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

[Emerikol]

Spells are plot coupons.

-O

D&D spells generally are not. The character and the player are both thinking the exact same thing. When a spell is gone the character knows it. The character does something to recover his spells after a nights rest. All of this is in world.

 

[Obryn]

D&D spells generally are not. The character and the player are both thinking the exact same thing. When a spell is gone the character knows it. The character does something to recover his spells after a nights rest. All of this is in world.

Ah. So "Because it's magic" again?

-O

 

[Emerikol]

So, really, the complaint that fighter dailies are 'dissociative' or 'plot coupons' is identical to a demand that fighter dailies not exist under any circumstances.

If daily resources are compensated for their 1/day use with greater power, then the only way to keep the game balanced across many play styles (and thus different-length days), is to give all characters some daily resources.

So, it's also a demand for imbalance.

I don't disagree that in your mind this is true. I do not agree though that there is no game that could be designed that was not more than balanced for my purposes. In fact 3e has issues but I could pick five classes (including the fighter) and stick with those and have a more than balanced enough game.

I'm not against though striving for balance. I'm against plot coupons. I see 4e's plot coupons as more problematic than 3e's imbalance. Doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic with you on imbalance. It does mean that when the rubber hits the road I cannot tolerate plot coupons. I can tolerate some imbalance by your measure of it.

I don't know what every '4venger' or 'h4ter' wants, apart from one side wanting 4e to continue, and the other wanting it dead, which has been settled.

What I find humorous about this view is this idea that all of us loved every aspect of 3e and thus rebelled against 4e. I agree that for some people the slaughtering of sacred cows made them angry and I can sympathize. But for me the things 4e did rules-wise were a net negative. For a variety of reasons. And when I say net negative I'm talking about fun to play.

But, I was hoping to nudge the discussion towards what, on what was so 'wrong' about fixing a lot of known problems in a way that was mechanically functional. Is it the insult of acknowledging that D&D had some perennial problems? Were the wrong problems fixed? Were they 'features not bugs' in some way?

I agree that a lot of 4e people don't mind the method so long as the goal is achieved. It's the nature of their outlook on gaming. They are narrativists generally (or lean that way). But the method matters to me. The way they accomplish things can be bad. And in 4e's case it was.

But, yeah, 5e has set a tough goal for itself. It's made harder by people talking around what they actually want. For instance, when Essentials came out, they said they'd gotten a lot of feedback that the fighter was too complicated, so they came out with the Knight and Slayer - which, didn't have dailies, BTW. Did that and other attempts to address complaints about 4e and appeal to nostalgia make Essentials a success? No, it was with Essentials that Pathfinder finally pulled ahead of 4e. Why then, would addressing the same complaints and appealing to nostalgia again work for 5e? That didn't work, so do it again 5x as hard?

I think that honestly 4e was totally rejected by the time Essentials came out. I didn't even know about Essentials until 5e. Honestly. Didn't even know it existed. When I left 4e, I didn't look back. Only the announcement of a completely new edition caught my attention. So given 4e people liked 4e, I can see why they were not as fond of Essentials. Thats your answer.

You seem reasonable on the analysis of the market. You also I'm sure agree that neither of us would change our minds about what we like if the sales figures change. So it's not an argument as to what is better for us which is really all that matters. But I'm really coming to think that Pathfinder does not represent the 3e market. It represents only part of it. There is a pretty big group of 3.5e players out there that never tried Pathfinder.

I get that WotC has to try to get the fan-base buying their stuff again, they don't have a choice. I'm afraid they're not getting the decision-support they need to do it, though, because, among other things, the stuff that gets yelled about isn't always the stuff that's the real problem.

I agree. I think plot coupons are far more important to people embracing a game than my little voice represents. I constantly get emails from people telling me they finally get why they don't like something. They couldn't put their finger on why they just knew in their gut it wasn't right. My enunciation of the plot coupon idea clarified why they disliked something.

Yep. For one thing, there are some qualities that simply can't be 'modules,' it either has them or it doesn't. As a hypothetical example, if being 'well written' in the sense of using proper grammar and spelling were an issue, you couldn't have a 'spelling module' and a 'mis-spelling' module that morphed every sentence in the book to match the dialect preference of the reader. (Well, on an on-line product, you just might.) Some things are systemic. Basic things, like game balance, clarity, or playabilty, are qualities that permeate a game, not something you can serve on the side. For that matter, while a game can be more or less cleansed of 'tone' or 'feel' or 'flavor' it probably can't easily be one tone, then, with a 'module' change to a different tone throughout.

Well here is an example. There is John's standard for balance and there is Tony's standard. Let's ignore who is right for now. Let's say they make twenty classes for 5e that meet my standard. I have a standard but it's definitely less strict than yours. Now assuming the archetypes are covered. If fifteen of the classes of those twenty are balanced to your standard then we are fine. Classes are modules and one group can ban the five that are problematic for them. Whereas without those five in the form they are in, the first group might very well reject the game.

