D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[JamesonCourage]

To make it clear that author stance isn't some radical infliltration of RPGing by evil "dissociators", but rather has been a completely banal and accepted technique of play ever since RPGing started. (I mean, look at descriptions of early Gygax and Arneson play - author-stance decisions all over the place!)

Just because it's been around for a long time, it doesn't mean it'll be wanted in the game. This is true of pretty much any approach to gaming.

That is, yes, it's a way to participate (and roleplay) in an RPG. To people that like as much immersion as possible, this method often hurts their experience. To people less bound to that style (which is just a Fun issue), this method can help move their game along in interesting ways.

This leads me back to... okay? Yes, that is another style of how to play the game. I'm missing why "there are other ways to play the game" needs to be established, since I imagine that everyone who is willing to reasonably discuss things already knows this (and those that aren't willing to reasonably discuss things have no hope of being convinced that there are other styles).

I get the "it" just fine, but I'm still missing the "why" of why "it" needs to be expressed. That switching between stances works for some people, and doesn't for others. Excessive (subjective as that is) metagame mechanics don't work for some people, but do for others (who don't consider it excessive). And on and on we could go (with the "dissociated" debate just being a facet of this). There are different ways to play the game; is that the point? Who does this need to be made to?

I mentioned hit points already: hit points include knowledge of how lucky you will be in the next fight. How does a PC know this about him-/herself? (My answer: s/he doesn't. Hit points are a metagame mechanic.)

Perhaps this is why there's such a huge disagreement over hit points represent, or what they should represent, or how they should be altered (my HP/THP divide, or others using W/VP, etc.). It's not like everyone is "hit points are fine" or agree with your definition of hit points; we've all seen the hit point threads.

Sure. But that's going to get objections from the "dissociated" crowd, I think.

I think the point of my comment was to try to indicate that this anti-"dissociation" thing is a very strict constraint on PC building and PC characterisation. It's much stricter than just confining people to actor stance:

Oh, is your objection that this style of play is more strict than other styles?

A requirement that every mechanical operation and element correlate to some incharacter decision is hugely strong, and rules out hit points (other than as meat), initiative and turn-by-turn action sequences (unless you envisage the gameworld as a stop motion one). And also AD&D-style saving throws, which in some cases are more like "luck rolls" than evasion rolls.

Initiative is how fast I react in relation to others; it's an abstraction, and my character can certainly observe some people reacting faster than others. I'd say that a lot of the "dissociation" complaints are often confused for abstraction, from my perspective. They're different things (even if I don't prefer to use the term "dissociated").

As far as I can tell, yes, that is the issue. It's not about stance - because you don't need to leave actor stance to think "Now's the time I'd really like to strike a killer blow!". It's about metagame mechanics that (i) permit the player to determine outcomes within the gameworld without directly modelling the ingame causal process that produces that outcome, and (ii) that do not correspond to any decision taken by the PC. (Number (i) on its own is too strong, because it would rule out "crit on a natural 20", which doesn't really model any ingame causal process either. Number (ii) is, I think, where the threat to immersion is seen to lie.)

I tend to agree with this assessment (though you'd have a ton of people quibble with your assessment of what a critical hit represents, just like your assessment of hit points).

So, you're GMing a Marvel Super Heroes game where someone is playing Cyclops. How do you react to that player attempting to swing across the room on a chandelier?

And if you have a player who frequently goes off character to do this sort of thing, you may have accept that he kind of sucks at that sort of immersion. He may be fun with certain kinds of characters, but if he keeps building more controlled characters and keeps going off his own character narrative, he may be the kind of player a group might not want to invite over.

I agree with bill91. If he's interested in that style of immersion, then he shouldn't be playing a character whose capabilities line up with what he wants. This problem (for those who see it as such) is entirely avoidable. If it's not a problem (not having those goals align), then let him attempt to jump on the chandelier, no questions asked.

My point was, originally, that given a fairly average situation with a middle of the road DM and player and character, events like this are almost never "in character".

I can't make any judgments on about the average DM playing with the average player playing the average character. I can say that what you're describing as "almost never 'in character'" is completely a social contract issue, and it doesn't permeate my game night. So, this "almost never" might be true for you, but it's not for me (and I doubt either of us can speak for groups at large).

From a character standpoint, stunts are last desperate efforts because nothing else is going to save your bacon.

... for some characters, as was pointed out a bit back.

From a player standpoint, stunts are cool and should be tried as often as possible.

... for some players. Not for most of mine, unless it's in-character for them to act that way.

The whole "play outside the box" approach to gaming is generally outside of actor stance. After all, the character is inside the box. The character IS the box. It's the player's attempt to circumvent the box that makes it an out of character action in the first place.

