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

[pemerton]

To do iii, one would have to withdraw to author or director stance.

I know I'm starting to sound like a rude person (the relevant expletive is against board rules), and I don't mean to, but what you say here isn't really true. I mean it's true in some cases, but not all. For example, to narrate your bard PC's Vicious Mockery against an ooze or a zombie as mocking the demon lord that is the ultimate source of the monster's power doesn't require author or director stance. You can do it all from 1st person, actor stance: "I want to defeat this ooze. It's powered by Juiblex. Juiblex, curse you and ally your slimy works - you're scum and dregs and nothing more!" And as a result the ooze's hold on its existence becomes more tenous (ie you roll X amount of psychic damage).

i guess that for you, since you brought it up, those (houseruling the eldritch blast and houseruling bow rates of fire) are somehow analagous and worth contrasting.

Well, they both seem cases of the mechanics, interpreted in a certain way, don't yield the desired fiction.

For me, they're not analagous and so not worth comparing.

I don't get what's special about the "ray of truth", applied in a simulationist fashion, not mechanically yielding the desired result. Heaps of mechanics have that property. (In the case of "ray of truth", this is itself a result of a house rule. There is no "ray of truth" power in 4e as published. Is it such a surprise that when LostSoul rewrites a power, he also has to change the way it operates in the game?)

I don't know how to articulate it in a way that you could parse and accept, anymore than anybody else has already tried to do so on the last several pages of this thread or other threads. Or how to prove that Nagol et al have not been successful so far in this regard simply due to some sort of hole in their understanding.

Maybe I'm not clear enough.

I get that someone can enjoy, or be used to, or able to tolerate, hit points. But not like something new that pushes metagame in a new direction (eg active rather than passive abilities). [MENTION=44243]Shadeydm[/MENTION] says something like that a few posts upthread.

But the "dissociated mechanics" thing is meant to be grounding this in some sort of analysis of design, not just of player preferences.

That's why I keep mentioning my play experience with the paladin and the polymorph. My point is that there is at least one player in the world who wasn't "dissociated" by the so-called dissociative mechanics. Which suggests to me that their relationship to immersion is about personal preferences, and not some deep design flaw.

I believe you that hit points don't bother you. But I'm missing how that's an issue about the design of hit points as a mechanic - that they have some special "immersion preserving" feature that encounter powers lack. I mean, if losing hit points is feeling fatigued and your luck ebbing away, than spending encounter powers can be feeling fatigued too, and your luck ebbing away - like [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] posted upthread.

 

[Underman]

I knwo I'm starting to sound like a rude person (the relevant expletive is against board rules), and I don't mean to, but what you say here isn't really true. I mean it's true in some cases, but not all.

Yes, I should have written that "I" (instead of "one") would withdraw from actor stance. I've been trying now to frame all my posts from my subjective POV. I slipped up on that one sentence, thanks for course-correcting me.

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.

I've been honestly trying to avoid pointing fingers about other people's games, for example, in contrast to above judgment calls.

You can do it all from 1st person, actor stance: "I want to defeat this ooze. It's powered by Juiblex. Juiblex, curse you and ally your slimy works - you're scum and dregs and nothing more!"

True, I could try to do that, but I would not be able to do so with a straight face and so remain immersed in actor stance, unless perhaps my character concept was some sort of silly bard or I was emulating a fantasy genre more gonzo than I like.

Upthread, Balesir et al talked about outcome-based playstyle as imagining in their own minds how to narrate a power as to not intrude with other players' expectations and suspension of disbelief. Your references about Juiblex taunt if, suggested to me in play, would destroy my suspension of disbelief.

Well, they both seem cases of the mechanics, interpreted in a certain way, don't yield the desired fiction.

The aforementioned player desired to have a ray of truth. I do not desire to have a game that consistenly and comprehensively models real-life medieval bow rate of fire. The genre emulation expectations are different. This is what I keep saying. Thus they're not analogous to me.

I don't get what's special about the "ray of truth", applied in a simulationist fashion, not mechanically yielding the desired result. Heaps of mechanics have that property.

