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

[triqui]

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...

Maybe I'm hitting the language barrier here, as English is not my language.

I'll try to explain. Imagine I say Americans' favourite sport is Baseball. Then you say "no it's not. In my State, which is Alaska, favourite sport is Hockey". Fine. But you have proved that in a small subset of americans, Baseball isn't the fav sport. That doesn't mean my claim is false for the generality of americans, though. In our debate, you have proved that for a small subset of roleplayers, hit points aren't dissociative. That does not prove my point is false for the majority of them, though.

Here, I thought we were still trying to define what dissociative mechanics were??

err .. no? Dissociative mechanics were defined by The Alexandrian in his blog post, which was linked somewhere in this thread. A dissociative mechanic is when you, as the player, do things, or know things, that your character doesn't know or can`t do in game. He invented the definition, so that's the definition. We could invent something different to define something different, using any other name, but a dissociative mechanic is what the guy who invented the term says it is. That's why he invented the term.

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.

It allows you to do other things, like adding +1d6 to the 1d20 roll (in 3e Eberron). In that case, would it be dissociative?

Even better, let's stick with 4e action points. Let''s call it "adrenaline rush". The mechanic is exactly the same than in 4e, just the name is different. Would it be dissociative then?

By the way, I don't see why confining the willpower point to a certain mechanic, whatever it is, invalidate it to be named "willpower". It's a mechanic, it'll have different effect in different systems. For example, it won't allow you to get an extra success in d20 as it does in storytelling system, because in d20 you don`t have extra successes.

 

[triqui]

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.

Ok, let's take that obvious example, then. Let's take the fate points and call them "divine intervention". Now, to use them, the character has to make a short prayer. The mechanic stays the same.

Are them dissociative now?

 

[Emerikol]

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.

There you go again. I'm sure there are many reasons to hate 4e. I have many such reasons. But this particular reason is distinct.

'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.

Write rules that are not plot coupons. I believe 95% of the time the rule can be written so it's not a plot coupon and thus a lot of trouble avoided up front. If though they refuse to acknowledge that a clear set of issues exist for a lot of people then they will crash and burn just as 4e did.

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.

I get that you can't figure it out. Nothing is clearer. A lot of us do get it especially on this issue.

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.

It is not. For those of us that recognize it as a problem, we all agree what is an isn't. It's people who deny their existance that have the issue not us. We are in unity. I read the dissociative mechanics blog and it rung completely true and I wrote my own blog about the same exact issue and gave almost the exact same explanation. We get it. You don't. Stop acting like what we get is not a game mechanic issue for us and that it is a distinct class of mechanics.

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.

You are right. Your inability to even grasp what we talk of means I should stop talking with you about it. If I discover the devs on 5e don't get it either then I'll assume the game is going to be no good and move on. Somehow I think they won't have the same problem you do.

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.

Unless you are saying meta-gaming is my issue, I find my issue more pressing.

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.

If they showed me their mechanics ahead of time, I could likely point out simple adjustments in many cases and you wouldn't even realize my hand had been on the rules. In some cases perhaps you would of course.

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.

I think as a 4e fan you are the least capable of realizing the problem. You probably enjoyed 4e more than any other edition. But I bet the majority (not all) of people who don't play 4e, would rather play any other edition. I'm in that group.

Here's just a few off the cuff things I think 4e did wrong at launch
1. Plot coupons with daily powers for martial characters.
2. Common mechanical structure. (AEDU). - 5e is avoiding
3. Utility magic very different and mostly moved to rituals. - 5e is avoiding.
4. Every class completely silo'd with it's own power set. - 5e not sure
5. Martial healing, healing surges, the whole healing system. - 5e has yet to avoid. They have promised modularity here.
6. Attitude. We are right and superior. You are wrong. - 5e is avoiding
7. Magic items. Snooze fest. - 5e not sure.

 

[Lanefan]

The bigger problem yet lies in how these issues interact with each other. For example, fixes to these...

mechanical rewards for system mastery, class balance, encounter balance, meta-gaming, abstraction

...almost always cause headaches with these...

realism [...] play styles, tone, verisimilitude and so forth.

Encounters that are always balanced aren't realistic. Micro-scale class balance goes against a lot of play styles. Etc.

This is where one of two things will happen: either 5e's modularity will be even better than promised, or the house of cards falls down.

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.

Elephant? Brontosaurus? Sounds like experience points on the hoof to me! Where's my sword?

Here's just a few off the cuff things I think 4e did wrong at launch ...

