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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

There is nothing problematic about actual, overt, 'plot coupons,' like 'Fate Points' or similar, even more overtly 'author stance' mechanics in various storytelling games. They are mechanics that can be balanced and playable. Imbalance, OTOH, /is/ problematic, it creates a game in which 'legal,' even reasonable choices by one player can render the choices of other players - and thus their very participation in the game - moot.

I think that honestly 4e was totally rejected by the time Essentials came out.

Seems unlikely, since 4e had plenty of fans and was still out-selling Pathfinder prior to the Essentials debacle. But, yes, those who rejected it, rejected it long before Essentials - often sight-unseen. And Essentials, while addressing many of their /stated/ demands in no way apeased them. It failed to bring them back, and drove away yet more existing fans.

5e runs the same risk, if the designers listen to the hype, rather than looking deeper.

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 can't speculate as to the size, but every edition of D&D is still being played somewhere, by someone.

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.

There's no 'right' or wrong in how much balance you like (or hate), but balance is something that, while perhaps hard to quantify in detail, is a real, objective thing.

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.

Possibly true. Balance, though, isn't just class-by-class, but an attribute of the whole game. A balance game, with imbalanced add-ons, clearly labeled as such, should be workable as a modular approach to cater to both the balance-loving and balance-hating crowds.

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.

And nothing about the way the edition war progressed, nor the way discussions are going now gives them much of a clue.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

You missed something...

3) The resource management part of it is the plot coupon. The fact I can't do it again is a game rule limitation that has no correlation in the game world. The character doesn't know he's out. Because attacking well is not a daily resource. The player knows he out though. So this disconnect is dissociative for some people.

If the character were a paladin and received a special smite from his God that he could use daily that wouldn't be a plot coupon. Because that resource has an in world explanation. But the fighter has no such in world explanation.

 

[Obryn]

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.

Basically, here's the issue.

Magic.

Magic can do anything. Its limitations are essentially undefined in D&D. Therefore, no matter what mechanic you use, it is okay (I mean "associated") as long as it's magic. Encounter resources, action points, daily powers involving swords, whatever - throw in a god or a spell or some vague Star Trek technology sort of explanation (reverse the shield polarity and use the tractor beam!) it all of a sudden becomes okay.

This is why guys with swords don't get cool things. Because they are not magic. (Unless their sword is! Then the gloves are off!) Dissociative mechanics are just code for "you didn't use enough magic to explain this." It's not a criticism of the mechanics, it's a criticism of the fluff/fiction you use to justify your mechanics.

-O

 

[triqui]

You missed something...

3) The resource management part of it is the plot coupon. The fact I can't do it again is a game rule limitation that has no correlation in the game world. The character doesn't know he's out. Because attacking well is not a daily resource. The player knows he out though. So this disconnect is dissociative for some people.

It is dissociative. But it is not a plot coupon, by the definition you gave us a few posts a go. By any way. Because it fails to fulfill the qualities you said something has to have to be a plot coupon:

1) it does not modify the story.

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

If the character were a paladin and received a special smite from his God that he could use daily that wouldn't be a plot coupon.

It woudn't be a plot coupon, by 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.

Although it is dissociative.
"Oh, divine heroinous! I'm here, fighting three evil demons from the evil Abyss, which came to defile your sacred sanctum, sent by you, personally! I'll smite them, to your glory, and to save the lives of the inocents who are praying you in this holy temple!

Here I go! ONE. TWO! Thr..err.. what the... Why can`t I smite the third one? Why does Heroious ignore me? Why would he want me to fail, die, his temple desecrated, and his inocent followers to be brutally murdered and raped?"

Dissonance, dissociation and plot coupon are different things, as per your own definition of plot coupons you wrote a few posts ago.

The paladin smite evil is dissociative. It's just dissociative in a different scale, one that you, and your personal taste, do not mind. Let's say it's not a gorilla in the room, it's just a big chimp in the room. Your selective perception, which is based in your tastes, allow you to coexist with the chimp, while make the gorilla too obvious.

Because that resource has an in world explanation. But the fighter has no such in world explanation.

That's false. The brutal strike has a world explanation: he strikes brutally. He is perfectly capable to do so.

*The fact he couldn't do it again in a day* is a different story, though, and it might need some extra work. For example, he learnt to fight in the "house of prideful fencing". He made a vow not to do the same strike twice in a given day, ever. There you go, in-game and in-world explanation.

