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

[Emerikol]

Really? A boxer knows EXACTLY which blow is going to knock him out? He knows that he's taken X number of hits and that the next one is guaranteed to either KO him or render him to zero hp? (Satisfied Imaro?)

I'm thinking he doesn't know that. I'm pretty sure that someone facing Mike Tyson in the early days didn't know that they were going to get knocked out within the first round.

As your hit points go down, you are aware of getting wounds and growing more tired. So as you defend each time it is harder and harder to successfully ward off attack. So yes you do know. I'm not saying you know 1 vs 2. But you know you are really low and in danger. The numbers are an abstraction I agree and a way to communicate the information from character to player. But the fact you are way low and in danger is not unknown.

It's kind of humorous really. The people who don't mind dissociated mechanics (as defined elsewhere) are thinking dissociatively about all kinds of things. Thats an interesting revelation.

How?

In 3e, since some people are insisting we be specific about edition, I could take a critical hit for the first time from an opponent and be dropped despite having full hit points. I'm not close to death. I haven't taken a single point of damage at all. Yet, I, the player, certainly know that.

Are you actually trying to argue that while your character is dead and you are not as a player that it's dissociative. Come on. At that moment your character has flatlined. No need to worry about dissociation.

Sigh. So, we're back to "it's okay because it's magic"? What's wrong with Martial powers being Extraordinary in origin (a la 3e's definition of Extraordinary - not magical, but certainly beyond "normal" physics)? Is it because the rules don't specify that? Is it simply that the game designers didn't lock down a single definition of how Martial Dailies work that is causing the problem?

You could devise a world and/or game where all character classes are magical. You'd probably want some non-magical types as npcs. Thats not D&D. Thats not a game I'd be all that interested in playing but you could do it. At that moment the issue would not be that it is dissociative but rather just not the game I'm looking for.

------------

Why aren't Combat Superiority dice also breaking your immersion? After all, I can retcon an attack so long as I have CS dice available. A creature can hit me, deal damage and I can spend dice to reduce that damage. This is 100% dissociated. The character isn't doing this, obviously, since the character would be trying to minimize damage all the time. Yet, at any point in time, I, the player, can reduce any hit, to the point where the "hit" does no damage.

Well for one I'm reserving judgment on CS. So far since CS dice are available every single round it represents the fighter choosing to use his skill to defend more or to attack more. Meaning he can defend every single time but there may be times where he'd rather press the attack and take more chances. I suspect some of the things a fighter will be able to use these dice for though will be dissociative. The guardian speciality is clearly dissociative since its 2/day.

How is this any different from, say, a Warlord's Healing? After all, there are ways for a fighter to reduce damage to other character's as well. The playtest Dwarven Fighter has this (although at the moment, I don't remember what it's called).

The explanation is that the fighter is blocking the enemy. Attempting to turn aside the blow. Sometimes thats not 100% successful. Meaning partial damage is averted.

Any attack made against this character or any PC adjacent to this character can be retconned any time the player chooses.

If it is allowed after the attack and/or damage has already been rolled then yeah I'd say that is dissociative. The fighter should have to choose to defend before the attack roll is made.

I definitely wouldn't hold up 5e as a perfect example of non-dissociative mechanics. It's not rife wth them though at this moment. I do have fears they will go this way though. If they do then I'll find another game to play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah the word dissociation is one we are struggling with for lack of a better term. ... But I will argue that what I speak of is a distinct class of mechanics. Its a class that includes martial daily powers, fate points, and action points but does not include hit points, armor class, etc... Give me a name for the set of these items.

How 'bout "things that are in an edition you're warring against?" ;P

Seriously, though, the class you're looking for is 'things you don't like.' You don't really need much more than that. There are purely subjective preferences and there's no /need/ to justify them.

But, I think you realize that since you say it, below, twice:

... But since dissociation is subjective, nothing can be called such in an absolute sense.

...Since immersion is subjective anything could in theory be dissociative.

You've got a subjective preference. Whether you're trying to justify it or to persuade others to share it, you're groping for a more precise vocabulary that you don't really need - the preference, alone, is sufficient.

The need to destroy the thing you don't prefer is a little perverse, IMHO, but that damage has been done, so there's little enough to be accomplished in that regard at this late date.

It would still be helpful to 5e development, though, to really understand if there are any mechanical, presentation, or other issues that 5e needs to avoid. Not rationalizations or ciphers or stalking horses, but the actual issues.

For instance, 'dissociated' mechanics seems to coincide pretty strongly with martial dailies. Martial dailies allowed 4e to achieve a level of class balance. Class balance, then, may be the real problem. If one faction needs martial classes to be functionally inferior (perhaps so that magic 'feels like magic?') that would be a good thing to know. And, unlike the subjective mush of 'dissociated mechanics' and 'play style preferences' and the like, it's something clear that could be addressed, mechanically - for instance, with 'high' and 'low' magic 'modules' that vary the relative power of casters appropriately.

Obviously there'd be some battle-lines drawn, since a lot of us like class balance, but at least we'd each know what the heck the other is talking about.

