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

[pemerton]

Hit points are an abstraction. They represent overall well being. I do treat hit points as wounds that grow in lethality as you approach zero. I do accept (perhaps unrealistically) that my hero is cinematically tough and fights on to the end. So my hero knows that he is hurt. Hit points represent that hurt. Obviously at first it's scratches and bruises and only becomes real wounds when you are really close. So it's not linear but it is still representative of a thing thats real.

I am still curious about your answer to my question that I've raised several times now.

When your PC has only 3 out of 73 hit points left, and the enemies are armed with longswords (d8 damage before any adds to the dice), you - the player - know that any hit is likely to be fatal. How does your PC know this? How does your PC know that, after all those previous hits, most of which were scratches (including scratches inflicted by longswords) but a few of which weren't, the next hit will not be a mere scratch?

 

[Nagol]

But, that's because you are insisting that there is one and only one explanation for why you can't use an encounter power twice. It could simply be that the opening for Rain of Blows doesn't occur in this second combat. The "It's too strenuous" reason is only one of many. In a process sim game, sure, that would be the one and only reason and it would apply all the time. Presuming, of course, that the process-sim is inflexible enough that you can only have one explanation ever. That certainly doesn't have to be the case.

I'm not insisting there be one true explanation; what we have is no in-game reason and players filling that void with justification. A player could say that a second use can't occur because the character hasn't eaten an orange. It doesn't make it true -- it's just an attempt to justify something that must exist because the game rules say it must.

I have to say though, that this particular example is something I can see coming up more often than, say, knocking the jelly prone (is that the cousin of jumping the shark? ). Stringing encounters together like this does happen fairly often.

But, is that really damaging to immersion? The character has many powers, Rain of Blows being only one of them. But, not having RoB for this part of the encounter can make that encounter more exciting - after all, it increases the danger. Maybe after this second encounter, a third one gets strung in without a short rest.

Does it damage immersion? I'd say it does slightly. It reinforces the game elements over the game universe. Whether or not RoB being present would be better or worse is immaterial -- it simply isn't available because the designers said so.

Now, we're in desperate straits. Second wind is likely gone, most, if not all encounters and dailies are spent and we're down to mostly basic attacks and at-wills. But, again, this does work from a process sim standpoint. The longer the fight goes, the less go-juice the character has. He's gone from fighting trim to 9th round Rocky swaying on his feet and barely holding it together.

Isn't this a good thing?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Whether the game construct can result in suspenseful games is moot. The game construct sits out in the open like a proud nail.

Compare to 3e or earlier. Ignore the hit point loss for a second - maybe the character is getting fairly frequent hp recovery from various sources. String three encounters together. What's the difference between Round 1 Fighter and Round 15 Fighter? Other than hit points, there is nothing to distinguish those two points of time. The fighter shifts 5 feet and full attacks, round after round after round.

Isn't this actually somewhat counter to process sim play? Shouldn't there be some sort of fatigue kicking in? But, pre-4e had no fatigue rules (other than straight up HP, but, you die when those run out). 4e doesn't have specific fatigue rules, but, with Daily and Encounter powers, you can certainly get the same effect. There is a significant difference between the every character in the party (not just the casters) between round 1 and round 15.

Again, isn't this a good thing?

Could pre-4e D&D been more realistic with some sort of fatigue rules? Certainly. There were certainly enough tried over the years in all the editions. Do I play a lot of games with fatigue rules? More times than I play D&D. Does this hide the game construct in 4e? Nope. Would I prefer less visible reminders I'm playing a game or more realism? Less visible wins for me.

Again, basic encounter powers are relatively easy for me to wink at. The proud nail doesn't catch too often and pull my attention. When I forced to examine it, I express my distaste.

 

[Underman]

The desired fiction "calling the shots" is part of everyone's playstyle, I think - everyone here is playing an RPG rather than a board game.

I sure hope so.

For example, according to RAW, the aforementioned "ray of truth" still hurts the mindless centipede. The mechanics (=eldritch blast affects any creature) calls the shots on the outcome in the fiction (=centipede is damaged). The reverse is not necessarily true: if the eldritch blast is reskinned as a 'ray of truth', and the desired fiction is that the ray of truth will not affect mindless creatures, then the centipede is still damaged anyway according to RAW.

THAT is what I was referring to when I wrote "calling the shots" in reply to LostSoul's example. So in that example, the desired fiction (=ray of truth does not affect centiped) is calling the shots (=despite the RAW, there is no outcome in which the reskinned eldritch blast causes damage to centipede).

Apparently, that made LostSoul's player happy, and I "get" that.