I disagree with this characterization of what the "box" is, and that acting outside of it is universally encouraged. You're describing more social contract agreements. Acting outside the "box" might mean acting outside of realistic expectations (but not outside character expectations, or genre expectations, etc.). I get that your group (and many others, undoubtedly) work differently, but I'm not sure where the generalizations are coming from.

And we applaud players for it. Players that never try anything but what is on the character sheet are boring.

I'd like to point out that stunts can be explicitly defined within the rules.

We want people to try crazy stuff because that's what gaming stories are made of. No one remembers that hit for 6 points of damage. They do remember when you surfed down the stairs on a shield and plonked two orcs while doing so. (granted, that particular example was pretty much in character for Leggylass, who had be established as a pretty acrobatic combatant previously. But, without some sort of AEDU framework? Good luck playing that character)

Depends on the character/RPG. My RPG is able to handle immense abuse when it comes to making a character work. So (unfortunately), stair-surfing is definitely doable for my RPG. On the other hand, my players talk about different things that "stunts" that they pulled off, though some "stunt" stuff is still talked about. There's a lot of different things to talk about, from politically maneuvering (by the seat of their pants) to take over three cities as warlords, or crashing one sailing ship into another, to combo-attacking Vecna's avatar with their "signature" moves (Sorcerer using Dimension Door to move himself and the Cleric to the avatar, Cleric of Pelor using Heal on the Lich, and the Fighter charging the avatar with a sword [a Sunblade] to finish it off).

There's a lot of things that get talked about in other ways, too, though they were less exciting and more... involved? Blake finding his wife again; Brock (the Cleric of Pelor) dealing with his son (a Cleric of Nerull) and finally converting him; Nicholas dealing with his brother on their many interactions (and the kinda tragic ending to it); Liteer finishing his training from his mentor, and looking back on what he'd accomplished; Gargek getting killed, and his (NPC) apprentice taking it very hard, but making him much more devoted to his studies; etc.

Your group likes stunts, and does them as much as possible. I imagine Balesir might play similarly. It's just not universal, though. As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

Or, he might be what is known as an instigator and can be a ton of fun to have in the group because he isn't so hung up on role playing as "serious business". Your group might not want to invite him over, but, generally speaking, he's always welcome at my table.

When play styles clash, they clash. Get rid of the oddball that causes the clash. Did you really have to insert the "serious business" spin? Or is a more immersive style of play badwrongfun now?

Now, different DM's will react to this differently. I've had DM's who will shut this type of play down simply by making any attempt like this fail, or at least have very high probabilities of failure. Which means that the players won't try stunts and whatnot because it almost never works, unless, of course, the character is built with this in mind in the first place. Other DM's roll with it, love the cool factor and are much more willing to gloss over things like "is this really in character" or "is this fitting with my genre" to such a strong degree.

My point was, originally, that given a fairly average situation with a middle of the road DM and player and character, events like this are almost never "in character". From a character standpoint, stunts are last desperate efforts because nothing else is going to save your bacon. From a player standpoint, stunts are cool and should be tried as often as possible. The whole "play outside the box" approach to gaming is generally outside of actor stance. After all, the character is inside the box. The character IS the box. It's the player's attempt to circumvent the box that makes it an out of character action in the first place.

Not everyone's going to agree with the rule of cool making for great or memorable games. So pick a DM whose style is compatible your own.

And we applaud players for it. Players that never try anything but what is on the character sheet are boring. We want people to try crazy stuff because that's what gaming stories are made of. No one remembers that hit for 6 points of damage.

Depends on the crazy stuff. We remember the cannibal dwarf burning down the orphanage too, but that's one of the things that got our instigator disinvited to play.

They do remember when you surfed down the stairs on a shield and plonked two orcs while doing so. (granted, that particular example was pretty much in character for Leggylass, who had be established as a pretty acrobatic combatant previously. But, without some sort of AEDU framework? Good luck playing that character)

IS that maneuver in the AEDU framework? Or would it make more sense to run it with the page 42 table, which is not actually in the AEDU framework? What's wrong with making a balance check in 3e to surf down the stairs on a shield?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This leads me back to... okay? Yes, that is another style of how to play the game. I'm missing why "there are other ways to play the game" needs to be established, since I imagine that everyone who is willing to reasonably discuss things already knows this (and those that aren't willing to reasonably discuss things have no hope of being convinced that there are other styles).

I get the "it" just fine, but I'm still missing the "why" of why "it" needs to be expressed. That switching between stances works for some people, and doesn't for others. Excessive (subjective as that is) metagame mechanics don't work for some people, but do for others (who don't consider it excessive). And on and on we could go (with the "dissociated" debate just being a facet of this). There are different ways to play the game; is that the point? Who does this need to be made to?

