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

[Herschel]

It's wholly possible to play without any mind toward any of that. Kicking in the door and hacking down orcs for gold and glory and nothing else is a perfectly viable way to play. However, it's not the only way to play, and I'd venture to say I'm not alone in having a desire for a little more context given to the scenes I play through.

I totally agree. Well said. I'd even venture to say that the biggest aid to immersion at my table has always been "context."

I once had a Barbarian named Context who liked kicking in the door and hacking down Orcs for gold and glory and now I'm confused. .

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't like how that argument blames the person for everything. The feeling that the scene is wrong and suboptimal is "true" enough.

If we can't criticize the script or scene as 'dissociated' and we're imagining how the story could/should have played out relative to the stupid script, I'd like to know what it is a good word to express this phenomenon. "Implausible" too seems vague. "Variable association" does not imply the loss of suspension of disbelief.

I quibble over "blames" as what is done to the person here, but that is just a quibble ...

I'm not sure that you can apply one word to this phenomenon, because I'm not sure that it is one thing that causes it, when it is caused, or that it is consistent. Plus, no doubt there are elements of human psychology, brain patterns, etc. here that we aren't equipped to answer.

Consider the esoteric case of metre in poetry, for example. It's known that iambic pentameter (five pairs of stressed/unstressed sounds) generally is perceived by most English-speaking natives to have a richer/stronger/better/pleasing sound compared to iambic tetrameter (four pairs of stressed/unstressed sounds). It's an objective fact that if you do a controlled survey of native English-speaking natives, you will find this strong preference. You'll get a non-trivial number of people who will report that iambic tetrameter is "sing-songy" or something similar.

Why this is so? I don't think anyone really knows, though I'm sure people have written guesses on it. The why is very subjective. Someone might be tempted to think that humans just like one better than the other. Yet, this isn't true, either. Reportedly, it does not hold for medieval French verse, which is often in iambic tetrameter, and does not generally produce a sing-songy vibe. Reportedly, there are similar differences in other languages. So the observation is something specific to those fluent in English--and usually adults, as children often like the sing-songy stuff.

So we can easily contrive fictional examples that will be more or less jarring, implausible, etc. to a wide swath of people, but trying to understand why is difficult. My objection to the (non-ranting, non-edition warring) parts of the TA essay has never been that it wasn't after something worth seeking, but that it settles for a too simplistic answer. Why does X rip Bob out of immersion completely, Larry a little, and Shemp not at all? That's a good question.

Edit: What I'm talking about here is the difference between characterizing a thing versus a tighter, more explanatory definition. If you want to characterize what this thing is in a word or phase, I think you can't beat "immersion breaking" or "breaks immersion". It's true, unobjectionable, clear, etc. If you want a word or phrase that explains why it happens concisely and objectively, I don't think there is any such animal.

 

[D'karr]

Why does X rip Bob out of immersion completely, Larry a little, and Shemp not at all?

Because Shemp's "da' man".

 

[Ratskinner]

Technically, I would disagree. First, PrCs were an optional rule under DM purview. They were not a default a rule available to the players (at least, in 3.0. As to whether they are still listed in the DMG as being an optional rule, I don't know. I don't know). Second, if you are going to mention PrCs, there are a number of official options available for customizing the character from the start.

I wasn't talking about just prestige classes at that point. There were plenty of concepts (especially martial character concepts) that you just couldn't do in 3e until you'd snagged enough feats to pull it off without living in penalty hell (if you could do it at all.) Even then, some of them were barely workable.

That's the cost of a Simulationist system (at least within the realm of D&Dness.) From a Sim point of view, you can look at...oh a dual-whip-wielding non-lethal attack specialist, and you have to break it down into all its little fiddly bits (feats, skills, proficiencies, whatever.) Since 3e dribbles these out over the levels, some concepts just have to wait. The Simulationist impulse demands that all of these abilities have some "justification" within the game-reality (i.e. "Realistic" or "plausible").

I've played other systems that ditch Simulation entirely. This can give them tremendous advantages in the "express a character concept" realm. In some of my favorites, you could play that expert dual-whip-wielding non-lethal attack specialist right next to the deadly veteran and the farmboy just picking up a sword for the first time...and they'd all be "balanced" and participating equally.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's not quite right though. There's a difference here. Pem says that he gets this specific experience and is questioned on it. But, no one ever seems to take it a step further and ask why he gets this experience with Edition X, and not Y. It's almost always simply a denial that he had the experience in the first place.