There's nothing special about it. I like LostSoul's post. I used it to referency my preference about the relationship between mechanics and desired fiction. I did not intend to extrapolate beyond that one point.

But the "dissociated mechanics" thing is meant to be grounding this in some sort of analysis of design, not just of player preferences.

Then you're asking the wrong person. I've moved away from definining anything like so. I wrote early on that 'dissociation' is best described by me as a 'feeling of dissociation'. I also like what CJ wrote about early/late/fixed/variable association but that's not my thing to elaborate on.

That's why I keep mentioning my play experience with the paladin and the polymorph. My point is that there is at least one player in the world who wasn't "dissociated" by the so-called dissociative mechanics.

I think we get that. But "at least one player in the world" doesn't convince me that I should like the example you provided for my own game or for what I hope from 5E. Other than that, I have no formed opinion.

 

[pemerton]

I think we get that. But "at least one player in the world" doesn't convince me that I should like the example you provided for my own game.

Sure, I wouldn't expect it to. I don't expect anyone but my own group to enjoy the game I run. My interest is in correcting the frequent assertion that 4e (and hence, my 4e game) is a tactical skirmish game linked by freeform improv.

And also in doing some analysis of different mechanics.

True, I could try to do that, but I would not be able to do so with a straight face and so remain immersed in actor stance, unless perhaps my character concept was some sort of silly bard or I was emulating a fantasy genre more gonzo than I like.

<snip>

Your references about Juiblex taunt if, suggested to me in play, would destroy my suspension of disbelief.

Fair enough. You probably want oozes to be immune to psychic damage, then!

 

[D'karr]

I've been honestly trying to avoid pointing fingers about other people's games, for example, in contrast to above judgment calls.

I'm not making a judgement call about anybody's game.

People can enjoy what they enjoy, and it does not matter to me.

However, when someone makes the claim that a particular mechanic is disassociated, and another one isn't and provides examples of both, then it seems appropriate to contrast the examples to determine what in particular about the "mechanics" is causing the "issue". In this case the claim is that the enjoyment at the table is hampered or diminished, and that this happens because the mechanic is disassociated.

At that point the example can be examined, and it demonstrates how their immersion is broken. I'm quoting what the poster said within the context of the "disassociated mechanics" discussion, not as a judgement value on their person, or their game. In that quote you can replace any instance of you with "the player", or the general meaning of "you" instead of the particular poster.

Both HP and encounter/daily powers are being discussed within that context. In the example, the player/DM is extending himself, and the "game narrative" for the purpose of immersion at the table. This is done so as to "cover" one type of mechanic (HP) and help it remain immersive within the narrative space of the game. It would then be incongruent behavior, within that same context, to purposely break the immersion at the table for another mechanic (encounter/daily powers), and then proceed to blame the mechanic for the resulting disassociation.

The impact/significance of the immersion, in the example that was quoted, was broken by the actions of the player/DM, not by what the poster is referring to as a "disassociated mechanics". Based on that context, if the player/DM is the one purposely breaking the immersion, it follows that it is not the particular mechanics "forcing" any form of disassociation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

@Neonchameleon
All I know is that from red box through first edition I didn't have a dissociative problem. I played all those games in a simulationist (GNS) style and had no dissociative mechanics.

The first part is true. The second is false. Getting to act once per minute is vastly, massively dissassociative. The issue isn't about the disassociation. It is your personal tastes and preferences and that you are not disassociated by the specific mechanics. I am disassociated by 1 minute combat rounds.

So you dislike 4e because it makes you think about things you don't want to. That is fine. Calling it disassociative as if that was an objective fact is simply not. You can even say that 4e disassociates you. But unless you are involved explicitely in the same sentence as the word disassociative then it is meaningless.

I've yet to see a rebuttal. All I see is people addressing things completely unrelated to the subject. Who go down the realism path or the abstraction path, neither of which applies to this issue.