After a pre-release buildup that actually had me quite interested for a while, the only thing it did wrong for me once released was to simply not suit - and more, not even try to suit - my playstyle or that of my group. And so I just kept playing what I already had.

As an example: 4e's been out since what, 2008? My current quasi-1e campaign started in 2008 and still has, I think, a lot of tread on its tires. How many regularly-meeting 4e campaigns started in 2008 are still going?

Lan-"the drawback, of course, is that elephants and brontosauruses don't carry treasure"-efan

 

[Emerikol]

As an example: 4e's been out since what, 2008? My current quasi-1e campaign started in 2008 and still has, I think, a lot of tread on its tires. How many regularly-meeting 4e campaigns started in 2008 are still going?

Lan-"the drawback, of course, is that elephants and brontosauruses don't carry treasure"-efan

My 4e campaign didn't make it very far into 2009. My 1e campaign ran for at least ten years.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok, let's take that obvious example, then. Let's take the fate points and call them "divine intervention". Now, to use them, the character has to make a short prayer. The mechanic stays the same.

Are them dissociative now?

I suppose you'd need some rationale for why you can call for divine intervention, and how you know there's a specific limit on such calls. ("I'm Hera, your protector on this voyage. But Zeus has decreed a limit to the number of times I may help you.").

But the beauty of the dissociative mechanics rant is that you simply choose not to use any explanation that threatens to be associative. (ie: That's fine for Jason and the Argonauts, but not every PC is Jason...)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Write rules that are not plot coupons. I believe 95% of the time the rule can be written so it's not a plot coupon and thus a lot of trouble avoided up front.

So, what'd be a way to re-write martial dailies so they're 'not plot coupons?'

If though they refuse to acknowledge that a clear set of issues exist for a lot of people then they will crash and burn just as 4e did.

There was a clear set of issues being complained about with 3e, too, and 4e addressed them very well. That didn't save it. It may be that what's talked about and what's really an issue to the customer base can be two very different things. Or, it may be that the rejection of 4e had very little to do with its content.

While we go in circles with invalid complaints and tortured logic, there probably /are/ real issues/insights that are being missed.

I get that you can't figure it out.

No matter how many times you imply that I'm an idiot for not agreeing with you. I'm opened to being convinced, but that would take a strong argument, something with some validity.

Unless you are saying meta-gaming is my issue, I find my issue more pressing.

Meta-gaming is closely related, I'm sure. Though, it's still primarily a player choice issue. You can choose to meta-game or not. No system can ever be so concrete and realistic that there aren't disconnects that leave room for meta-gaming. It has the virtue of being a concept that ante-dates 4e, though.

Here's just a few off the cuff things I think 4e did wrong at launch
1. Plot coupons with daily powers for martial characters.
2. Common mechanical structure. (AEDU). - 5e is avoiding
3. Utility magic very different and mostly moved to rituals. - 5e is avoiding.
4. Every class completely silo'd with it's own power set. - 5e not sure
5. Martial healing, healing surges, the whole healing system. - 5e has yet to avoid. They have promised modularity here.

All 5 of these have something in common. They addressed known problems with 3e (and even earlier), particularly class balance problems. Problems that had been subject to long, vigorous debates on-line, and were well-known and not really in dispute (rather, they were just 'lived with' or house-ruled or compensated for in-play or otherwise dealt with because 'D&D had always been that way'). [sblock] (Indeed, in such debates, I was fond of pointing out that, while this or that serious problem with D&D could theoretically be solved, the result would hardly be D&D anymore. 4e proved me wrong, to my satisfaction, that is, I suppose I should feel flattered that I have half the fan base still backing up my old 3e-era snark.) [/sblock]

The common mechanical structure (2) was key in delivering class balance, for instance, and, it couldn't have left the wizard 'vancian' (which, really, it /did/ to a degree), without also giving everyone dailies - thus martial dailies (1). Moving non-combat spells to rituals (3) helped with encounter balance. Silo'ing (while I'm a bit down on it, myself) and dropping modular multiclassing (which, again, I quite miss), was also done so classes could be balanced more robustly and the damage to game balance done with extreme mix-n-match 'builds' in 3e could be avoided. Healing resources (5) were moved out of the Cleric's spells/day, and to individual resources, which took the pressure for 'someone to play the heal-bot' away almost completely, improved encounter balance, and made balancing classes with healing abilities much more practical.

So there were very solid, mechanical, reasons for all 5 of those.