That something can't be explained "in real world" is not the same that it cannot be explained "in game world".

And whatever, what I'm trying to say here is: yes, martial dailies are a dissociative mechanic. So are hit points, in a different scale. However, Martial dailies aren't a plot coupon, by your definition, becouse they:
1) do not modify the story. They just do damage. Wish do modifiy the story.

2) It's not done by the player in a way that his character couldn't do. A martial character can do martial moves.

What it does, however, is being an abstract mechanic which spends resources. In a way that you happen not to like. However, it is not a plot coupon, because it fails the other 2 (and main) qualities. For the same reasons a plane is not a bird, even if it flies.

 

[Emerikol]

What would the other four be? If any of them are 'tier 1' classes your bar for 'balanced enough' is /very/ low.

Well the fighter was always loads of fun in my games and very much a contributor. So yeah I realize you felt differently but my actual experience differs from yours. I think though I played 3e as intended magic item wise so maybe that is it. I think the Rogue is too weak but I could revive him pretty easily by making him a fighter subclass.

There is nothing problematic about actual, overt, 'plot coupons,' like 'Fate Points' or similar, even more overtly 'author stance' mechanics in various storytelling games. They are mechanics that can be balanced and playable. Imbalance, OTOH, /is/ problematic, it creates a game in which 'legal,' even reasonable choices by one player can render the choices of other players - and thus their very participation in the game - moot.

Is a mechanic that causes you to break immersion and laugh out loud in an otherwise serious game situation a problem? Of course if that mechanic does not affect you that way then it's not a problem. It was a reguar occurance for my group in 4e. We finally decided we can't tell stories with this game and take them seriously at all.

4e doesn't even /have/ overt plot coupons as such, it has some mechanics that can be imagined as working that way, among other ways.

Martial Dailies, are the big example. They can be imagined as being a matter of fatigue, of set-up, of opportunity, or even of esoteric martial techniques requiring 'centering' in some arbitrary mystical-seeming sense. ....

It's the resource management of them thats the issue as I've pointed out in another post. The fact you can use one and still have another remaining. Fatigue on a daily basis is unrealistic. It could work as an encounter resource.

I didn't say or imply that. I said that they wanted 4e 'dead' - and they got it - imagine the motivations of your fellows in destroying a good incarnation of an old game to be as varied as you like. We can do little but imagine, since the professed rationalizations don't hold together under scrutiny.

This is the silliest comment. I wish we had that kind of power. We went and played other games. 4e sales wise has tanked. You can't blame me for not playing or buying a game I don't like. I did of course buy a lot but you get the idea. For not continuing to buy after I realized I hated it. WOTC is making 5e to make more money. They rightly believe that they can get a lot more sales than just the 4e people they've had until now.

You're wrong, since 4e had plenty of fans and was still out-selling Pathfinder prior to the Essentials debacle. But, yes, those who rejected it rejected it long before Essentials - often sight-unseen. And Essentials, while addressing many of their /stated/ demands in no way apeased them.

Essentials was a variation on an edition that people had already stopped playing. WOTC didn't really do a lot of marketing specifically at these lost players. No big signs saying - Try Essentials it's not 4e.

Honestly though Essentials was a patch and still had many of the issues that 4e had. It did address a few things specifically though.

5e runs the same risk, if the designers listen to the hype, rather than looking deeper.

I can't speculate as to the size, but ever edition of D&D is still being played somewhere, by someone. It's a tribute to the power of inertia.

Well I don't believe balance per se is something anyone is against. But if you are right in your thinking that achieving balance requires plot couponish design then I'd say a lot of people are against it. You can revile the Pathfinder people but they did choose the game with all it's "imbalance" over 4e.

There's no 'right' or wrong in how much balance you like (or hate), but balance is something that, while perhaps hard to quantify in detail, is a real, objective thing.

No one is anti-balance. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. I was able to play fun games with 3e and not with 4e. I had fun games with 1e,2e too.

Possibly true. Balance, though, isn't just class-by-class, but an attribute of the whole game. A balance game, with imbalanced add-on, clearly labeled as such, should be workable as a modular approach to cater to both the balance-loving and balance-hating crowds.

And I was say it differently. Those who want normal reasonable balance can use all twenty. Those who are hypersensitive to balance can use the fifteen. See how easy it is to turn that around. There are no anti-balance people.