 

[Nagol]

Sticking to some of the parallels I've been trying to draw, I will compare this to a situation in AD&D where, after failing a "life gates" roll, I find some oil and pour it in the grooves of the portcullis. According to the rules, that shouldn't give me a retry. But within the fiction it seems like it should - maybe I wasn't strong enough to lift the gate before, but now it's been lubricated.

My feeling is that the same person who finds the recovery for Rain of Blows (and encounter powers generally) a bit wonky, should be inclined to permit a "lift gates" retry once I lubricate the runners, or an open locks retry once I get a technical drawing of the lock mechanism. Do you agree?

That seems like a fair adjudication/house rule; the system has been altered sufficiently to warrant a new test.

On the tiredness thing, by the way, I think that reinforces my view that hit points are "dissociated" - after all, the player who knows the next hit suffered by his/her PC will probably be fatal, and who therefore has the PC hang back and shoot arrows, can't rationalise the PC's decision not to charge into the fray with "I'm tired" or "I'm wounded", because the PC can do any number of other intense things - shoot arrows, run, climb, jump, juggle, stand on either leg and hop, etc - that would not be possible, in the fiction, were s/he tired and/or wounded.

Hit points have been and remain a wonky game construct. They are simple for the players so they survive. I myself prefer the slight more complex Wound/Vitality/Endurance split. Non-lethal hit points is 1e-3e were one way to model fatigue as evidenced by forced march and other long term damage. Unfortunately, the game designers never settled on just one way to model that effect and left each form of the model nebulous.

I don't know what 2nd ed AD&D has to say about it, but in Moldvay Basic, Gygaxian AD&D and 3E the way in which a player narrates a PC's attack has no effect on action resolution. So I find it interesting that people who were interested in doing that sort of thing in earlier editions weren't in 4e.

As I said, I've always found my players' narration tends to focus on matters that are salient to resolution, such as movement, targets, and the like. Including discussions between them (and from timt to time their PCs) as to who is doing what, and why.

The desired fiction "calling the shots" is part of everyone's playstyle, I think - everyone here is playing an RPG rather than a board game.

Quite a way upthread I posted this:

The difference between simulationist and non-simulationist play doesn't seem to be about whether or not the fiction "calls the shots" or about whether the action resolution mechanics are "the rules of engagement". It seems to be about whether the causal unfolding of ingame events can just be read off the mechanics (this is the ideal at which simulationist play aims, I think) or whether additional narration is needed around mechanical outcomes to ascertain what exactly happened in the fiction.

I think 4e has quite a bit of the latter: Come and Get It is the poster child, obviously (explaining why the NPCs or monsters closed on the PC fighter) but it factors in lots of other abilities too (eg explaining how the bard's Vicious Mockery hurts the ooze).

I also think 3E has quite a bit of the latter - resolving the infliction of hit point loss in combat is probably the most obvious example, but explaining what happens when a PC with Evasion makes a save against a fireball while in a room that is completely filled by the blast would be another example.

I think there is no very special connection between the need for this additional narration, and experience of immersion or loss of immersion. For example, using Vicious Mockery against an ooze, and narrating "I call down a curse on the power of Juiblex, and the ludicrousness of all the faceless things that demon lord has released across the world," doesn't seem like it should hurt immersion. For the right player, it could even be immersion-enhancing, I would have thought, building up the momentum of the PC and his/her disdain for all things ooze-ish.

Likewise with the Evasion example: "I drop to the floor and lie as flat as I can in whatever small indentations I find there, while the fire passes above me". There is a hint of director's stance in this - the tentative narration of "small indentations" in the floor, the narration of the fire (for which the PC is not responsibe) not reaching all the way to the floor - but I would be surprised if this killed immersion for very many players.

Now if someone finds that not being able to use Rain of Blows again (for a purely metagame reason - it's an encounter power) breaks immersion, but knowing not to send his/her PC charging into the fray (for a purely metagame reason - the PC has only 3 out of 73 hit points left, and the enemies are wielding longswords) does not break immersion, who am I to quibble? But if that is meant to be explained by some fundamental difference in the relationship between mechanics, player decision and PC action, I'm missing it.

Although hp are wonky, I dispute that they are entirely meta-game. A character has some form of feeling and can track his status over time. The character may be capable of continued action, but the scrapes and strains are adding up, the character feels the counters and dodges getting weaker and knows it's only a matter of time until something telling lands. Does he know the next one will be it? No. And it may not be; but it is likely soon.

I'm not trying to rebut your autobiographical claims. I assume that you're sincere in making them.

I don't really have a good handle on the mechanics you have in mind, though, nor how general you think your claims are.