The edition wars have shown that people can be quite intolerant of people who play D&D differently. As a result, that people play differently needs to be stated again and again.

Oh, is your objection that this style of play is more strict than other styles?

No, the objection is against people who state or imply that particular style(or any other style for that matter) defines D&D to the exclusion of other styles. An argument/implication that has been repeatedly made in this very thread.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The edition wars have shown that people can be quite intolerant of people who play D&D differently. As a result, that people play differently needs to be stated again and again.

Okay. If that's all that was meant, then okay. That's true. There are different approaches to the game.

No, the objection is against people who state or imply that particular style(or any other style for that matter) defines D&D to the exclusion of other styles. An argument/implication that has been repeatedly made in this very thread.

Well, there's been people making statements that aren't true on a variety of issues, including Hussar's "events like this are almost never 'in character'" line about wanting to perform "cool" stunts. That isn't true for my group, and yet it's what brought up the issue the two of us are discussing now.

People play the game in different ways, but it really is hard to peg how the majority of D&D players are going to play their games. Nobody should probably be speaking in universal statements or generalities, especially when it comes to saying how other groups works (when those statements can often be proven false by simply disagreeing with them).

I mean, I'm still missing the essence of the productive part of this line of discussion. If it was "the style you advocate for is too strict", then I'd understand. Just like "I don't like the metagame mechanic approach" to the game. It's just preference. But, if we're going back to "there are other approaches to the game", then, "okay". If one set of generalizations isn't productive ("this style defines D&D"), then lets drop the others ("events like this are almost never 'in character'"). As always, play what you like

 

[Emerikol]

The edition wars have shown that people can be quite intolerant of people who play D&D differently. As a result, that people play differently needs to be stated again and again.

I think and perhaps its due to the wars that some people just jump to conclusions. They say - oh this is the same old xyz argument.

No, the objection is against people who state or imply that particular style(or any other style for that matter) defines D&D to the exclusion of other styles. An argument/implication that has been repeatedly made in this very thread.

4e upon release stopped supporting a bunch of playstyles. So 4e basically said - your playstyle is badwrongfun. And the truth is the very playstyles they dumped on were some of the most popular. As can be seen by the massive flocking to Pathfinder and the retroclones.

All we are asking is that 5e support our playstyle. I don't see anyone saying that they can't support your playstyle too. There is a big difference between saying - if X is not avoidable in the game I'm gone - and saying - if X is in the game I'm gone. Big difference. A lot of people need to note that difference.

Because honestly, tons of D&D fans aren't going to play 4e style D&D. If thats the only option WOTC gives them they will seek other options. As they did when 4e was released.

So stop with this faux persecution complex. Yes we attack things we don't like. We even disrespect those things. We want stuff we like. And we may even watch your table playing at the game store and think - what a bunch of baloney. But that is a far cry from actually blocking you from playing your style. If I can play at my table with my playstyle we are good. You can stand in the corner and think nasty thoughts about my game too if you want. I don't really care.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Independent from author/actor/ect stance is effect vs process based resolution. Effect based resolution cares about what happens, but not necessarily how while process based resolution wants to model each step in the game world.

Thanks! I hadn't spotted that - could someone XP for me please?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To make it clear that author stance isn't some radical infliltration of RPGing by evil "dissociators", but rather has been a completely banal and accepted technique of play ever since RPGing started. (I mean, look at descriptions of early Gygax and Arneson play - author-stance decisions all over the place!)

Mostly true, but with one huge exception. Strong immersionists were always vehemently against it, to the point that anything smacking of author stance was supposed to be subsumed into the characterization. That is, the game system might force you to sort of consider something from author stance, but if it did, you were supposed to get so far inside your character's head that you could marry that player-driven action to some rationalized course for the fictional character. A character in a horror story can go down into the basement alone (genre convention) but must have a rationalized reason for doing so, however flimsy it appears in the light of day.

This is a huge reason, IMHO, why such immersionists resist examination of what is going on. The more light you show on that rationalization, the less functional it becomes for them. That's a big part of the basis of my distinction between "deep" immersion and "shallow" immersion. I also speculate (wildly) that this is why there has been no definitive, clear explanation of deep immersion by one of its proponents. That would necessarily require the author to analyze what is going on in his head and at the table, later, after very carefully not doing so during the experience. I'm not saying that is impossible, but naturally it would be difficult.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not sure if something got caught off here (mostly because adventurers what?).

Murderhobos is a term to describe the ruthless old school adventurers that 'Greyhawk' dungeons - in there for the loot and walking off with everything that isn't nailed down (and the nails too for preference).