But, if all the balance-hating crowd wanted was an imbalanced game like 3.5, they'd all just keep playing 3.5, or Pathfinder, if they want new material. That's not what happened - what happened was the edition war. It wasn't enough to play imbalanced D&D with others who loved imbalance - for some inexplicable reason, the mere existance of a balanced D&D was intollerable.

What is wrong with those who love D&D fighting for it's identity. I love D&D. I hated what 4e did to the game. So why when the next edition rolls around is it so wrong to fight for a game I can love again. 4e wasn't going to last forever no matter what. If it had been more successful it might have went a few more years but inevitably 5e was coming just as 6e is coming in another six or seven years.

othing about the way the edition war progressed, nor the way discussions are going now gives them much of a clue, because we keep getting these bizarre exercises in rationallization and tortured logic.

They are reasons you don't understand. The nature of the objections are such that if you did understand them perhaps they would affect you as they do us. But they are rational cogent reasons. At least many of them are. The logic to me is crystal clear and the rebuttals from the 4e camp are tortured. So you see our impasse.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I didn't say or imply that. I said that they wanted 4e 'dead' - and they got it - imagine the motivations of your fellows in destroying a good incarnation of an old game to be as varied as you like.

Who are these people who wanted 4e dead?

I think it's pretty clear that WotC wanted 3e dead because someone wanted to get away from the OGL, but clearly they failed at killing it. Certainly many D&D fans reacted defensively, and justifiably so. But that doesn't imply some sort of separate anti-4e agenda.

I don't think anyone wanted 4e to fail, they just wanted it to be good.

You're wrong, since 4e had plenty of fans and was still out-selling Pathfinder prior to the Essentials debacle. But, yes, those who rejected it rejected it long before Essentials - often sight-unseen.

Sales aren't players. Essentials was an act of desperation because they saw this coming, but whatever market share they had was never that large and was already declining.

And Essentials, while addressing many of their /stated/ demands in no way apeased them.

Sure didn't address my stated demands.

There's no 'right' or wrong in how much balance you like (or hate), but balance is something that, while perhaps hard to quantify in detail, is a real, objective thing.

It's not.

For a non-rpg, it would be, but D&D is too open-ended to be analyzed in this way.

But, if all the balance-hating crowd wanted was an imbalanced game like 3.5, they'd all just keep playing 3.5, or Pathfinder, if they want new material. That's not what happened - what happened was the edition war. It wasn't enough to play imbalanced D&D with others who loved imbalance - for some inexplicable reason, the mere existance of a balanced D&D was intollerable.

Again, I don't know where this victimization comes from. No one hates balance, and if there was such a thing as a balanced game it would probably do great. And while many people dislike 4e, often vehemently, sometimes to excess, I don't think it's the balance they dislike, and the damage it did to the hobby is pretty hard to refute. Again, most people just wanted it to be good, and felt that it wasn't.

 

[Emerikol]

It is dissociative. But it is not a plot coupon, by the definition you gave us a few posts a go. By any way. Because it fails to fulfill the qualities you said something has to have to be a plot coupon:

A plot coupon is a dissociative mechanic. To me there is no difference. A plot coupon is the THING that is dissociative.

1) it does not modify the story.

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

The character would keep saying I do brutal strike again and again and again. The character doesn't know he has a once per day limitation. The player though knows he can't do it again. That fits the bill. If you think it doesn't you are way over parsing my words.

It woudn't be a plot coupon, by 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.

Sure it does. The second I don't do brutal strike a second time because the player knows he can't the story is modified. The character would keep up the brutal strikes.

Although it is dissociative.
"Oh, divine heroinous! I'm here, fighting three evil demons from the evil Abyss, which came to defile your sacred sanctum, sent by you, personally! I'll smite them, to your glory, and to save the lives of the inocents who are praying you in this holy temple!

Here I go! ONE. TWO! Thr..err.. what the... Why can`t I smite the third one? Why does Heroious ignore me? Why would he want me to fail, die, his temple desecrated, and his inocent followers to be brutally murdered and raped?"

The explanation is that he God imbued you with a limited amount of power. Perhaps thats all the God could give. Perhaps its all you can hold. Who knows. But the limit is real in the game world as it is described.