Here is one reason for that: The Justin Alexander essay, which you (as far as I can tell) are endorsing gives the War Devil's "Besieged Foe" power as an example of dissociation. Another power with the same mechanical characteristics is the Human Hexer's "Baleful Polymorph" power - it ends after 1 turn with no ingame explanation for why it ends inherent in the power parameters. I gave an example upthread (the paladin-polymorph example) whereby this "dissociated" mechanic provided an occasion for increased immersion and identification, by a player, with the personality of his PC.

I never liked your example. If I were at your table and the paladin said that, I'd tell him it was really the "professional" I was with last night not his god that sved his bacon. And I'd be just as correct as he. It ended because it ended because it will always end. If the same power hit 4 of your PCs they all have to come up with justifications -- almost certainly different.

Therefore, this mechanic does not inherently produce problems of "dissociation" between plaeyr and PC. Yet it seems to be an instance of what you call a "dissociated" mechanic. Hence I am unsure of the category of mechanic that you have in mind, unless it is defined simply by the effect it has on your play experience - which obviously is important for you, but may not be generalisable across others.[/QUOE]

It does produce disassociation -- that's why the players try to fill the void with their justifications.

Unless I've misunderstood, you seem to be saying here that the tendency of "dissociative" mechanics to drive apart PC and character is relative to particular players, and not a general property of those mechanics. In which case we are in agreement. But also, because I am not you, I can't know in advance what mechanics will dissociate you and what will not.

For example, I know that you are not dissociated by hit points, but I don't really know why: after all, when hit points are getting low, how does the PC know that the next blow will probably be fatal, given that so many of the previous ones were not? (The player knows this because s/he can look at the number on the character sheet, and extrapolate from the game's damage mechanics.)

Again, although hp are wonky, they are the best representation the player has of how the character is feeling. They aren't meta-game information -- they are a poor representation of in-game effect. If the hp are seen as meat, the cuts are getting close to something vital (cf John Carter's duel in A Princess of Mars. If hp are seen as fatigue, the character is getting out of breath and shaky -- something is going to give soon (cf. Elric is several scrapes). If the hp are seen as luck/divine favour the character is feeling pretty hopeless and unloved (cf. Fafrd and the Gray Mouser in Swords Against Death) or John Carter after his multi-storey fall in Warlord of Mars.

My best guess, though you haven't really confirmed this I don't think, is that you interpret hit points as "meat". Of course, this has other well-known somewhat curious consequences within the fiction, like (i) no physical penalties for having your meat hacked away, and (ii) high level fighters apparently having more meat than elephants (Gygax in particular seems to have been bothered by this second issue).

 

[Hussar]

I wonder how the dissociative mechanics crowd feels about the 5e fighter.

Because, looking at it, while I haven't played it, it looks pretty much identical to the 4e fighter, just with a new coat of paint. The Expertise dice (is that the right term?) is a player resource that recharges after a set period of time. All they did was take an Essentials Fighter, give it lots of encounter powers, and add in a die mechanic.

How is the 5e fighter holding up for you folks?

 

[Nagol]

I wonder how the dissociative mechanics crowd feels about the 5e fighter.

Because, looking at it, while I haven't played it, it looks pretty much identical to the 4e fighter, just with a new coat of paint. The Expertise dice (is that the right term?) is a player resource that recharges after a set period of time. All they did was take an Essentials Fighter, give it lots of encounter powers, and add in a die mechanic.

How is the 5e fighter holding up for you folks?

I'm not participating in the playtest.

From my understanding though the dice pool recharges every round and effectively represents where the character is placing his focus that round -- hitting harder, avoiding damage, or doing something else special.

I think I'd be happier with an end-of-round recharge rather than a beginning-of-round recharge, but the mechanic seems to associate with character choice and ability.

 

[pemerton]

I never liked your example.

<snip>

It ended because it ended because it will always end. If the same power hit 4 of your PCs they all have to come up with justifications -- almost certainly different.

<snip>

It does produce disassociation -- that's why the players try to fill the void with their justifications.

Narrations will be different, but I'm not sure why that's a problem. Narrations are different for AD&D saving throws too. (The cleric prays, the thief dodges, the fighter toughs it out.)

But I don't really understand your "void" comment, nor the language of "justification".

When this event occurred in play, I didn't have any pre-scripted dialogue in mind for the NPC. I just spoke the first taunt that occurred to me - "I already turned you into a frog once". And the player spoke back the reply without missing a beat - "But the Raven Queen turned me back." If I hadn't spoken the taunt (in character as the NPC), or if the player hadn't come up with the retort, then the ingame reason for the PC turning back would have gone unexplained. At least as I experience these things in play, explanation or "justification" is not in issue. Events unfold, presumably they have their rationales, most of the time those rationales don't need to be investigated very closely. (A player makes an attack roll and misses. Why? Literally missed? Parried or shield-blocked? Blow absorbed or deflected by armour? D&D generally doesn't care, and at least in my experience many misses therefore are not narrated in very much detail.) There is nothing particularly odd about impermanent magic in D&D, whatever the exact cause of the impermanence, and so it was not an event crying out for explanation. (As is often the case, I think this contrasts a bit with Come and Get It.)

