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

[Hussar]

Engaging in a discussion on why it pulls people out of immersion could be productive. Saying "it didn't for me" is at least adding to the conversation. Saying "that means it shouldn't pull you out" doesn't add much. Nor does essentially defending against attacks that aren't being made.

I'd agree with this. The only thing is, when we do ask for why it pulls people out of immersion, we get something like, "Well, it's dissociated. There's no correlation between what my character is doing and what I, the player, am doing."

Ok, fair enough as far as it goes. But, it begs the question, why does that break your immersion when these four or five other things, which do the exact same thing, not bother you? And that's where the carousel goes around again. Because now it's a bunch of typically post hoc justifications for why X and Y are ok, but, for some reason, a complete refusal to apply the same justifications to Z.

If people could explain why it's perfectly fine for some dissociation and not others, or why its ok to post hoc justify things for one thing and not others, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, "It pulls me out of immersion" basically only tells me that someone doesn't like X. It doesn't really get to any root cause.

Frankly, after watching several exchanges between you and DannyAlcatraz over the 15 minute day, I'm skeptical that you'd accept anybody else's play experiences as evidence. You've got a track record on that type of testimony, at least with an issue or two.

There's a difference though. I accepted what DannyA claimed, that he did not have the 15 MAD. What I could never get out of it though was how he didn't in such a way that I could apply his methods to my game. When I tried to drill down past just the fact that he didn't have a particular result (no 15 MAD), all I got was rather handwavey ideas about "smart play". Which is great and all, but, doesn't really help me a whole lot.

I've had that same sort of conversation about low level characters scouting. When I pointed out that the chances of scouting were very, very low, particulary in AD&D, I learned that the other person was actually playing pretty fast and loose with the mechanics and the reason his group succeeded in that form of play is because the DM strongly facilitated it. It comes back to the arguments of players having large amounts of fore-knowledge about what they are facing, so that they can pick and choose encounters. Only problem is, when you actually go by the rules of the game, it falls apart pretty quickly.

Unless of course, you start monkeying the mechanics to facilitate play. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It should be encouraged to do so. But, it does make it very, very difficult to talk about a game when one person is talking about what's written down, and the other person is talking about their own personal idiosyncratic take on the game that only applies to that table.

And, let's be honest here. It takes a LOT to get some people to admit they're wrong. Direct quotes usually does it for me. But, google the Medusa threads and you'll see some seriously stubborn takes. When the mechanics for a medusa are identical in every edition of the game, and people actually take the time to quote those mechanics, most people will admit they're wrong. Note, I said most.

But, quite often, in lengthy conversations like these, even quoting verbatim the rules doesn't always work. In one of these really long threads, I got into it about the listening rules in AD&D which I could actually quote (it's in the preview doc on the WOTC site). People STILL argued that I was wrong. To the point of putting me on ignore lists.

So, yeah, there's problems with actual play examples. Fair enough. But, if you're willing to back up claims with facts, I'll listen. Or, if you're willing to simply tack on an IMO onto something, again fair enough. But, make blanket claims without any facts or evidence to support and I'll argue 'till I'm blue in the face.

Like I said, I can see why people would criticise 4e for being a mini-skirmish game. At least if all they knew was a cursory glance at the rules anyway. But, OTOH, it's pretty easy to show that it doesn't have to be that way. Any more than AD&D has to be a hacked wargame.

Sorry, let my fingers get away from me there. Must be all those other walls of text around here. It's contagious.

 

[JamesonCourage]

@JamesonCourage I understand that you're trying to be "peace-broker" or "sense-talker" here and not "antagonist," but I don't think you're circumnavigating the dynamics of this thread fully nor all of the loaded jargon and experiences of the recent edition wars.

Maybe I'm not. I don't think the backslapping going on by people is helping anything though, and I definitely believe I'm onto something with projecting accusations onto other people that haven't made them.

You definitely aren't being very fair to @pemerton who, at the very least, engages thoughtfully on subjects.

He does engage thoughtfully. I'm not trying to be unfair, but I do think he's projecting accusations onto people that haven't made them. I even felt it directed at me after my post, and I wasn't even trying to argue for one side.