If it's something else concrete (rewards for system mastery, simulating reality vs simulating genre, etc), that'd be nice to know, too. If it really is just rejection of the new, that'd be helpful to know (and argue strongly /against/ rolling out a 5e, but rather for re-vitalizing classic and d20 D&Ds).

So in closing, there is a set of mechanics A such that a large group finds them dissociative. Set A includes some things and not others (see above). Set A is definable and distinct.

Actually, it's neither definable nor distinct, but, as you admit above, wholly subjective.

 

[triqui]

Please go back and read the post I responded to originally... a few minutes ago you were quoting exact words... now it's generalizations... again, where'd those goalposts go??

I quoted exact words because you were moving the goalposts.

You can't prove that it does matter "in general" (whatever that means). The only thing that's true is what I said... it's not a mechanic that forces one to leave the viewpoint of his character when choosing how to interact with it... is this right or wrong??

I can prove it does matter to some people, so it is false to say it does not matter in general. I never said it does matter in general, I said it is obvious it's false it does not. It's not the same. I can prove that it's false that all californians are american doesn't mean all americans are californian. I havent said that there aren't americans that are californians.

No, no I didn't and now I know you aren't reading what I actually wrote. I said it was a metagame mechanic that forces one to step out of the viewpoint of his character in order to make use of.

I know. But that's the definiton of a dissociative mechanic. So if you say it forces you to step out of "in character" and make a "player decision", you are saying it is a dissociative mechanic. Because that's the definition of a dissociative mechanic.

The choice to use an action point doesn't fit into the viewpoint of the character... it is based upon a player decision. I'm not talking about whether the effect maps to reality or not I am speaking to the choice of when, where and how to use it. I think the issue is that you are confusing my arguments with some of the others you've been responding to.

Call it willpower points. Is the use of his force of will a choice you make from the viewpoint of the character?

 

[Emerikol]

How 'bout "things that are in an edition you're warring against?" ;P

Seriously, though, the class you're looking for is 'things you don't like.' You don't really need much more than that. There are purely subjective preferences and there's no /need/ to justify them.

This is where I have issue with you. I agree that different things dissociate different people. But there are a class of things, a distinct set, that dissociate a particular group of people because of something they have in common. Like I said I am willing to back off dissociation because I agree you are not affected so that makes it definitely not an absolute term. Perhaps plot coupon or metagame dissonance are better. But there is something that Fate Points, Action Points, and Mundane Daily Powers all have in common. Give that commonality a name. So we can then have a discussion. We gave it a name based upon the effect these things have on us. But that name offended you because the effect wasn't how you felt. So I don't care. But for purposes of discussion we need a term for those things.

And it's not just what I don't like. There are too many people with the EXACT same view of it for it to just be my preferences. There would be far more scatter if that were the case.

If you can't concede this point then we are done. If we can't agree on a common language we can't have a discussion that leads anywhere.

 

[Imaro]

I quoted exact words because you were moving the goalposts.

So then stick with those exact words.

I can prove it does matter to some people, so it is false to say it does not matter in general. I never said it does matter in general, I said it is obvious it's false it does not. It's not the same. I can prove that it's false that all californians are american doesn't mean all americans are californian. I havent said that there aren't americans that are californians.

You definition of in general is wrong... "in general" means affecting the majority or being the most common case... you can't prove either one of these.

Wait let me quote a specific line from your post, just as an example of the mental gymnastics I am trying to get ahold of here, you said...

" I never said it does matter in general, I said it is obvious it's false it does not."

What?? So it's false that it does not matter in general... but that doesn't mean it matters in general... I'm not even sure what to make of this statement, it seems nonsensical to me. I'm also not understanding the analogy you are trying to draw between californians and americans...

I know. But that's the definiton of a dissociative mechanic. So if you say it forces you to step out of "in character" and make a "player decision", you are saying it is a dissociative mechanic. Because that's the definition of a dissociative mechanic.

Here, I thought we were still trying to define what dissociative mechanics were?? Which is exactly why I avoided using it in my example... on the other hand everyone knows what a metagame mechanic is and at least can agree they exist.

Call it willpower points. Is the use of his force of will a choice you make from the viewpoint of the character?

But it's not willpower... if it was, by definition, it wouldn't be confined to granting me an extra action, and only an extra action.

 

[Emerikol]

Here, I thought we were still trying to define what dissociative mechanics were?? Which is exactly why I avoided using it in my example... on the other hand everyone knows what a metagame mechanic is and at least can agree they exist.

This is the crux of our problem. The terms. A guy a long time ago wrote a blog post called dissociative mechanics. He did so because what he was talking about was dissociative to him. So that term went into the vernacular. I realize now that a lot of the battle over this stuff is whether what he was talking about is or is not dissociative and whether there aren't other things he wasn't talking about that are dissociative.

I don't care about all that. I care about the specific thing he was talking about. Maybe a better name is metagame dissonance. Thats the name I came up with when I wrote my blog before I even knew of the other blog. Plot coupon is perhaps another.

What is frustrating for a lot of us, is that people keep denying that what this guy was talking about doesn't exist as a distinct set of issues. Other than perhaps just pure subjectivity. I am certain that these issues do exist distinctly and that some set of the populace doesn't like them. Call them whatever you want.