Dissonance, dissociation and plot coupon are different things, as per your own definition of plot coupons you wrote a few posts ago.

I wrote a blog on the WOTC boards under this name. Go read it. Thats all I care about. Metagame dissonance is the title. Dissociative mechanics or Plot Coupons, I don't care what you call them. I am talking about the exact same thing.

The paladin smite evil is dissociative. It's just dissociative in a different scale, one that you, and your personal taste, do not mind. Let's say it's not a gorilla in the room, it's just a big chimp in the room. Your selective perception, which is based in your tastes, allow you to coexist with the chimp, while make the gorilla too obvious.

An in world explanation makes it not dissociative. If I made up magical tatoos and said a fighter can touch this tatoo once per day for power then his daily would not be dissociative. Because there is a reason in the world. But without a magical explanation no power can have a daily limit and be associated.

That's false. The brutal strike has a world explanation: he strikes brutally. He is perfectly capable to do so.

*The fact he couldn't do it again in a day* is a different story, though, and it might need some extra work. For example, he learnt to fight in the "house of prideful fencing". He made a vow not to do the same strike twice in a given day, ever. There you go, in-game and in-world explanation.

And what happens when the character decides in desperation to break his vow. Are you the DM giving him two dailies? Even the possibility it could be broken would make this example non-dissociative. See my tatoo explanation above for one that works.

That something can't be explained "in real world" is not the same that it cannot be explained "in game world".

I'm for some cinematic license. But a daily power without a magical explanation goes far beyond what I can swallow.

2) It's not done by the player in a way that his character couldn't do. A martial character can do martial moves.

Tony if you are reading this please case in point as to what I said to you in the last post. I consider these arguments and deliberate obtuseness approaching irrationality for it's own sake. I'm sure the other side feels the same about me at times. But it does account for a lot of the frustration.

What it does, however, is being an abstract mechanic which spends resources. In a way that you happen not to like. However, it is not a plot coupon, because it fails the other 2 (and main) qualities. For the same reasons a plane is not a bird, even if it flies.

I'm using dissociative mechanic, plot coupon, and metagame dissonance interchangably. Sorry if this was confusing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's pretty clear that WotC wanted 3e dead because someone wanted to get away from the OGL, but clearly they failed at killing it.

I have to agree with you on that, even if we are only speculating. It was a serious mis-reading of the market, thinking that the OGL was taking business away from them, when it was really helping to keep D&D at the top of the heap. Breaking with the OGL and trying to 'poison' it with the GSL blew up in their face, and I can't say I feel bad for that aspect of it.

In a way, they may be making the same mistake (seeing the OGL as a mistake and 3pps as competitors rather than de-facto partners or stakeholders), again, in thinking that they must re-capture the lost revenue represented by Pathfinder, by bringing Pathfinder players back to the fold somehow.

It also remains to be seen if 5e will be a d20 game with it's own SRD, another attempt at killing the OGL, or simply a standard-issue proprietary game.

IMHO, only an OGL version has a shot at re-uniting the fan base to any degree at all.

No one hates balance, and if there was such a thing as a balanced game it would probably do great.

If there were? Sure, /perfect/ balance is an ideal that can't be achieved, but there are plenty of reasonably well-balanced games, some of them are even RPGs, one of those even had the D&D logo.

And while many people dislike 4e, often vehemently, sometimes to excess, I don't think it's the balance they dislike.

There wasn't a lot of consistency about the objections to 4e, even those voiced by a single edition-warrior could be more than a little contradictory. But, if you look at what was being demanded rather than the mix of rationalizations being given for those demands, it was the things that 4e did to balance the game that were directly in the cross-hairs.

It would be interesting to hear some frank discussion of the /benefits/ of some degree of imbalance. Imbalance is being demanded: I'd like to hear ways that the desired imbalance would make 5e better, rather than complaints about how 4e achieved balance.

 

[triqui]

A plot coupon is a dissociative mechanic. To me there is no difference. A plot coupon is the THING that is dissociative.

Then the defintion you gave us, and that I bolded( " I'm talking about the player modifying the story in a way that his character could not do."=, is wrong.

By your new definition, hit points are plot coupons, because hit points are dissociative.

The character would keep saying I do brutal strike again and again and again.

Why would the character says something I don't want him to say?

The character doesn't know he has a once per day limitation. The player though knows he can't do it again. That fits the bill. If you think it doesn't you are way over parsing my words.