You do not see him offhandedly quip, shallow, edition-war-loaded catch phrases or jargon, ad nauseum, while refusing to engage specific rejoinders or efforts to communicate something of enough specificity that it can at least be discussed. By my estimation, absolutely nothing is more caustic to dialogue, more "well-poisoning" than that M.O. My guess is that if that M.O. were to no longer persist (on either side of the edition-war fence), you would no longer see people waging an "aggressive defense" as you put it.

I guess I'm just a little weary of seeing people get hit in the crossfire because someone said something. It's like having a friend who believes the same things you do, but not for the same reasons. Then, when there's a debate, he leaps in to the conversation, passion and eagerness in full throttle, and "helps you out" with a speech on why you're right. But, you don't agree with his reasoning, just his conclusion. In the meantime, everyone on the other side now thinks you agree with his reasoning, and that just hurts the dialogue, since your friend was insulting and dismissive.

That's what happens in these discussions, and it's happening on multiple fronts. I just wish it wouldn't.

Further, one man's "aggressive defense" is another man's thoughtful, pointed/precise, circumnavigated response...and justified completely when answering repeated, shallow, unjustified (perhaps not unjustifiable...but in specific cases unjustified...because the commenter refuses to engage) claims.

I don't feel it's justified when it's directed at people that didn't make the claims, and some other poster who happens to agree with them did. That's the guy getting nailed in the crossfire I'm talking about.

If you make a harsh, clearly provocative claim and your reasoning is shallow, or worse you refuse to even give it, expect people to demand justification in their follow-up. If you do it repeatedly and then cry foul at their request for the specificities of your reason...expect them to get exasperated and the "aggressive defenses" to come out. And expect it to be "on you."

But that's just the thing, I'm not making those claims. How many posters in this thread (on the side you're arguing against) are making those types of claims? One? The problem is, everyone starts to use buckshot rather than slugs, and attacks are hitting multiple posters rather than the source.

All you need do is look at @Nagol 's thoughtful and well-considered responses to my last two queries. He's respectful to the effort that I put in to engage his ideas and his rejoinders are clearly well-considered (even if we may disagree in part). If every person that pemerton engaged with on these issues were as respectful and thoughtful as Nagol's last two responses to me, my guess is you wouldn't feel like you need to be a "peace-broker" or "sense-talker" and you wouldn't be indicting pemerton for an "aggressive defense" (unless you just don't like the writing style...I already know that you don't like mine as you've told me on more than one occasion...and I've extended my sincere sympathies.).

No worries about your writing style; not like you can really help it, and it's not like I hold it against you in any way.

At any rate, I've complimented Nagol (and LostSoul) for their productive contributions to this thread. I don't know how productive this thread would be without their contributions at this point. In my opinion, they're definitely adding more to this conversation than I am. Or any other posters.

Once we got past the rather unproductive "sim" discussion, and people didn't attack Nagol for his expressed views, and LostSoul seemed to have some sort of possible discovery, I felt things were getting better. And they probably are in this thread. But, I'm serious about the "aggressive defense" I talked about earlier. It's getting to the point where you seemingly can't agree with a premise without being accused of the same insults the poster made (like JA's "tactical skirmish game" remarks). And that's too bad, because dialogue could be had (and has been had, earlier, in the long dissociated mechanics thread that I participated in).

We'll see how things go. I stayed out of the thread for a long while because of how things were going. It's a little better now, but the hostility rating is slowly rising. I hope everyone cools down some. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd agree with this. The only thing is, when we do ask for why it pulls people out of immersion, we get something like, "Well, it's dissociated. There's no correlation between what my character is doing and what I, the player, am doing."

Ok, fair enough as far as it goes. But, it begs the question, why does that break your immersion when these four or five other things, which do the exact same thing, not bother you? And that's where the carousel goes around again. Because now it's a bunch of typically post hoc justifications for why X and Y are ok, but, for some reason, a complete refusal to apply the same justifications to Z.

And that's fair to bring up. Obviously, people have different reasons. This muddies the waters.