How about the thinking what the characters are thinking path? Where in the very example you are replying to I have explained how 4e helps me think as if I am a fighter in a high tension combat system, and AD&D makes it impossible and completely shatters my immersion. Or are you going to ignore this point again?

Your in combat example is pretty silly. When I'm fighting with a sword, I never know when I'm going to get an opening.

Sometimes I make them. Sometimes I get them because I am on the lookout for them. Either way they are limited and I need to actively try to exploit them (this incidently is why I say some random power use mechanic might be better than strict AEDU). And they are something I actively try to exploit when I see. And I see them through chunked information (honestly, the thing that helped the most in my skirmish fighting wasn't swordplay so much as dancing and floorcraft).

If you take a normal high damage daily, I'm trying to execute that attack every single round.

Yay, power strike being permanently on. I'm actually not trying to do the same thing every time in combat - it means that I will be too easy to read. And the high damage stuff? Very overextending normally.

The first goal of combat is not to kill your enemy. It's to stay alive.

Thats whats in my mind. I'm not spamming my at-will because I'm out of dailies which is what's in my players mind. And that is the issue.

Then don't think about your dailies or other powers you don't have. Someone thinking about their dailies IC is about as smart as someone thinking how they wished they had a revolver in a fantasy campaign. It makes no more sense to think "I don't have a daily" than "I could stab him if he didn't have a shield". That sort of distractedness will get you slaughtered unless the thought is actually something like "His shield is forward. I hit it edge on with mine then stab." And then do it. You see the opportunity, you act. You don't waste time on wishing what might be. (Just thinking of a problem with saxon/viking shields as normally used in reenactment).

Think about opportunities that aren't there and you will lose. You'll be distracted.

But I think there's one vast difference here - it's not so much the AEDU issue as the movement-as-part-of-powers. If you are simply squaring up the the enemy and duelling then yes, simply rolling does work. Fencing I can normally accept as a set of attack rolls (it's been years since I picked up a foil or sabre). But that's not what I do in a skirmish, and most party vs NPC fights are either bottleneck-holding or skirmishes (4e tending to the skirmish end). One serious object is to create an overlap - and a very good way of doing this is to free up one of your allies by shanking an enemy who is concentrating on someone else. And if they go tight formation you threaten to envelop them. I am not fighting just one enemy. I'm fighting the enemy team - a different and more complex matter entirely.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, I should have written that "I" (instead of "one") would withdraw from actor stance. I've been trying now to frame all my posts from my subjective POV. I slipped up on that one sentence, thanks for course-correcting me.

I've been honestly trying to avoid pointing fingers about other people's games, for example, in contrast to above judgment calls.

Then stop calling 4e a game with disassociated mechanics and start calling it one you find disassocates you. I find AD&D disassociates me for reasons I've explained (1 minute combat rounds).

True, I could try to do that, but I would not be able to do so with a straight face and so remain immersed in actor stance, unless perhaps my character concept was some sort of silly bard or I was emulating a fantasy genre more gonzo than I like.

To be honest, Vicious Mockery is a power that doesn't IME fit all games. But it's an absolute blast for casual gamers. It's also damn good in a mostly humanoid campaign with a player with a proper appreciation for insults. More than most powers, I do think it should take a "warning: this may not fit the tone of your campaign" label.

I think we get that. But "at least one player in the world" doesn't convince me that I should like the example you provided for my own game or for what I hope from 5E. Other than that, I have no formed opinion.

Again this comes under the heading of "play what you want" - but calling the rules disassociated is making a value judgement on the players who use them. When I, for one, find them much more associated even than 3.X - and AD&D throws me out entirely.

 

[Underman]

Then stop calling 4e a game with disassociated mechanics and start calling it one you find disassocates you.

OMG, here we go again. Enough. I said I agree that I have a 'feeling of dissociation' which was very clearly expressed to pemerton and upthread. See post 802 2nd last paragraph. Get over your beef with me and move on please. I get irritated, become irritable, other people get irritated.. so stop it. Harrass somebody else who has the patience for it.