I definitely think comfort zone applies. Even people in dangerous situations with do dangerous things because they're more comfortable doing it. I have a close friend (I was the best man at his wedding) who confirms this from the time he spent in Iraq.

To an extent, yes.

The reward is for the character concept (including personality) matching what you want.

But with classical vancian casting it doesn't. My concept is a fire mage, not a mage who happens to prepare fire spells because he's a pyromaniac and could be an illusionist tomorrow. For a fire mage, picking fire spells in character should be the smart choice as well as the fluffy one. (A fire sorceror is another matter - sorcerors go with the loadout you give them).

My comment was on making a character who had a mindset that was different from "most optimized [or pragmatic] actions are the best."

Indeed. To be a fire mage in 3.X I have to have a very different mindset from that. I need my character to want to cast fire spells despite knowing they have better spells they could be casting. What I want is for fire spells to be the smart option in character.

Certain issues (like getting out of work ), people can be pretty efficient in.

And taking bad guys out doesn't count as getting out of work for an adventurer?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Murderhobos is a term to describe the ruthless old school adventurers that 'Greyhawk' dungeons - in there for the loot and walking off with everything that isn't nailed down (and the nails too for preference).

I'm familiar with the phrase, the sentence just didn't seem complete. (As written, it seems like you said "mostly because adventurers, whether murderhobos or shining heroes." I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Is it "mostly because they're adventurers"?)

To an extent, yes.

True. Only to an extent.

But with classical vancian casting it doesn't. My concept is a fire mage, not a mage who happens to prepare fire spells because he's a pyromaniac and could be an illusionist tomorrow. For a fire mage, picking fire spells in character should be the smart choice as well as the fluffy one. (A fire sorceror is another matter - sorcerors go with the loadout you give them).

If I want to be a fire mage, and I prepare fire spells, I am rewarded for that choice by getting fire spells, like I want. I have no need to ever even learn illusion spells. Wanting this to be the "smart" choice leads us back to "not every character needs to be super efficient and pragmatic" again.

Though, again, I'm okay with the style of design that rewards that level of focus. If you're a fire mage, you get a bonus with Fire spells (giving you incentive to pick them over other spells). Makes sense to me.

Indeed. To be a fire mage in 3.X I have to have a very different mindset from that. I need my character to want to cast fire spells despite knowing they have better spells they could be casting. What I want is for fire spells to be the smart option in character.

Your want here isn't unreasonable, though I think the assertion that I've seen that "if you don't prepare the best spells at all times, you're not RPing what your character would do" to be misleading (at best). This just depends on the character personality, which is what I was pointing out.

Again, though, I'm down for "fire mage, huh? Have extra fire damage for your fire spells" as a design method.

And taking bad guys out doesn't count as getting out of work for an adventurer?

I think that'd be avoiding bad guys, personally. But taking them out quickly (if you can't avoid them) would qualify. It's just order of ease.

Of course, I just described one personality type (and mostly in jest); once we get into duty, or characters who have taken vows/oaths, characters who live by codes, characters who like a challenge, etc., we might swing towards any number of possible methods for engaging enemies.

In Final Fantasy 2 (not 4!), you have to fight the four elementals over the course of the game. Rubicant (the fire elemental) was always my favorite, personality-wise. Towards the end of the game, you fight all four back-to-back, and it's not an easy fight (unless you've leveled up a lot), and you don't get time out of combat to heal (they hit you all in a row). After defeating the first three, Rubicant heals the entire party before you fight him, because he wants a fair, good fight. That always struck me as awesome. It's an honor/challenge thing, even if it gimps him or causes him to lose.

There's just different personalities out there, and they interact with "preparing the best spells" in a lot of different ways. And, to that end, picking "bad" spells, even if it gets you killed, doesn't mean you aren't playing an intelligent character, or aren't RPing your character, or the like. It just means your character values something (like honor or challenge) over (near) assured survival. And I like that variety. As always, play what you like

 

[TwoSix]

In Final Fantasy 2 (not 4!), you have to fight the four elementals over the course of the game. Rubicant (the fire elemental) was always my favorite, personality-wise. Towards the end of the game, you fight all four back-to-back, and it's not an easy fight (unless you've leveled up a lot), and you don't get time out of combat to heal (they hit you all in a row). After defeating the first three, Rubicant heals the entire party before you fight him, because he wants a fair, good fight. That always struck me as awesome. It's an honor/challenge thing, even if it gimps him or causes him to lose.

Completely tangential, but the game with Rubicant (and Cecil, Rosa, Kain, etc.) was 4, wasn't it? Or are you making a point about the American vs Japanese naming convention for Final Fantasy I, II, III (or I, IV, VI in Japan, and now renamed to the Japanese convention in American releases)?