"Stumbling Around in My Head" - The Feeling of Dissociation as a Player

[GreyICE]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, because improved trip seems like a decent way to simulate skill at foot sweeps and throws.

Come and get it, on the other hand, isn't narrativist at all, because it isn't driven by story concerns: plot, character, etc.

More than anything, come and get it seems Euro-gamist. It's a neat little game mechanic with a patina of theme that comes right off if you scratch at it looking for simulation.

Well, here's an interesting question. Lets say I try and foot sweep you and miss. So you get to try and foot sweep me? Why? I've seen MMA matches, if someone tries to knock someone else off their feet and fails, the other person doesn't necessarily have an opening to knock the first off their feet (it was in for clear balance reasons).

Improved Trip was in for fixing the balance fix in the first place (lol) and letting you actually make trip attempts. Which you could make against anything. Why can I trip an Ooze? What does that simulate? I swing my feet through a lump of jelly, and it falls over on its back?

I guess you can modify it so trip attempts only work on things with humanoid features. And introduce a new rules system to cover non-humanoid creatures.

This is the problem. I am promised simulationism will work without introducing a rules manual that can be used to kill home intruders, but examples of 'good simulationism' include GURPS, which DOES have a rules manual that can be used to kill home intruders (once you add in all the submodules you need to make the game simulationist) and the editions of D&D that I'm promised are simulationist (uh... 3E) have rules that don't seem to be either good simulationism or GOOD RULES. PERIOD.

Forgive me for a feeling of creeping skepticism here.

(also, seriously, find another whipping boy than Come and Get It, which suffers from the exact same problem as Trip mechanics - it assumes a certain class of targets, and then works on absolutely everything)

 

[mmadsen]

Lets say I try and foot sweep you and miss. So you get to try and foot sweep me? Why? I've seen MMA matches, if someone tries to knock someone else off their feet and fails, the other person doesn't necessarily have an opening to knock the first off their feet (it was in for clear balance reasons).

If you spend any time on the mat -- wrestling, judo, jiu-jitsu, whatever -- you quickly learn that going for a takedown opens you up to counters. The rule may not model reality perfectly, but it's not ridiculous.

Why can I trip an Ooze? What does that simulate? I swing my feet through a lump of jelly, and it falls over on its back?

What rule set are we discussing? Because I was never under the impression that you could trip an ooze in 3E. From Skip Williams' All About Trip Attacks (Part 2):

Who Can Be Tripped: Any creature that is subject to gravity and somehow holds itself off the ground is subject to trip attacks. Incorporeal creatures can't be tripped -- even by other incorporeal creatures -- because they can't fall down. A prone creature has already fallen down and can't be tripped. (This can prove significant when you've tripped a foe and wish to keep him down; see the section on being tripped [below].) Limbless creatures pretty much just lie on the ground (at least while using their normal land speeds or just standing around on a fairly level space) and usually can't be tripped unless they're climbing or in some other precarious situation. This includes creatures with the ooze type, snakes, and anything else that wiggles and slithers. The rules don't give any guidance on creatures whose body types make them immune to trip attacks, so you'll have to rely on your common sense here.​

This is the problem. I am promised simulationism will work without introducing a rules manual that can be used to kill home intruders, but examples of 'good simulationism' include GURPS, which DOES have a rules manual that can be used to kill home intruders (once you add in all the submodules you need to make the game simulationist) and the editions of D&D that I'm promised are simulationist (uh... 3E) have rules that don't seem to be either good simulationism or GOOD RULES. PERIOD.

Why do you think you need every GURPS sub-module to make the game simulationist? Isn't Basic GURPS simulationist? I think you're confusing simulationist with hyper-detailed.

 

[GreyICE]

Interesting house rule you posted. But that's not what the actual rules read.

Trip
You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.

Making a Trip Attack
Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.

If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a -4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you.

Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity
If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack.

Being Tripped (Prone)
A tripped character is prone. Standing up is a move action.

Tripping a Mounted Opponent
You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount.

Tripping with a Weapon
Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity.

If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.

Special Attacks :: d20srd.org


This is the d20 SRD.

If you're talking about HOUSE RULES to the SRD, well, that's interesting. You can house rule 4E just as easily. So what's the complaint, exactly?

 

[Desdichado]

Interesting house rule you posted. But that's not what the actual rules read.



Special Attacks :: d20srd.org


This is the d20 SRD.