 

[Underman]

In the example, the player/DM is extending himself, and the "game narrative" for the purpose of immersion at the table. This is done so as to "cover" one type of mechanic (HP) and help it remain immersive within the narrative space of the game. It would then be incongruent behavior, within that same context, to purposely break the immersion at the table for another mechanic (encounter/daily powers), and then proceed to blame the mechanic for the resulting disassociation.

The impact/significance of the immersion, in the example that was quoted, was broken by the actions of the player/DM, not by what the poster is referring to as a "disassociated mechanics". Based on that context, if the player/DM is the one purposely breaking the immersion, it follows that it is not the particular mechanics "forcing" any form of disassociation.

What if one player is using original pre-nerfed CaGI and narrates it in a way that bothers everyone else at the table and ruins their immersion? So then CaGI gets nerfed by WoTC in official errata. Is it not reasonable to blame the mechanic, instead of blaming the players? WoTC could have said use CaGI with so and so guidelines instead of nerfing the mechanic, but they didn't - WoTC changed the problematic mechanic. It's nicer to say 'mechanic is not wanted as is' than to say 'people aren't using it right'. How does that relate to the larger point you made?

 

[D'karr]

How does that relate to the larger point you made?

I think that the point still remains, and is even reinforced. If the desired result at the table, for the players, is to remain immersed. Then it follows that making metagame mechanics, of any sort, more ridiculous than they already are does not help in any regard. All mechanics can be viewed within that context.

The mindset of, "I have 200 HP left, I'm going to jump off this cliff because it's impossible for the fall to kill me" is a ridiculous one. However, it can be done because the underlying mechanics (HP) are also ridiculous.

However, if the purpose at the table is to enhance immersion the table doesn't go to lengths to use ridiculous reasoning, or description. So the above example can be described in a more "immersion enhancing" form, "I'm at the edge of this cliff with the enemies in hot pursuit. If I time my jump right I might be able to break my fall on those tree branches below and not kill myself."

Did the underlying rules, all of a sudden, change to make one more palatable than the other? No. The player/DM used the "genre convention" to remain immersed. Instead of looking at the rule and saying, "that's ridiculous, so I'm going to make my description about it equally or even more so."

 

[LostSoul]

A note about my game and stances:

I leave it up to the player to determine the stance they want to play in. If they want to metagame I don't have a problem with that. Author or actor stance is just fine.

I don't think the house rules I use for something like "ray of truth" pushes one stance or the other.

I think director stance in my game is a little more nuanced. I don't grant players the authority to make declarations about areas of the game world in which they don't have control - for the most part, they only control their PCs, with a few exceptions (some town management stuff). However, the DM's authority to do so is also limited: if the DM doesn't know something about the game world, he or she is advised to make a random roll (I suggest 1d6 as it's clean and easy) in order to remain impartial.

A canny player can ask something about the game world, trigger that roll, and make decisions based on the information the DM gives in return. In this way there's a small amount of directorial power granted to the players.

e.g. In the dungeon that saw the use of "ray of truth" against the centipedes, the PCs found themselves fighting "storm shards" - lightning elementals freed from another room (they had been trapped in a cage built to lure them in; a magic item the PCs found could absorb them and power the nearby generator) - in the following area:

1.16. WORKSHOPS
A wide open room with a variety of workshops - carpentry tools, machine tools, etc. Like the shop in mythbusters. All Tech Level 5, but in poor repair. There's a 2-in-6 chance that anything specific can be found with five minutes of searching, but a 5-in-6 chance that it's broken.​

(Tech level 5 is late 20th century)

The player asked if there was anything made of rubber. Because she was looking for "anything" made of rubber I made a quick judgement call - it's possible she could find something made of rubber in a single round of searching. I rolled 1d6, with a 1 being a false positive (it looks like rubber but it conducts electricity) and a 6 being something perfectly suitable to the situation (a rubber mat).

I rolled a 6 and one of the PCs found a rubber mat. She then used it to crush the storm shards and (help to) avoid their electrical discharges.