Some people say "I treat HP as meat" and people go "really? You can fall 200 feet and just take it? Odd." And that's fair to say, and people on both sides will say it to that guy.

The next guy, answering the same question, will say "I use wound/vitality point system, so this works a lot better for me." And people will say "that's not default" or "here's the problem with that system" or "fair enough."

The next guy says "I'm just used to HP." And people will reply to that.

Then the next guy says "It's the worst tool for the job, except for every other tool." And people reply to that.

Then the guy after that says "HP seems fine in combat, it's mostly skill to reduce damage, with some cuts and bruises along the way. Sure, it breaks down with cliffs, lava, and being chained to a rock when a dragon breathes on you, but those don't come up often, so I'm okay with it." And people reply to that.

People, obviously, have answers for that question. You're just not going to get a united answer back. And then the conversation spikes six different directions while people reply to the replies, and some posters drop out, and then people reply to the posters that are left, but remember the answers for all of them, and use the answers that help their argument the most as ammunition.

And it's not one-sided here in the least. I'm definitely not saying it is. I'm just saying that the natural questions of "why does X cause dissociated when Y doesn't?" is generally speaking a complex answer that a bunch of people are going to answer in different ways.

If people could explain why it's perfectly fine for some dissociation and not others, or why its ok to post hoc justify things for one thing and not others, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, "It pulls me out of immersion" basically only tells me that someone doesn't like X. It doesn't really get to any root cause.

True, and that's why your follow up question of "why X but not Y?" is such a natural question. And it's probably the right question. It just generally leads to a quagmire if everyone talks to everyone about it at once, and people use the replies that help them the most later on as ammunition. Posters A-F all replied to your (general "your") question, discussion ensues; Posters D-F drop out of the discussion; Posters A-C continue, but people later bring up Posters D-F's reasoning later on; Posters A-C now must reply to that, and people claim "inconsistency" or "this was said earlier" or the like; and in the meantime, A-C all have individual and different reasoning or solutions for the problem.

I've seen it happen many times. And I think it's happening again now, in this thread. And it's a hard problem to fix. I think it requires people to keep straight which poster said what, and reply to them based on what they've individually said. And that can be tough to do.

You're right, though. Saying "it's dissociated" is only a start; saying "it pulled me out of immersion" is even better; saying why it did is better still; saying why it did when Y didn't is better yet. The more things get expanded and explained, the better. It's just tricky in execution. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

This misses the point.

You may feel that I am still missing your point, but here's the message I'm taking home:

If I say that 4e is the first version of D&D (with the partial exception of AD&D OA) to deliver, for me, the promise of the Foreword of Moldvay Basic, I have to expect to be called on that by others who have had different experiences;

But if someone says Come and Get It is immersion-wrecking (with or without a qualification "for me"), and I chime in to point out that it doesn't wreck my immersion, I'm not being helpful.

Is there a double standard here? Or are you saying that I have to expect others to be unhelpful, but I'm obliged to be helpful myself!

Or am I still missing the point?

 

[pemerton]

So the bragging rights you mention are legitimate stakes in the "Step on Up" vision.

Agreed.

4e's story emphasis is much heavier than OD&D, however, and thus 4e does more to provide players with different points of esteem other than "I made it through alive." 4e aims to provide you with battles that have all manner of interesting little bits to brag about or bemoan.

Agreed.

4e is far from a "pure" Gamist experience. (I'm sure you're aware that I feel D&D is always a bit of a mash-up that way.) However, it did take a big step that way compared to its immediate predecessors

A bit puzzled, but that probably reflects my relative lack of experience with 3E play. Didn't people play 3E for esteem (eg strong builds, effective use of spells in combat, etc)? Or are you suggesting a sim pull (somewhere between moderate purist and adventure-path high concept) was more common?

(For clarity, the questions aren't rhetorical. I'm curious as to both (i) the answers, and (ii) your take on what you think the answers are, or might be.)

I've had that same sort of conversation about low level characters scouting. When I pointed out that the chances of scouting were very, very low, particulary in AD&D, I learned that the other person was actually playing pretty fast and loose with the mechanics and the reason his group succeeded in that form of play is because the DM strongly facilitated it.