I disagree. I certainly have the impression of it being questioned and him explaining why he feels that way. There are people who deny that his experience is universal, sure. And I believe he may have questioned them on how the game delivered what he wanted out of it for them. But I do think he's been questioned, not just doubted.

This doesn't seem to be quite the same sort of question, though. If someone says "I don't want to wear a shirt - it makes me feel too warm" it's not generally unreasonable to point out "but, dude, you're wearing a neckscarf, hat and gloves!"

If they don't feel warm because of those things, you arguing with them about it isn't going to help. I wear a blanket or sheet every night of the year, even if it's summer and 115 degrees. People ask me if I'm hot because of it, and I tell them "no" when I'm obviously hot from the weather. The blanket, though, doesn't make it any worse for me.

It might to you. I get that. It might to a lot of other people. Most, even. My experience, though? Just as valid for me, as yours is for you. Again, you arguing against it isn't going to change my mind, no matter how logical it seems to you. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Hmm, dropping in on this brief note, because it interests me intellectually like a social experiment why Enworlders do what they do, what is the motivation to "clarify" someone else's experience? Generally speaking, for anyone who feels this is applicable to them, what is the motivation to clarify other peoples' experience for days or weeks or months or perhaps even years? What is your "return on investment" (standard colloquial meaning)?snip

Generally, my return on investment is to clarify my own understanding of something first. I'm perfectly willing to be shown why I'm wrong. Well, maybe not perfectly, but, I am willing.

The second motivation is generally to counter what I see as persistent and often pernicious memes that get spread, repeated, and then taken for gospel about different games. For example, there used to be a persistent meme about 3e that the WOTC artwork was very anime based.

After hashing it back and forth a few times, I actually stepped up to the plate and challenged the critics to provide proof. It showed pretty clearly that while there might be a very few pieces of 3e art (half of the "proof" images were late edition reprints from Paizo Dragon) which had strong anime influences, the vast majority had nothing to do with anime influences, at least not any more than any other pop-media art. And, fortunately, since that time, I have never seen the criticism again. It completely vanished.

 

[pemerton]

To claim that association and disocciation are objectively true you must claim to be able to speak on behalf of the experiences and imaginations of everyone.

That's a part of 'framing' which I think is often overlooked -context.

Why is this scene important? Why is the outcome of this scene important? How does it relate to the scenes which have come before? How does it relate to those which might come after? These questions can all be asked at multiple levels as well. Why something is important for the party as a whole or the game world could be completely different from why it is important to a particular character.

I agree with both these posts, which (to me, at least) seem to point in the same direction: that the meaning and significance of play, and the immersion it might (or might not) produce are very contextual and individual.

I've already quoted it in this thread (post 793 upthread), but I'm going to requote this observation from LostSoul:

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

I think those who dislike "dissociated" mechanics are, among other things, rejecting this particular feature of 4e play.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
If they don't feel warm because of those things, you arguing with them about it isn't going to help. I wear a blanket or sheet every night of the year, even if it's summer and 115 degrees. People ask me if I'm hot because of it, and I tell them "no" when I'm obviously hot from the weather. The blanket, though, doesn't make it any worse for me.

It might to you. I get that. It might to a lot of other people. Most, even. My experience, though? Just as valid for me, as yours is for you. Again, you arguing against it isn't going to change my mind, no matter how logical it seems to you. As always, play what you like

But, drill it down further. Why doesn't the blanket make you feel warmer? We can bring physics into it, actually TEST whether or not the temperature is different, discuss fabrics and whatnot and possibly, just maybe, come up with some fairly solid guesses as to why you don't feel warmer with a blanket, when it seems pretty given that you should feel warmer.

And, that's the thing. So often when this sort of thing comes up, no matter what, your claim that you don't feel warmer must be accepted as true, for some reason, even when all logic says that it shouldn't be true.

Wouldn't an easier explanation be that, while you might think you are not warmer, it's possible that you actually are increasing body temperature, but, the fabrics that you are using are drawing the sweat away from your body at a higher rate than exposure to open air would, thus giving you the perception that you feel cooler?

