Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.

[Hypersmurf]

Not to get too hooked into the example, but the point of it is to illustrate a set-up where a martial daily (trip, in this case) would be advantageous. Dude might have scissors for legs and be carrying a sack of cats, but I still need to rationalise it away solely because I used my "trip" power recently.

My preference as a player is for mechanics which support in-game character decisions which allow me to stay in the fiction. And I find the use of combat maneuvers as martial dailies breaks me out of that pretty easily.

But in the game where you might succeed at the Trip, you also might fail, right? And failure to Trip wouldn't break you out of the fiction?

If Tripping is the obvious in-character choice, but it's rendered mechanically unfeasible by the system (you've used your Daily), figure out your alternative option, and narrate a failed Trip as fluff surrounding your real action.

"I could see his position was precarious... problem was, he could see it too. The opportunity was juicy... that's why he was ready for it. So I gave him what he expected - aimed a boot for his knee. And when he shifted his weight - the obvious counter to the tackle - well, that's when I stabbed him in the face."

-Hyp.

 

[nnms]

What if we narrate that the fighter cuts the rope holding the chandelier aloft? The sorcerer glances up to see it plummeting towards him, and with scant inches to spare, dives clear as the chandelier crashes to the ground. The sorcerer rolls back to his knees... and realises, as the pommel of the fighter's sword smashes into his teeth, that diving towards the fighter might have been a hasty decision he'll come to regret...

How about instead the DM describes the room when the players enter it and if the players decide to cut the chandalier rope, it falls and then we figure out what happens?

What if we narrate that the fighter reaches down and yanks on the rug? The sorcerer, off-balance, stumbles forward to be clotheslined by the fighter's armoured forearm...

How about instead the DM describes the room when the players enter it and if the players decide to pull hard on the rug, we figure out what happens?

How about we don't necessitate the creation of situation elements as needed to explain things (be they rugs or ropes)?

What if we narrate that the fighter rolls forward through the barrage of magic missiles, snatches the sorcerer by his lapels, and hurls him ten feet to crash to the floor... before striding back over and stabbing him as he struggles back to his feet?

How about we then use the resolution system to determine if the grab and throw actually worked and apply those results?

Kevin Costner has narrative control via the use of the Power; Robin Hood, on the other hand, evaluates the position of the men and decides whether it's worth shooting two arrows. He doesn't know that they'll only line up nicely when Costner decides that they do, but when it happens, he recognises the opportunity to pull off the stunt.

-Hyp.

Or maybe the entire fight was story-boarded in advance and all the participants practiced it with the choreographer to get the results the writers/director/producer wanted beforehand.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, people who want to play "in the mind of the character" 100% of the time simply (apparently) accept that some people don't want to play this way. I've already been told at least once in this thread that I'm not roleplaying when I use dissociated mechanics. This is only true if you insist that roleplaying=being in the mind of the character 100% of the time.

Sorry, I enjoy other stances than actor stance on occasion and I always have. This is not something new to D&D - we've always had elements of non-actor stance. Primarily through the casters since they were given tacit permission by the game to break any and all rules regularly. Isn't one of the examples for the Wish spell that you gain levels? How exactly does that work?

The problem is, from the standpoint of results, you cannot distinguish direct from dissociated mechanics. It is absolutely impossible to tell after the fact. It's only if you want to roleplay process that you can tell the difference. Only thing is, the D&D mechanics don't let you roleplay process.

"I stab him in the eye!" is not something that ever works in D&D. Even "I try to stab him in the eye" doesn't really work since D&D HP's and combat is too abstract for that.

Meh, anyway, it doesn't really matter. AEDU mechanics are apparently here to stay. So, those who don't like it, simply excise those parts of your game and move on. Because, from the looks of the playtest and Mearl's response to the initial playtest (people apparently LOVED at-will casters), you are definitely going to lose out on this one.

/edit to add

How about we then use the resolution system to determine if the grab and throw actually worked and apply those results?

Because, when you start doing that, no one in their right mind will do anything that is not specifically detailed by the mechanics. If I have to determine my grab, then my throw, I have multiple chances to fail. My odds of failure become too high for the benefit gained and anyone with a reasonable grasp on mathematics will realize that.

Using meta-game mechanics means that I can immediately grasp my chances of success and I know the cost/benefits of attempting.

I so do not want to go back to the bad old days when every action that wasn't specifically delineated by the rules was automatically weaker and almost always had a lesser chance of success.

 

[nnms]

"I could see his position was precarious... problem was, he could see it too. The opportunity was juicy... that's why he was ready for it. So I gave him what he expected - aimed a boot for his knee. And when he shifted his weight - the obvious counter to the tackle - well, that's when I stabbed him in the face."

4E combat is already super slow without adding that sort of monologue in every time you need to justify why you're not doing what you want to because you're out of a metagame resource.

From what we've seen of 5E, there are far, far less egregious daily powers so far. We have an extra attack and a roll twice and take the highest. I think we can go further yet and completely excise them from the core and put them as optional modules.