I think the role of GM force in various contexts of D&D play - scene-framing, action resolution, plot authority, etc - is hugely important in explaining different play experiences, but very hard to get a handle on in these sorts of discussions. Especially when at least some posters equate particular habits or preferences for the use of GM force with GMing an RPG as such.

 

[Underman]

But, this is kind of my point. You have the perception of being attacked by a "slew of posts" on this sort of thing, whereas I just don't see it. And then, people like Underman or me or someone else gets stuck in the crossfire of your aggressive defense. At best, there's an initial influx of posts commenting, but rarely does somebody stick to the thread for a while spouting the claims you've made over and over again (a couple posters do, but not many, and not in most threads).

And, in my mind, that's kind of the problem. You're seemingly defending against those statements even now, against me, when I'm not making those claims. Neither is Nagol or Underman, as far as I can tell. And they were the posters in this thread over the last 20 pages posting more than some others. And yet, the aggressive defense is still up, and everyone bands together to protect against what could be civil, productive discussion.

I stayed mostly out of this discussion past a certain point for a reason. This is it. It's just not worth it. Play what you like, man.

For what it was worth to do so, thanks for sticking your neck out like that. I at least appreciate it!

 

[Grabuto138]

If [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and/or [MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION] think that what I'm saying is unfair, I'm very willing to engage. I XPed Underman's last (or second-last?) post upthread. I think Nagol knows that I have a lot of respect for his (?) views, and I believe we've engaged profitably in this thread. And of all the many posters on this board, LostSoul has probably had more impact on my approach to play and GMing then the rest put together!

I'm also interested in this. I've also posted accounts of my own and my players' immersive play, and various mechanics and GMing techniques that have helped with that - including, on occasion, so-called "dissociated" mechanics.

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] and I have also compared, in some detail, encounter powers, mooted fatigue points, and hit points, and the way different approaches to them in play might serve or undermine various immersive purposes for various playstyles.

That's one discussion. Though it has a curious dynamic.

If I started a thread on the 15-minute adventuring day, it wouldn't be very long before I had a dozen posts on that thread telling me that I'm playing wrong: that I need to use more wandering monsters, a more dynamic world, time-based scenarios etc. And, indeed, these probably are pretty central to pre-3E D&D play: wandering monsters are a core element of classic D&D, and heavy GM force to control pacing is pretty central to 2nd ed adventures (I'm thinking especially of the Planescape and Ravenloft ones that I'm familiar with).

I'm personally not interested either in wandering monsters or in that type of GM force. Instead I reach the conclusion that I need a different game from classic D&D, or 2nd ed AD&D, or 3E for that matter. But it wouldn't occur to me to tell those other posters that they are playing wrong, or drifting the game in order to make it work.

Whereas, when I and others post to explain how encounter powers don't hurt our immersion ("Treat them the same as hp, however exactly you handle them""), or how encounter-based (ie scene-based) play is desirable for us, there's always a slew of posts to tell us that we're not really RPGing ("tactical skirmish loosely connected by freeform improv" is the poster child for this), or that we're not really immersed, or that our fighters are all really spellcasters, or that we're playing 4e in a way that it wasn't intended to be played by its designers ("They meant for it to be a tactical skirmish game loosely connected by freeform improv, but because you guys have played some Forge-y games you've drifted it in some different, uninteded direction.")

But anyway, that wasn't the conversation my post that you quoted was immediately directed to. I was primarily responding to this other one:

I don't go around telling other posters that they don't care for D&D. Whereas time and again 4e playes get told that we are spoiling (or have spoiled) D&D, that we should go and get our own game, etc.

When I say that 4e is the first version of D&D to deliver the story experience that D&D has promised at least since the Foreword to Moldvay Basic (of earlier editions, I personally have found AD&D Oriental Adventures to come closest), I repeatedly get called upon to explain, or apologise, or justify: as if this was expressing some sort of hate for D&D, when from my point of view and my own experience, it's expressing a deep fondness: for 30 years I've been using the story elements that TSR and then WotC have published, and finally they've also published a mechanical system that I can use to support those story elements.