But, people will rabidly maintain, in the face of facts, that their person experience must be the truth.

 

[Grimmjow]

But, drill it down further. Why doesn't the blanket make you feel warmer? We can bring physics into it, actually TEST whether or not the temperature is different, discuss fabrics and whatnot and possibly, just maybe, come up with some fairly solid guesses as to why you don't feel warmer with a blanket, when it seems pretty given that you should feel warmer.

And, that's the thing. So often when this sort of thing comes up, no matter what, your claim that you don't feel warmer must be accepted as true, for some reason, even when all logic says that it shouldn't be true.

Wouldn't an easier explanation be that, while you might think you are not warmer, it's possible that you actually are increasing body temperature, but, the fabrics that you are using are drawing the sweat away from your body at a higher rate than exposure to open air would, thus giving you the perception that you feel cooler?

But, people will rabidly maintain, in the face of facts, that their person experience must be the truth.

your missing his point. What hes saying si that he uses blanket A and Sheet A every night he sleeps in his bed all year round. One night it happens to be over 100 outside and his family/friends ask him if hes hot with because hes under the blanket. He says "no". The blanket wasn't making him hot last night because it was a cooler night, but now that it is over 100 outside (and therefore the house is warmer) he is hot under the blanket. Its not the blankets fault, its the outside's fault.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, drill it down further. Why doesn't the blanket make you feel warmer? We can bring physics into it, actually TEST whether or not the temperature is different, discuss fabrics and whatnot and possibly, just maybe, come up with some fairly solid guesses as to why you don't feel warmer with a blanket, when it seems pretty given that you should feel warmer.

Oh, sure, we could. I mean, the discussions don't normally work that way. They usually say "it's the same thing; you should feel warmer." Cool. Thing is, I don't. Why is that? I don't know. I've done it since I was a small child, so maybe I've grown accustomed to it. Maybe it's because I lived in my car (voluntarily) for three years, and in that time, the temp could be up to 118 degrees outside (and much hotter inside), and I'd sleep in the car with a blanket.

I don't know why it is that way, but it is. Use all the science you want; I'm still not going to feel any hotter at the end of those tests before or after the blanket is added.

And, that's the thing. So often when this sort of thing comes up, no matter what, your claim that you don't feel warmer must be accepted as true, for some reason, even when all logic says that it shouldn't be true.

I know, it's like people have different views or takes on things. Ridiculous

Wouldn't an easier explanation be that, while you might think you are not warmer, it's possible that you actually are increasing body temperature, but, the fabrics that you are using are drawing the sweat away from your body at a higher rate than exposure to open air would, thus giving you the perception that you feel cooler?

Sure, yeah. That could be it.

Of course, the thing that matters to me, when we're discussing how hot it is to me, is how I actually feel. Sure, say that "your body is warmer" if you want to. At the end of the day, I don't feel any warmer. So, when you're trying to convince me that I should feel differently, or that it makes no sense to feel the way I do, it's only so much noise. Now, I get why other people won't feel the same way. I get that preference plays into it. I get the logic behind their statements. But, it comes down to preference.

Oh course, this is all a tangent from me butting back into this conversation. I was trying to point out that people were attacking each other for things the other side never said. And I just want that repeated one more time, because that's really the point I was making.

But, people will rabidly maintain, in the face of facts, that their person experience must be the truth.

Yes, and when it's properly qualified (as a personal experience), then they're right. Sorry, man. You don't get or accept their reasoning. I get that. I get why it'd be hard for you to accept, too. I have a blanket covering me when I shouldn't. It makes no sense to you. The thing is, when we're talking about "what makes you feel warmer" (or the type of mechanics make you feel a certain way), all I can do is present what does it to me, and the reasoning as to why that is.

Why does corn taste delicious (used to be my favorite food as a kid) but chocolate is unappealing (at absolute best)? I don't know. It just is. Does this line up with most people? Probably not. Preference, man. I can try to explain it, but it's preference.

Bang your head against that all you want, but really, what do you expect me to say? Maybe a blanket actually does make me feel warmer when it's hot outside? Maybe it should? Maybe it does to most? I can see the second, and I do say the third, but I'm not going to say the first. It's simply untrue. As always, play what you like