the explanation is not presumed to be binding on another campaign, let alone another table.

 

[BryonD]

If the PC build rules allowed for a 1x/day play an "I win" card, and this was the only reliable way for a PC to win, then I can see how a pattern might emerge. Even if there was such a card, and it wasn't the only way to win, I can see how a pattern might emerge, although it would perhaps be a less evident pattern.

You keep going back to how you can hide the pattern under narrative descriptions. And, yet again, I agree that you can.

But the situation for 4e martial PCs (at least, the builds I'm familiar with) isn't even like this. There is no 1x/day "I win" card. Dailies change the odds, and do interesting things, but the vagaries of the dice, in combination with the interpretive complexities of hit points as a resolution mechanic, break the pattern in the fiction.

The pattern is not at the encounter level, the pattern is at the action level. The "I win" comments completely miss the point.

As players using the 4E system you are implementing a pattern based on use of daily and encounter powers that are established on such frequency not for any narrative merit, but purely for "gamist" expediency.

The ability to hide the pattern does nothing to remove the pattern and not having a pattern is a preferable option if the narrative is your ultimate objective and is not subject to gamist concerns. (Again, I'm not saying that your gamist focused activities are not 1,000 times more awesome than my narrative focused ones)

But I'm starting to think you are not addressing the issue fairly. Just before you clearly stated that you agreed there were patterns, but it wasn't important because the cycle of them was not frequent enough to notice. I point out that the players have already noticed the pattern so the cycle period isn't relevant and suddenly the pattern isn't there.

Also, your defense is built on the position that out of this vast list of power the reason a pattern can not be observed is that they are indistinguishable from one another. And, I'll admit, if in your games the daily powers are routinely unremarkable from at-wills then you probably won't observe a pattern. I will STILL be there because everyone at the table knows when a daily is use, it just won't be relevant. So I'll concede irrelevant as close enough. However, you have now described a game I find even less attractive. So I don't think that helps.

Right. But this doesn't seem to be a pattern in the fiction. It's a pattern in the gameplay. I can definitely see the metagame wedge that is at odds with simulationist preferences. But I can't see any pattern in the narrative.

The term I've used before is "pop-quiz" roleplaying. I've also called it the narrative being the slave of the mechanics. You are building a narrative that fits the mechanical obligations. And no matter how well you disguise the unintelligent monsters just always happen to pick the CAGI fighter, you are telling a story that reflects the underlying pattern in gameplay.