Now I'm happy to believe that my experiences and preferences are unusual. I wouldn't expect any but a small number of other posters to share them. But I don't see why they are less important and less authoritative than those who think that D&D is about wandering monsters and/or process sim mechanics. I've got as fulll a shelf of D&D stuff as any other typical poster here!

Thank you.

 

[Grabuto138]

You know, that statement is worded in a rather uncivil fashion, but I pretty much agree with it. Do you really think the difference between this quote and something more civil but equally strong like "Paizo adventures are hackneyed and unoriginal stories supported by unexceptional mechanics that limit creativity at the table and are an inadequate replacement for good prep and improvisation" is really that different? I think people are likely to get riled no matter what. The same is true of most things on these boards. Some people simply cannot handle X being criticized, where X represents any number of things.

(Incidentally, I like Paizo as company; just not real high on the published adventures).

I think he was intentionally using hyperbole to draw a parallel against criticism of 4e. I may be wrong but I think you might have entirely missed the point.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Pretty much, yes. That and Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit, quadratic wizards and linear fighters, wizards being auto-win buttons, that any impression-based criticism of 4e is a falsehood, that there was some vast conspiracy of complainers who killed 4e, all sorts of stuff every bit as controversial as saying 4e is a skirmish board game. I will say it has certainly gotten a lot worse with the D&D Next discussions.

The trouble is that the first few are specific criticisms we can point to and pick out details that make it so. And it isn't true that any impression-based criticism of 4e is a falsehood. What is true is that 4e plays a whole lot better than it reads and that there are huge festering mounds of lies propogated round 4e - and that most 4e players have significant experience of prior editions whereas most people who dislike 4e don't have significant experience of it.

As for it getting worse with D&D Next discussions, possibly so. Pre-Next discussions I didn't venture out into the general gaming section of ENWorld much because I couldn't be bothered to see what misconceptions were propogated this time. D&D Next is encouraging us to stop ignoring each other. And if I can't avoid insulting nonsense (and I can't because like you I care about where D&D Next is going) I am going to push back against it.

4e took a big, explicit step to the Gamist side of things. If you're okay with that (I am, but many aren't), then 4e can be a great game.

Say rather 4e took a big, explicit step back to the Gamist side of things. All versions of D&D from Gary Gygax are extremely gamist, with XP for GP and the object being to loot dungeons. If you want to force gamism out of D&D then you need to force out Gygax and Arneson.

I tend to agree with this assessment. I would add that I find the OoC a little too light, and the Combat stuff to be a little too specific/heavy. I think its one of the things that leads many to say that 4e is a combat-only or skirmish game.

I prefer my combat heavier than my OOC but 4e does go a bit too far.

So, yeah, I totally get why people would think the game is so combat focused. 4e's biggest enemy is 4e itself.

4e's biggest enemy is 4e's presentation.

For everything you think has strong evidence here, someone else may think there's strong evidence that 4e is a significantly different playing experience than other editions of D&D and doesn't belong in the same product line.

Well, yes. That goes for any two consecutive editions you care to name. Go over to Dragonsfoot and tell them that 1e is the same game as 3e or even that 2e is the same as 1e and see what they have to say.

Literally every edition of D&D has a significantly different focus from its predecessor, and this is especially true for 2e which tried to reject the gamist roots of D&D in favour of further hacking into a high concept fantasy game.

That there's strong evidence that 4e's focus on the grid and encounter pushes the game to the scope of a miniature skirmish game. Even fans of 4e will sometimes make those comments - just check into threads in the 4e forum and you'll find some.

Yes. It happens. And you can play 4e as a minatures skirmish game. People do.

And yes, I have heard, over the last 4 years, plenty that say gaming luddites like me who fear change shouldn't be involved in further development of D&D.

And I am not defending them. Some 4e fans do behave badly. However even that is significantly less impolite than you are being whenever you claim that 4e isn't D&D. They are claiming "You have your game and that's what you want so you should stick with it." You are claiming "You have your game and that's what you want - but you are actively wrong about what it is and so you should stick with it."