For me to believe that they were 'wrong' would require some equally solid reasons. I've yet to hear any. I've heard rage, opinion, and rationalization, but never a solid reason. That's why I have to suspect that the reasons either have little or nothing to do with the mechanics, or that the reasons are un-examined or left un-articulated for fear they'd be get an unsympathetic reception.

For instance, objecting to the 5 items above because they spoil the fun you had curb-stomping entire campaigns with an over-the-top "CoDzilla" build would be a solid reason, but one that would likely garner little sympathy.

7. Magic items. Snooze fest. - 5e not sure.

I can see that. 4e magic items look like they were designed to avoid the excesses of pre-3e items, and went overboard. Part of the reason, I think, was because 4e followed the 3e approach of commoditizing magic items to fit in a wealth-by-level guideline, even going so far as to build assumed items into character progression. Inherent bonuses cleared up the latter problem, but providing exciting/interesting items that don't break the game is a challenge that 5e could rise to, I agree.

6. Attitude. We are right and superior. You are wrong. - 5e is avoiding

'Attitude' is one of those things that goes both ways - especially on the internet. It can be there intentionally on one side, or it can just be perceived on the other. Perception is equivalent to reality as far as the offense taken goes, though. I'm glad 5e hasn't offended you, yet. I'm sure it's offending someone with it's 'attitude,' though...

 

[Obryn]

Write rules that are not plot coupons.

Spells are plot coupons.

-O

 

[triqui]

I suppose you'd need some rationale for why you can call for divine intervention, and how you know there's a specific limit on such calls. ("I'm Hera, your protector on this voyage. But Zeus has decreed a limit to the number of times I may help you.").

But the beauty of the dissociative mechanics rant is that you simply choose not to use any explanation that threatens to be associative. (ie: That's fine for Jason and the Argonauts, but not every PC is Jason...)

Not really, I don't need it. I'm just asking Emerikol et al about it. I'm curious about if the exactly same mechanic could be dissociative or associative just by tagging a divine intervention on it. It's a kind of "a wizard did it" catch-all.

 

[Emerikol]

So, what'd be a way to re-write martial dailies so they're 'not plot coupons?'

There isn't a way if they are dailies. Well unless you make the fighter magical which would be one route. Not sure I'd enjoy that route but it would get rid of plot coupons. I've suggested on many occasions though other systems more akin to encounter based mechanics (not exactly but effectively so).


[quote author=56902498 post=523663899]
There was a clear set of issues being complained about with 3e, too, and 4e addressed them very well. That didn't save it. It may be that what's talked about and what's really an issue to the customer base can be two very different things. Or, it may be that the rejection of 4e had very little to do with its content.
[/quote]
I would say we don't know which content but surely content is the issue. Its pretty hard to say that most people who hate 4e would come to like it if only they'd try it.


[quote author=56902498 post=523663899]
No matter how many times you imply that I'm an idiot for not agreeing with you. I'm opened to being convinced, but that would take a strong argument, something with some validity.
[/quote]
You can disagree that plot coupons are bad. Thats fine. Plenty of games have them including a new one by Monte Cook. But denying their existance is the issue. Or saying they are totally subjective. They are not. If they were totally subjective there wouldn't be all the agreement by those with issues.


[quote author=56902498 post=523663899]
Meta-gaming is closely related, I'm sure. Though, it's still primarily a player choice issue. You can choose to meta-game or not. No system can ever be so concrete and realistic that there aren't disconnects that leave room for meta-gaming. It has the virtue of being a concept that ante-dates 4e, though.
[/quote]
Well there is realism, abstraction, and plot coupons. I can tolerate some of the first two but not much of the last. And its partly because games exist without them so I'll go to those games first.

[quote author=56902498 post=523663899]
....stuff about 4e....
[/quote]

I keep thinking that if the 4vengers are really happy with 5e there is no way I will be. They just want a different game. My hope is I can pop out their module and put in my own. But I'm not really confident the devs understand the issues either. If they don't understand the issues then of course they are doomed to fall into problems.

While I'm sure I had some issues with spells in 3e and houseruled a few, I overally didn't have a balance issue with that game. There were individual classes that I would have helped. Rogue for example. But fighter, wizard, and cleric all played really well together in my campaigns.

I'm ready to do one of three things.
1. Make 5e work when they release it. Looking less likely by the day.
2. Go to Pathfinder and houserule it heavily. Why bother?
3. Just write my down d20 variant. I've gotten it about 50% written right now.

3 is the hardest work but it will obviously be the most rewarding and likely the most satisfying to play. 2 is ok but I've done that. 1 is the big question mark. I just don't know what they'll do. But CS is definitely scaring me away.