D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[pemerton]

None of those issues make those mechanics dissociative. There's nothing in hit points, with those examples, that suggests dissociation.

<snip>

I think you're hanging up on the fact that hit points are abstract and, thanks to random variations, the results of these events can vary significantly and may not be particularly severe compared to our real world understanding (where life and limb and injury is decidedly less abstract). But that's not really dissociated.

The "dissociated" aspect of hit points is this: when the hit point pool is low the player knows that the next hit will be fatal; but how does the PC know that? (Given that the PC is not tired, or slowing down, nor carrying a "divine favour and luck" meter to measure his/her current state of Gygaxian "health"). In other words, unless you interpret hit points as meat, hit points are an example of the "dissociated" Fate Points that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] mentioned upthread.

Another similar example, that relates to the falling example or the crossbow example, flips the situation around: the "dissociation" is not produced by the fact that the PC can survive the fall, or the multiple crossbow bolts while tied to a pole; it's produced by the fact that the player knows in advance that the PC will survive (because s/he has enough hp left), whereas the PC cannot know this (unless hit points are meat).

In other words, hit points are dissociated because they give the player a power to predict things, and have his/her PC act on that prediction, that the PC does not enjoy him- or herself.

4E was such a departure from D&D's past that it is alien to a good deal of the existing D&D audience

This keeps being said, as if those who like 4e are interlopers in the garden of D&D.

D&D has always had two aspects: its story elements, and its mechanical elements. For about 20 years I abandoned the mechanical elements, because they were not up to the task of supporting and delivering the story elements. 4e brought me back to D&D's mechanics, because finally they were able to deliver on the story elements that I had been using for those nearly 20 years. Here is how I put it on another recent thread:

In the 20-odd years that I GMed Rolemaster, I used two D&D campaign settings - Greyhawk and Kara-Tur - and numerous D&D modules - Emirates of Ylaruam, Descent into the Depths of the Earth, the Slavers, Tomb of Horrors, Bastion of Broken Souls, mutiple 2nd-ed Greyhawk modules, multiple 1st-ed and 2nd-ed Oriental Adventures modules, plus any number of D&D vignettes from various sources (like the single-card scenarios in the Greyhawk City boxed set, and Tales from the Infinte Staircase). I also converted any number of monsters from the AD&D and 3E Monster Manuals to Rolemaster, and used Deities & Demigods and Manuals of the Planes from multiple editions to help build my pantheons and cosmologies.

<snip>

I think of myself as someone who loves D&D - look at all the D&D story elements I've been using for 20 years! It was just that the D&D mechanics could never deliver me the promise of those story elements - until 4e.

I don't see that you have any greater claim on what D&D is, and might or should be, than I do.

I particularly want to reiterate that last line. Those who don't like 4e don't have any monopoly over the question of what D&D really is, or whether 4e was true to it or departed from it. For me, 4e is mechanically truer to those D&D story elements than any earlier version of the D&D system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't get the implication that someone who simply browsed a book in a store didn't give the thing a fair chance. D&D is sold in book form. If that book (like any book) doesn't make a solid enough impression in the store for a prospective customer to buy (or keep it), the book has failed, not the person who didn't like it. The point of creating any consumer product is to convince people to buy it.

There are plenty of movies, for instance, that I actively dislike but have never seen, based on the trailers or other incomplete information. There are plenty of places in this world that I have never been and never wish to go to, which can be an informed opinion. etc. etc.

I, for one, know a lot about 4e, more than I wish I did, more than I know about almost any rpg, but have never played it, considered playing it, or met anyone in person who played it.

4e plays a hell of a lot better than it reads. I don't always think Ron Edwards is on the ball, but you are clearly on the Simulationist side of his GNS model.

How-to-play text
A lot of game texts in this tradition reach for a fascinating ideal: that reading the book is actually the start of play, moving seamlessly into group play via character creation. Features of some texts like the NPC-to-PC explanatory style and GM-only sections are consistent with this ideal, as well as the otherwise-puzzling statement that character generation is a form of Director stance. It supports the central point of this essay, that the value of Simulationist play is prioritizing the group imaginative experience, to an extent that expands the very notion of "play" into acts that from Narrativist or Gamist perspectives are not play at all.
​

And if you are looking for a simulationist game this might help. But the 4e rulebooks are about as related to playing 4e as my VBA instruction manual (I know...) is to programming a computer. You can decide that that's not what you think a game book should be - but reading the 4e rulebook tells you how to play 4e which is entirely distinct from the experience of playing 4e. Which means that you probably had more of an understanding of 4e before you tried reading it than after.

 

[Ahnehnois]

4e plays a hell of a lot better than it reads.

You know, I still remember the first D&D book I picked up. Playing the game gave me pretty much exactly the experience I thought it would when I first read it. Still does, on some level. Is this supposed to be some specific property of 4e? That reading it is misleading?

 

[Imaro]

The "dissociated" aspect of hit points is this: when the hit point pool is low the player knows that the next hit will be fatal; but how does the PC know that? (Given that the PC is not tired, or slowing down, nor carrying a "divine favour and luck" meter to measure his/her current state of Gygaxian "health"). In other words, unless you interpret hit points as meat, hit points are an example of the "dissociated" Fate Points that @Emerikol mentioned upthread.

Doesn't this depend on edition though? In 3.0 loosing my last hit point is not fatal only at -10 or lower am I "Dead".

At 0 hit points my character is "Disabled"... at -1 to -9 he is "Dying"... and at -10 Hit points or lower he is "Dead". This seems like a progression that informs the player (with mechanical effects) as to the current state of his PC who "feels" it through these conditions in character. Is instant death possible going from perfectly fine (1 or more hit points) to dead, sure but the player never knows he will die before the character has indicators of it... at least not in 3.0.