Whenever you claim 4e isn't D&D you are being actively ruder than anyone who says you shouldn't talk about further development of D&D because you don't play 4e. It's the same basic attempt to kill conversation but with its own nasty twist added.

I'd agree with this. The only thing is, when we do ask for why it pulls people out of immersion, we get something like, "Well, it's dissociated. There's no correlation between what my character is doing and what I, the player, am doing."

And there I've, I believe, shown that I actively have more correlation with what I the player am doing and what my character is than in what is, to me, the disempowering and immersion-shattering one minute combat round of AD&D.

There's a difference though. I accepted what DannyA claimed, that he did not have the 15 MAD. What I could never get out of it though was how he didn't in such a way that I could apply his methods to my game.

Indeed. I've had exactly the same conversation about the Kingmaker AP. And I still don't understand how some people find more than three encounters in any but an exceptional day with it while taking the time to explore hexes.

I've had that same sort of conversation about low level characters scouting. When I pointed out that the chances of scouting were very, very low, particulary in AD&D, I learned that the other person was actually playing pretty fast and loose with the mechanics and the reason his group succeeded in that form of play is because the DM strongly facilitated it.

That's my experience too. And ties to the Oberoni fallacy.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

However, I think that, by your criteria, post-errata Come and Get It (which is, I think, what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] posted) is associated but abstract: it requires a successful will attack before the enemey moves, which implies that the PC is actively toying with the minds of his/her opponents (4e does not have a "mind affecting category" outside of the notions of will attacks and psychic damage, neither of which affect objects), and although it uses STR, this is an abstraction in the same way that the separation of STR, CON and DEX is an abstraction (ie in real life these physiological traits of a person are not completely independent).

Quite possibly; I don't have the errata. I know post-errata, it stops being the easy choice to kick. I think that's telling. It was a proud nail; now it's been pounded into place.

I also think that Get Over Here is, by your criteria, associated but abstract. 4e powers tend to be somewhat indifferent, in their drafting, between "slide an ally up to X squares" and "permit an ally to shift us to X squares as a free action". The practical difference is that the slide is not impeded by difficult terrain, whereas the shift is. In a very technical sense, PC 2 cannot resist forced movement imposed by PC 1, but I can't imagine any table in which, if player 2 said to player 1 "I really don't want my PC to be moved there", that the GM would enforce the movement against player 2's will. Just as the "pull" from Come and Get It is not literal (the NPCs/monsters may well be moving under their own steam), so the used of forced movement in ally-oriented buffs is just a mechanical convenience, with the additional modest side effect that it helps allies move through difficult terrain without drawing attacks of opportunity. To put it another way, I think you have been tricked into an error of classification here by your unfamiliarity with a certain mechanical "colloquialism" that 4e powers use.

GM's abiliity to mitigate bad rules aside, is there anything that explains how PC1 can force PC2 to move against his will when he isn't in range to be grabbed or that can impose the desire to move? The power as presented is very straightforward; it doesn't offer the opportunity for movement; it imposes it without any integration with the in-game world. As written, it would be catnip for a particular style of toxic player I'm familiar with.

<snip>

What did amuse me about your post, though, was that what you describe is almost exactly the judgement I've formed of D&Dnext to date. Where are the other two pillars - and especially the interaction pillar?

I agree that is worrisome. I was hoping for much more balance between the pillars -- where any reward "budget" took all three in account and abilities and predilection to engage with the game world were spread across the different classes.

Although it is early (though not as early as many proponents suggest considering the length of a test iteration and the amount of material to cover), what we've seen is the similar focus on defeating enemies that has existed since 3e. I'd prefer to see a focus on overcoming challenges -- across all three pillars.

Find the rumours about the situation? Here's a reward.
Tease out the details of the opposition? Here's a reward.
Defeat the guards? Here's a reward.
Find the secrets? Here's a reward.
Get the important stuff back to those who value it? Here's a reward.
Successfully negotiate and collect winnings? Here's a reward.
Successfully hide involement/spread word of accomplishment? Here's a reward.