 

[nnms]

The problem is, people who want to play "in the mind of the character" 100% of the time simply (apparently) accept that some people don't want to play this way. I've already been told at least once in this thread that I'm not roleplaying when I use dissociated mechanics. This is only true if you insist that roleplaying=being in the mind of the character 100% of the time.

Again, I think you misunderstood Rogue Agent's point.

It's not 100% of the time. It's in the individual moment of decision making.

The problem is, from the standpoint of results, you cannot distinguish direct from dissociated mechanics.

The instant you succeed at a task in one system that is impossible in another because you're out of your daily, you've produced a different result.

Meh, anyway, it doesn't really matter. AEDU mechanics are apparently here to stay. So, those who don't like it, simply excise those parts of your game and move on. Because, from the looks of the playtest and Mearl's response to the initial playtest (people apparently LOVED at-will casters), you are definitely going to lose out on this one.

This thread is not about spells. Could you please point out an encounter power? Seems to me that AEDU is mostly dead and replaced with at-wills and the occasional benign martial daily while restoring pre 4E spellcasting. I think we're discussing it's last vestiges in this thread, rather than it's successful adaptation into a new system.

Because, when you start doing that, no one in their right mind will do anything that is not specifically detailed by the mechanics. If I have to determine my grab, then my throw, I have multiple chances to fail. My odds of failure become too high for the benefit gained and anyone with a reasonable grasp on mathematics will realize that.

Why is this the case? I can easily cite multiple systems where someone's grappling success rate can be quite high with great odds of success even as a starting character. Even in OD&D, you might resolve it as a strength check or something.

I so do not want to go back to the bad old days when every action that wasn't specifically delineated by the rules was automatically weaker and almost always had a lesser chance of success.

And there are tons of people out there who don't want mechanics for everything they can attempt as it limits their options. They don't want to be reduced to pressing their encounter power buttons to change the situation and instead want to describe what they do in the light of the situation presented.

There are others who do want a rules set that describes how to resolve situations rather than delineates meta game powers. They too were unsatisfied with 4E.

The dissatisfaction with 4E's core approach is enough so that 4E had its product line slashed and then its replacement was announced. And here we are.

If WotC doesn't embrace modularity to the point where the game can support a more descriptive based approach alongside a meta game resource management approach, someone's going to get alienated.

I'm beginning to think that 5E may well be the last edition of D&D. I doubt it'll take back the top spot from Pathfinder. And even if it does, will it really be able to meet Hasbro's revenue expectations? How long until they shelve the brand if it doesn't merit investment at their level? Either way, I think we're already at a place where the era of the 800 pound gorilla is over.

 

[nnms]

I just wanted to add that I enjoyed playing and running 4E sometimes three times a week from the release on KotS until late 2011. It was at that time that the experience stopped appealing to me and I started looking for games designed to be story games from the ground up to fill that niche while more situation description circuit based games filled the void on the traditional side.

I was really hoping 5E would fit in there somewhere, but unless WotC starts cranking out modular stuff to show they really mean to accomplish what they hyped, I doubt it will work for me.

 

[OmegaMan950]

You can also try to belittle and dismiss those who care about having associated mechanics because they aren't important to you, but that tells us a lot about you and not much about the issue at hand.

I wanted to address this first. I apologize if I offended you, Rogue Agent, or anyone who holds to this side of the discussion. It was not my intention to offend anyone, and please believe me when I say that I look over my posts several times before submitting them to remove anything that I would deem passive aggressive or outright hostile or could be construed by other people.

Even though we disagree I still think everyone here can discuss things as civilized people and without being dismissive of the other side. I'll try harder in future posts.

Because a magic-user's spells aren't dissociated: The character knows that he prepared two fireball spells and can, therefore, only cast two fireball spells. The decision to use those fireball spells by the player is directly associated with the wizard's decision to cast them in the game world.

Everything in the game is abstract and metagamed to a degree, even the "Dissociated Mechanics" post on the Alexandrian agrees, but the memorization of spells breaks the 4th wall of the character. People have said that the memorization imprints a magical presence on the mind, but the abstract rules of 'this is a 3rd level spell on an abstract level, of which you Emrikol, can memorize only a limited time a day' and 'this metaphysical concept has been memorized twice'. The only thing I can think of here is that some players have accepted this odd method because of its traditional roots, and all editions prior to 4E have repeatedly used it and thus cemented its foundations into the player's mindset.

The Alexandrian quote goes:

Me: So what is this thing you’re doing?
Rogue: I’m performing a series of feints and lures, allowing me to maneuver my foe right where I want him.
Me: Nifty. So why can you only do that once per day?
Rogue: … I have no idea.

When the flipping this around we get

Rogue: Whoa, what was that?
Wizard: Using the bat guano and some hand movements, I was able to summon a ball of flame.
Rogue: Well, can you do it again?
Wizard: No because of an abstract system designed by outside agents, to which we are puppets, used to model a metaphysical system in which they have no means of relation to due to the natural laws and limitations of their world.