The player of the paladin didn't narrate the reason for his reverting to his own form in order to justify it. He narrated it, in character, as part of a retort to his enemy and assertion of his god's power and favour. I don't see that as "filling a void". I see it as drawing on the permissions created by the mechanics to reinforce characterisation and "inhabitation" of the PC.

A player could say that a second use can't occur because the character hasn't eaten an orange. It doesn't make it true -- it's just an attempt to justify something that must exist because the game rules say it must.

If I were at your table and the paladin said that, I'd tell him it was really the "professional" I was with last night not his god that sved his bacon. And I'd be just as correct as he.

I don't agree that you'd be just as correct, or that there is no differntiating between "because no opening presented itself" and "because the character hasn't eaten an orange".

The fact that the mechanics don't, in and off themselves, settle the content of the fiction, doesn't mean anything goes. What we're talking about here is:

Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se​

There are other constraints on narration also - genre is the most obvious one - and there can also be hierarchies of authority. 4e gives ultimate authority on these matters to the GM (PHB, p 8):

When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​

But sometimes - often, even - it is clear what is going on in the fiction: for example, if the player of the paladin narrates a role for his PC's god in the action, and no one else at the table disputes it.

 

[D'karr]

Although hp are wonky, I dispute that they are entirely meta-game. A character has some form of feeling and can track his status over time. The character may be capable of continued action, but the scrapes and strains are adding up, the character feels the counters and dodges getting weaker and knows it's only a matter of time until something telling lands. Does he know the next one will be it? No. And it may not be; but it is likely soon.

This rationalization for disassociated is exactly what I'm trying to ascertain when I ask why one mechanic is supposedly disassociated and the other is not. In this example the player looks at the character sheet and sees he's got 3 HP left. He "imparts on the character" the "feeling" that the counters and dodges are getting weaker and knows it's only a matter of time until something telling lands. Does he know the next one will be it? No. And it may not be; but it is likely soon.

By using this rationalization, a player can just as easily look at the character sheet, and see that he just used an encounter power. He can then "impart on the character" the "feeling" that the particular opening for that technique will probably not present itself again. Does he know if it will open again? No. But he keeps fighting using other techniques as openings happen. Mulling over why that opening does not present itself again won't get him out of this mess.

Therefore, this mechanic does not inherently produce problems of "dissociation" between plaeyr and PC. Yet it seems to be an instance of what you call a "dissociated" mechanic. Hence I am unsure of the category of mechanic that you have in mind, unless it is defined simply by the effect it has on your play experience - which obviously is important for you, but may not be generalisable across others.

It does produce disassociation -- that's why the players try to fill the void with their justifications.

This is where I see the disconnect between what you are describing and what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], and I are describing. The player is no more trying to fill a void with justifications in this example than in your HP example. I don't see this as a justification, and I don't see your example of HP as a justification.

I see it as the player being immersed in the "game narrative" and showing/describing his character's perspective. Then you describe your attitude as being, "if you were at the table and the paladin said that, you'd tell him it was really the professional you were with last night not his god that saved his bacon." That takes away from the immersion. The immersion is ruined not because of the effects of the power, not because of the mechanics, not because of the description from the paladin character's player, but because of your "I'd be as correct as he" attitude.

Everyone is playing the game, and going with the immersion. Then you feel the need to break the immersion. This is where you lose all credibility in your argument.

With the HP description you went to great lengths to "justify" it in your "character's" mind with all kinds of gyrations. When I read that, I didn't look at it as you trying to justify the HP mechanics. I looked at it as you getting in character and immersing within the "game fiction."

But then you come up with the example of what you'd do at the table when someone else is "immersing", and you ruin your credibility. No wonder you "feel" the mechanics are disassociated. Unfortunately it's not the mechanics that lead you there.

 

[Hussar]

I think one of the main differences here is that 4e expects the players (including the DM) to maintain genre conventions. It doesn't force them to do so though. Pre-4e largely gave you no choice. You followed genre conventions as dictated by the mechanics or you started ejecting rules. In both cases, immersion is maintained, but, the approach is different.

----------

Oh, and a side note about immersion in combat. The idea of "calling out the powers" is hardly a new one. DM of the Rings has a great joke about it, and this is well before 4e was released:

Let's be honest here. We've ALL sat at that table at least once.

 

[D'karr]

Let's be honest here. We've ALL sat at that table at least once.

Past Friday as a matter of fact... LOL

-