 

[Imaro]

This is the crux of our problem. The terms. A guy a long time ago wrote a blog post called dissociative mechanics. He did so because what he was talking about was dissociative to him. So that term went into the vernacular. I realize now that a lot of the battle over this stuff is whether what he was talking about is or is not dissociative and whether there aren't other things he wasn't talking about that are dissociative.

I don't care about all that. I care about the specific thing he was talking about. Maybe a better name is metagame dissonance. Thats the name I came up with when I wrote my blog before I even knew of the other blog. Plot coupon is perhaps another.

What is frustrating for a lot of us, is that people keep denying that what this guy was talking about doesn't exist as a distinct set of issues. Other than perhaps just pure subjectivity. I am certain that these issues do exist distinctly and that some set of the populace doesn't like them. Call them whatever you want.

Well my original point in bringing up metagame mechanics was to dispute triqui's assertion that a mechanic can't force one to step out of his character's viewpoint it can only give incentive. I gave metagame mechanics as an example and listed drama points, fate points and action points as an example of mechanics that can force you to step out of your character's viewpoint when using them...

Now triqui has shifted the goalposts so much that he's arguing against me about dissociative mechanics... which I didn't comment about (or is it metagame mechanics???) and has narrowed my example down to just one of the three I first presented instead of addressing all three... so yeah I'm not even sure what he is trying to have a conversation with me about at this point.

 

[Emerikol]

Well my original point in bringing up metagame mechanics was to dispute triqui's assertion that a mechanic can't force one to step out of his character's viewpoint it can only give incentive. I gave metagame mechanics as an example and listed drama points, fate points and action points as an example of mechanics that can force you to step out of your character's viewpoint when using them...

Now triqui has shifted the goalposts so much that he's arguing against me about dissociative mechanics... which I didn't comment about (or is it metagame mechanics???) and has narrowed my example down to just one of the three I first presented instead of addressing all three... so yeah I'm not even sure what he is trying to have a conversation with me about at this point.

I will admit I haven't read all of your and his conversation. But I sympathize with your frustration. When you can't nail the terms down you can't even have a discussion. I call it mental filibustering. Just keep disputing the terms and never really get to the point.

All three of your examples are dissociative to me and definitely fall into the plot coupon category. A plot coupon is when a player expends a player resource that his character is unaware of to shape the game reality. Fate points are an obvious example.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is where I have issue with you. I agree that different things dissociate different people. But there are a class of things, a distinct set, that dissociate a particular group of people because of something they have in common.

It's very clear that there's a chunk of people who hate 4e, sure, and it's not clear they all hate it for the same reasons, nor that those reasons are anything WotC can do anything about in 5e. Understanding the reasons would be a huge help.

'Dissociative' mechanics, though, don't advance that understanding, because, ultimately, they're just a very convoluted way of rationalizing an objection, whether than a clear picture of where that objection comes from and what can be done to ameliorate it.

And it's not just what I don't like. There are too many people with the EXACT same view of it for it to just be my preferences. There would be far more scatter if that were the case.

There was a lot of scatter. Initially, 4e was panned for being 'dumbed down' then for being 'too complex,' classes were panned for being 'pigeon holed' and, simultaneously, 'all the same.' Over the course of the edition war, some group-think appeared and spurious criticisms were merged and rationalized, but, honestly, I don't think we ever got to the bottom of it.

If you can't concede this point then we are done. If we can't agree on a common language we can't have a discussion that leads anywhere.

I have no problem with the term. It's just provides no insight into the problem, because it turns out it's selectively or subjectively applied. It's a dead end.

If you want a discussion that leads somewhere - somewhere other than the destruction of 4e, which has already been accomplished - like to a 5e we might actually all be able to stand, find something that can be discussed more objectively.

I think some of the things we may be dancing around (that might actually be useful to shape the mechanics of the game, itself) could possibly include: mechanical rewards for system mastery, class balance, encounter balance, meta-gaming, abstraction, or realism.

Then there's the softer issue that are harder to design in, more a matter of fluff, presentation, and community attitude: play styles, tone, verisimilitude and so forth.

Then there's an 'elephant in the room' when it comes to avoiding the mistakes of 4e: timing (8 years after 3.0 was /too early/ to release 4e, IMHO, that makes 5e's announcement /insane/).

There's also a brontosaurus in the room: the OGL.

 

[Scribble]

Poor D&D...

I think 2e sort of tried to be everything for everybody. Don't like x? Try Y it's in Dragon issue blah blah blah, or source book Blah!

We could argue about what was the best, but TSR basically tried to release everything.

It was kind of a jumbled mess though... So along comes WoTC, to save the day. They rebuilt the game into a less jumbled mess, but in the process stopped really trying to make it all things to all people. But there was the OGL, so it could still be all things to all people.

Then 4e came along, and it was still going by the WoTC ideal of one style above all (at least officially) but this time no one seemed to like the GSL, so there wasn't a lot of support for all the other things D&D is/was.

So I guess 5e is trying to go back to what 2e was, but with the cleaned up nature of 3e/4e.

Hope it works.