He might be doing the same move once and again. Just that it does not do 4[w] damage, because you don't get the opening needed. For the character, it does make sense. It's like Myke tyson trying to launch "Brutal left hook of KO". He does it every "round". However, it only connects once.

Sure it does. The second I don't do brutal strike a second time because the player knows he can't the story is modified. The character would keep up the brutal strikes.

err... what??? How is the story modified because the player knows that? How is it different than the player not casting again his fireball? The story ISN'T modified. What you have, is that the explanation in-world, is different (the second explanation being "a wizard did it"). It does not modify the story. The story is that thing about the big bad dragon sequestering the princess.

The explanation is that he God imbued you with a limited amount of power. Perhaps thats all the God could give. Perhaps its all you can hold. Who knows. But the limit is real in the game world as it is described.

So, "who knows" stands for "a wizard did it" and "as a wizard did it, I don't care for more". It's what I've said: the chimp is small enough, that you can coexist with it in the same room. That doesn't mean others can. Some people see clearly the chimp out there, moving his hands, while Heronious let his paladin, his temple, and his whole followers die a horrible death just because he dosen't want to give the pc a third smite evil.

I wrote a blog on the WOTC boards under this name. Go read it. Thats all I care about. Metagame dissonance is the title. Dissociative mechanics or Plot Coupons, I don't care what you call them. I am talking about the exact same thing.

You maybe want to talk about the same thing, but what you explained there, what The alexandrian explained in his blog, and the definition you gave us a few post ago about plot coupons, do not match.

Dissociative mechanics are when you, as the player, know something your character does not. Hit points are disociative, just like martial dailies are.

What you said about plot coupons, not long ago, is that it's when you, as the player, do something that modify the story, in a way the character cannot to. By that last definition, HP aren't plot coupons, but martial dailies aren't either.

I only see one thing in common between that definition, and the first one. "things you don't like". Or, as I put before "too obvious gorillas in the room". Which are a subjetive view, and a case of selective perception.

An in world explanation makes it not dissociative. If I made up magical tatoos and said a fighter can touch this tatoo once per day for power then his daily would not be dissociative. Because there is a reason in the world. But without a magical explanation no power can have a daily limit and be associated.

Barbarians rages per day are magical then? Or they aren't associative?
I think the bolded part made it clear for you. You need "a wizard did it" to cause enough suspension of disbelief so you can comfortabily coexist with the ape in the room.

And what happens when the character decides in desperation to break his vow. Are you the DM giving him two dailies? Even the possibility it could be broken would make this example non-dissociative. See my tatoo explanation above for one that works.

Why would the character decide that in desesperation if I, as the player, do not wont to?? Unless you, as the DM, dominate him, I won't make that decision, ever. My character is Lawful Neutral, and he won't break his vow, under any circunstances.

I'm for some cinematic license. But a daily power without a magical explanation goes far beyond what I can swallow.

So you ban 3.X barbarians, and the AD&D 2e Samurai (with 1x day Kiai)?

I'm using dissociative mechanic, plot coupon, and metagame dissonance interchangably. Sorry if this was confusing.

Frankly it was, because the definitions you gave are different. The common factor is that you don't like any of them, because all of them make the gorilla too clear. Which is abslutely fine. That's why people with different "tolerance to gorillas" have different editions they like Some of them are blind to 4e gorillas (like Tony with martial dailies), some others see those gorillas, but are blind to 3e ones (like hit points, high level fighters gaining a fortune with russian roulettes, or LG gods leaving their paladins fail and die for a metagame construct), and some others are blind to 2e gorillas (like clerics being more resistant to fall in a hole trap than rogues, because they have better petrification save throw).

It's a matter of selective perception. Each one's brain choses what things it's going to ignore, to make us happy with our game and not disturbing by the glaring gorilla.

 

[Obryn]

The explanation is that he God imbued you with a limited amount of power. Perhaps thats all the God could give. Perhaps its all you can hold. Who knows. But the limit is real in the game world as it is described.
...
If I made up magical tatoos and said a fighter can touch this tatoo once per day for power then his daily would not be dissociative. Because there is a reason in the world. But without a magical explanation no power can have a daily limit and be associated.
...
a daily power without a magical explanation goes far beyond what I can swallow.

So in other words.... because it's magic. Which is more or less where we started.

-O