To provide for a broad range of play experiences, then, 5e would have to be a bit bland, so as to 'force' no particular style/tone/feel/etc, and then, mechanically, very customizable. Games have done that. None of them have been hugely successful. Ironically, the very broadly-useable game is a rather small niche. ;(

I think modules are more important in this case than compromise. I agree with you that why would I play a lukewarm game vs a hot one. I am definitely not motivated at all to play the game currently being published. I don't generally buy modules but if I do I can convert them to any edition easily. So if 3e totally satisfied me I'd be there. I don't need any future publications to be happy. I'm just not 100% satisfied with 3e as is. Nor Pathfinder. But I am fast becoming convinced that 5e won't be for me. I'm going to have to write my own.

CS is? It's certainly not /daily/. What does it take?

CS could easily be ok. They just roll damage and then let you decide what you are going to do. If they asked you to decide to use your die and then you rolled it would work. So the overall concept is not bad. Just the current implementation.

I'm starting to believe the devs just don't get it. If you don't learn from the past you are doomed going forward. They need to know why certain mechanics were rejected. So those types of structures are avoided while still achieving the goal.

 

[slobo777]

The original Vancian design is almost literally a plot coupon. There's a slight other-worldness to the "rules of magic" that Mr Vance achieved with the mechanism, which works in its favour in a written story. I think this also works for its acceptance amongst D&D players.

But the general premise is something amazing that a character can do with limitations built in. It advances the plot, or turns around fortunes, without the reader asking "well, why didn't they just do that again" when the protagonist gets into another sticky situation.

(As an aside, I'm not a fan of the Vancian casting mechanism in D&D games. But it's unarguably true to the feel of D&D overall to keep it)

 

[triqui]

D&D spells generally are not. The character and the player are both thinking the exact same thing. When a spell is gone the character knows it. The character does something to recover his spells after a nights rest. All of this is in world.

what definition of plot coupon are we following here? Because that sounds to me a dissociative mechanic, not a plot coupon.

This is a plot coupon as I understand it.

Unless we are using "plot coupons" and "dissociative mechanics" as both synomym of "I don't like it". Then if A=B and A=C, that makes B=C

 

[slobo777]

what definition of plot coupon are we following here? Because that sounds to me a dissociative mechanic, not a plot coupon.

This is a plot coupon as I understand it.

Unless we are using "plot coupons" and "dissociative mechanics" as both synomym of "I don't like it". Then if A=B and A=C, that makes B=C

Hmm, I'm not sure what we should call "resource character spends to alter a situation in their favour".

 

[Emerikol]

Ah. So "Because it's magic" again?

-O

No. It's the "in world" vs "not in world" again. It's the character and player thinking the same thing again.

 

[Emerikol]

what definition of plot coupon are we following here? Because that sounds to me a dissociative mechanic, not a plot coupon.

This is a plot coupon as I understand it.

Unless we are using "plot coupons" and "dissociative mechanics" as both synomym of "I don't like it". Then if A=B and A=C, that makes B=C

plot coupons = dissociative mechanics = metagame dissonance.

At least as I am using them. I'm not talking about affecting the plot. Of course anyone can do that. I'm talking about the player modifying the story in a way that his character could not do. A fate point for example is a plot coupon. It is also a dissociative mechanic.

I changed from dissociative mechanic to plot coupon because even I realize the dissociation is a subjective event. A plot coupon though is perhaps more precise. Plot coupons do result in my dissociation and thus are dissociative mechancis. But in order to be precise I'm trying to use plot coupon for a specific mechanic.

 

[Obryn]

No. It's the "in world" vs "not in world" again. It's the character and player thinking the same thing again.

In other words, "Because it's magic."

Consider: Take a 4e Fighter with his AEDU powers. Add some flavor, "The martial adepts of Ironspire can do amazing things with their blades by mixing their psionic abilities with martial prowess. They can only perform these feats on occasion, much like a Wizard with his spells."

Poof! Done! All your garbage dissociative "plot coupons" are now Alexandrian-approved Associated Mechanics (tm)! And all it took was two sentences and Magic!

-O

 

[triqui]

At least as I am using them. I'm not talking about affecting the plot. Of course anyone can do that. I'm talking about the player modifying the story in a way that his character could not do. A fate point for example is a plot coupon. .

I'm going to stick with the bolded defintion then. By that defiinition, a martial daily isn't a plot coupon. Let's take "brutal strike". It completelly fails to fulfill your definition because:

1) it does not modify the story. It just do damage. If doing damage is modifying the story, then basic attacks are plot coupons also.

2) It's not done by the player in a way that his character couldn't do. My character can strike brutally.

So martial dailies aren't plot coupones. We could argue if they are dissociative mechanics, or if they are metagaming, or if they are abstact, or, more precisselly, if they are something you don't like. But what they are not, in any means, is a "plot coupon", by the definition you just has given to us.