 

[triqui]

I have tried repeatedly to clarify the distincts between realism (D&D is not!), abstraction (D&D is assuredly), and dissociative (pre 4e D&D was not necessarily). Dissociative mechanics are specific things where the player and character have to think about something differently. A fate point is an easy and perfect example. If you can use some pool of resources to modify a die whenever you want but only so long as you have points in the pool, then that is dissociative. The character does not know about the pool. The character does not know why he suddenly got better this time. etc...

You can keep snarking away but all you are doing to revealing ignorance on the matter. It is something precise. It would be better if you just said it doesn't bother you. A reasonable position. But denying it is ostrich head in the sand.

Hit points are not only unrealistic and abstract, but also disociative. There's no in-game explanation for your mortal human lvl 20 fighter being chewed by a dragon, the spit from 1000 feet high, slam the floor, and then being able to fight, run, and jump with absolute normality because he has 1 hp left, just to die the next round because he is hit by a needle wielding pixie.

In the case of the crossbow bolt, you would die even at 20th level. At least in my campaign you would.

That shows your homebrewn houseruled system, based on D&D, is not dissociative (in this regard, at the very least). It does not show how D&D is or is not disociated, because in D&D, under current rules, he won't die. Just like you can houserule that anyone swiming on lava should die, but the game just make him 20d6 per round.
When your character is tied to a pole in D&D, and receive a volley of bolts, the character *knows* he will die, while the player *knows* he wont.

 

[triqui]

You know, I still remember the first D&D book I picked up. Playing the game gave me pretty much exactly the experience I thought it would when I first read it. Still does, on some level. Is this supposed to be some specific property of 4e? That reading it is misleading?

It's a property of non-simulationist games. The more simulationist the game is, the closer are the rules and the game experience (as the game experience is based on the rules'' descrpition and simulation of the world). The more narrative, or gamist, the bigger effect this property has.

I, for one, happen to be in the opposite camp than Neochamaleon. The gameplay experience was worse, in my case, than how the books read. I was (and still are) quite fond of some of 4e design goals and mechanics, but when I played them, I didnt like that much (for example, treasure parcels, item craftng and wish lists. I thought they would be great, and didn't really played well later)

But the difference in how the book reads, and how it plays, is there.

 

[Yora]

Every time you mention GNS, a thread bursts into flames.

In other words, hit points are dissociated because they give the player a power to predict things, and have his/her PC act on that prediction, that the PC does not enjoy him- or herself.

You could easily say that the characters are aware that they are battared and bruised and near collapse, but for ease of play it is not reflected in mechanical penalties.

 

[Emerikol]

The "dissociated" aspect of hit points is this: when the hit point pool is low the player knows that the next hit will be fatal; but how does the PC know that? (Given that the PC is not tired, or slowing down, nor carrying a "divine favour and luck" meter to measure his/her current state of Gygaxian "health"). In other words, unless you interpret hit points as meat, hit points are an example of the "dissociated" Fate Points that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] mentioned upthread.

While I wouldn't say hit points are exactly meat, my characters do know their hit points. So practically it is as if they were meat. This is unrealistic but as I've said many times it's not dissociative.

Another similar example, that relates to the falling example or the crossbow example, flips the situation around: the "dissociation" is not produced by the fact that the PC can survive the fall, or the multiple crossbow bolts while tied to a pole; it's produced by the fact that the player knows in advance that the PC will survive (because s/he has enough hp left), whereas the PC cannot know this (unless hit points are meat).

A character knows the general range. If 10d6 is what ten feet of falling does to you then they know that general range. At least as well as any of us know such stuff. I'm not saying the character is thinking a number. But the number relates to a real thing.

In other words, hit points are dissociated because they give the player a power to predict things, and have his/her PC act on that prediction, that the PC does not enjoy him- or herself.

In your games. In mine as I've said we don't do like you do.

This keeps being said, as if those who like 4e are interlopers in the garden of D&D.

4e is the first edition that forced dissociation. D&D never in any edition tried to be realistic. Short of houseruling away dailies which would be a pretty big change there is nothing to do to get away from it.

... stuff....
I particularly want to reiterate that last line. Those who don't like 4e don't have any monopoly over the question of what D&D really is, or whether 4e was true to it or departed from it. For me, 4e is mechanically truer to those D&D story elements than any earlier version of the D&D system.

I don't doubt you believe this. But the mechanics are the game. If I play GURPS in the forgotten realms I'm playing GURPS not D&D. And for me 4e departed too far from what is D&D to still be considered a descendent of that game. It got printed anyway so what. Thats my opinion and how I feel. No reflection on how you feel. It is a valid perspective though and saying "4e isn't D&D" is a short hand way of easily saying this statement.

 

[Imaro]

Every time you mention GNS, a thread bursts into flames.

You could easily say that the characters are aware that they are battared and bruised and near collapse, but for ease of play it is not reflected in mechanical penalties.

Well, like I posted earlier, Characters not having penalties before they die, at least in 3.0, isn't true at all. Just saying.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You know, I still remember the first D&D book I picked up. Playing the game gave me pretty much exactly the experience I thought it would when I first read it. Still does, on some level. Is this supposed to be some specific property of 4e? That reading it is misleading?

No. It's a specific property of one way of writing a book as against another. 4e books are clear, crisp, precise, and I can find anything in them in a matter of seconds. If I want to know how 4e plays, the only books that to me come close are the DMGs - but if I want to know a given piece of information on how to play 4e while at the table then the 4e books are the best edition I've seen. Which, as normal, means that 4e is easier to improvise with than 3.X.