To me, it seems that caster dailies and martial dailies both break the rules of immersion in a roleplaying game.

You can try to dismiss that as just saying "it's magic", but it is the key distinction being discussed.

Communication breakdown here, my fault - When I ask other people why martial/melee dailies are bad and spell dailies are the good most people respond to me saying "because spells are magic" "martial dailies don't fell like D&D to me" and "because we didn't have martial dailies prior to 4E" - these responses are usually subjective or glib rather than objective or constructive, which is really important when discussing the mechanical issues in the game. You, Rogue Agent, have gone further than these other responders and I appreciate that.

 

[jadrax]

The Alexandrian quote goes: When the flipping this around we get To me, it seems that caster dailies and martial dailies both break the rules of immersion in a roleplaying game.

The difference is my wizard knows in character that he can only cast a spell once per day and knows why. My rogue not only can never know he can use trip once per day, but can also never know the reasoning behind it.

 

[FireLance]

The difference is my wizard knows in character that he can only cast a spell once per day and knows why. My rogue not only can never know he can use trip once per day, but can also never know the reasoning behind it.

I prefer to play it as the rogue knowing he can trip people once per day (or try to), but only once, and in order to do it again, he has to rest for a substantial period of time (coincidentally enough, about the same amount of time as it takes for the wizard to regain his spells).

Then, I will roleplay my rogue as coming up with all kinds of crazy theories why this is the case - maybe the specific muscles he uses to perform the maneuver become fatigued and need rest, or maybe it's mentally draining and he can summon up the mental focus and clarity that he needs to do so only once per day, or every time he performs the maneuver, he is expending some internal strength, or the complex physical actions he performs when he trips someone are actually the somatic components of a proto-spell of some sort, and he is secretly and unconsciously a type of magic-user.

Eventually, all the speculation drives him insane, he strikes a deal with mysterious entities from beyond the stars, and he multiclasses into Star Pact Warlock.

 

[pemerton]

I enjoy other stances than actor stance on occasion

It's even narrower than actor stance, I think. Actor stance is reconcileable with metagame boosts, for example - "I'll deploy my metagame boost now because my guy is trying really hard". It's not just stance, it's the process of reasoning. It's a repudiation of any metagame action resolution mechanic.

What puzzles me is that some people think this can be reconciled with hit points. What do they think reasoning about hit points remaining (be they mine, my friends', my foes')corresponds to in the gameworld?

(But see nnms below - suggesting that at least hit points don't interpose a very big gap.)

This was actually an example I used back in 2003 when explaining why I was taking a break from D&D and going to more gritty systems.

<snip>

From the very beginning there have been D&D players that have seen these issues as being problematic.

<snip>

The further the distance from the initial expression of desire to when the result is finally concretely discribed and added into the shared story, more it is problematic to those wanting a type of play that goes back to the Braunstein game in 1967 and which Gary Gygax largely abandoned in AD&D.

Your last paragraph is interesting. I'm not sure it's true to my experiences, but I'm not going to say it isn't either. And I believe it as an expression of your own experiences. For me, hit points can be pretty "de-immersifying" in a pretty short space of time. "I'll charge those archers - I'm at full hp, so I can take whatever they'll shoot at me." It may not take very long to resolve, but clearly it is not the player reasoning about the ingame situation and acting on that.

The other stuff I agree with completely. As soon as I learned about Rolemaster as an alternative high fantasy RPG to D&D, I jumped ship for all the same sorts of reasons that motivated Runequest.

What I like about 4e is that it takes all the metagamey stuff inherent to D&D and, for me, makes it consistent and makes it work. As well as passive stuff (hit points, saving throws) we have active stuff (action points, encounter and daily powers, etc).

I envisage that my 4e game will come to its conclusion in 2 or 3 years, and then I'm hoping my group will agree to play Burning Wheel for a bit at least. Which is somewhat RQ-ish mechanics (though on a different probability curve) but with "story game" stuff layered over the top.

The sort of game that I don't want to play is one like 3E or (perhaps - certainly as you describe it) AD&D, which is a sort of unstable mixture of gritty/simulation and gonzo/meta.

I just wanted to add that I enjoyed playing and running 4E sometimes three times a week from the release on KotS until late 2011. It was at that time that the experience stopped appealing to me and I started looking for games designed to be story games from the ground up to fill that niche while more situation description circuit based games filled the void on the traditional side.

4e works for me as a type of ground-up story game. This recent post is a good account of what I enjoy about 4e.

Or maybe the entire fight was story-boarded in advance and all the participants practiced it with the choreographer to get the results the writers/director/producer wanted beforehand.

I think this is a bit unfair. Contrary to what [MENTION=5]Mark[/MENTION]CMG suggested upthread, there's no correlation between metagame mechanics and railroading. From the point of view of control over the plot, things going or not going the player's way depending on what player resources are expended is no different from things going or not going the player's way depending on whether a die roll comes up high or low.