If you're talking about HOUSE RULES to the SRD, well, that's interesting. You can house rule 4E just as easily. So what's the complaint, exactly?

Further clarification and discussion about how the rules work from the designer of the game is a "nice house rule?"

Now you're just being passive aggressive.

 

[GreyICE]

Further clarification and discussion about how the rules work from the designer of the game is a "nice house rule?"

Now you're just being passive aggressive.

An article, published in 2006 (6 years after 3E released, 2 years after 3.5E released) on an internet site - not an official update of the 3.5 rulebook - and we're supposed to treat it as anything other than house rules?

Uh... why? It's not like this was published a few days after 3.5 was released, or was incorporated into any release of the 3.5 rulebook, or in any way resembles an official part of the system. I would guess that between 0.2% and 1% of the people who play 3.5E have ever read that article - and 1% would be very extremely generous.

I'm not being passive-aggressive. I am literally telling you that you linked me to house rules for a 6 year old system, and told me that they were the equivalent of the ACTUAL rules that were published in the players handbook. I can link you to house rules for 4E too.

Also,

The rules don't spend much time explaining what a trip attack looks like in the game world. Fortunately, it's not too difficult to read what the rules have to say about trip attacks and form a picture from that.

Given the current debate we're having and the complaints about "4E had too much rules text, and you had to read the rules and form a picture from that" this sentence makes me roll about laughing.

 

[LostSoul]

The question I keep coming back to re: dissociated mechanics --I'm trying to be constructive so I left out the scare quotes-- is this:

What's the value of association?

I believe that, when the choices you have as a player line up to the choices that your character has, it's easier to get into character and feel what the character feels. You're not brought out of the role that you're playing.

edit: There may be other benefits.

I think this value is going to vary based on what you want out of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Further clarification and discussion about how the rules work from the designer of the game is a "nice house rule?"

Now you're just being passive aggressive.

It's been 45 years since Barthes wrote Death of the Author. The text stands on its own unless it is ambiguous or unless there is official errata.

And even if we take Skip Williams rulings there as official, for the entire life of 3.0 and over half the life of 3.5 this was not so. We know that creatures were immune to things by category (for instance Constructs were immune to precision damage) and this wasn't stated for oozes, therefore we can assume it not to be so. This means that if Skip Williams column is part of the rules of 3.5, it changed them. Arguments to common sense just show that common sense generally isn't.

 

[LostSoul]

I think it's pretty clear that Skip Williams is saying that the intent of the rule, when written, was that it would be used in conjunction with the DM's common sense ruling. "If the DM thinks you can this target in this situation, then you can; otherwise, you can't." I think that would be a fair reading.

I personally think that this could be clearer, not just in the case of trip but throughout the text, but that's just me - a lot of people see it differently.

 

[pemerton]

I believe that, when the choices you have as a player line up to the choices that your character has, it's easier to get into character and feel what the character feels. You're not brought out of the role that you're playing.

This is an empirical claim - a claim about the correspondence between certain game mechanics, and certain sorts of experience at the table.

In my own experience, so-called "dissociated mechanics" can help players get into character and feel what the character feels. Come and Get It, for example, requires the player to think about positioning his/her PC in relation to a group of foes - thereby experiencing the same sort of tactical thinking about position and the like that the PC is going through. And on earlier threads on this topic I've given the example of the player of a paladin in my game, who narrated the end of a baleful polymorph on his PC as his god turning him back, thereby further inhabiting and expressing this PC's unwavering religious devotion.

I'm not saying that my experiences are universal, or even typical. But I've got no reason to believe that the experiences of those who say that non-metagame mechanics help them immerse are universal or typical either. The counter-example provided by [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] above, for example, certainly resonated with me.

I know that you (@LostSoul) have in earlier discussions of this issue tried to distinguish "dissociation" from absurdity. But if the goal of "association" is immersion/inhabitation of the PC and his/her situation, then I think that the distinction in question can't be drawn, at least for me. Because nothing is as likely to make me lose immersion in character and situation as absurdity like "PC hit points as meat" or the inane trip-fest described by Mallus.

I think it's pretty clear that Skip Williams is saying that the intent of the rule, when written, was that it would be used in conjunction with the DM's common sense ruling.

Is there rules text in 3E that implies or suggests this in a way differenlty from 4e? My main memory of 3E is "rule zero", but that seemed to me to be about PC building rather than action resolution.

 

[Iosue]

It's been 45 years since Barthes wrote Death of the Author. The text stands on its own unless it is ambiguous or unless there is official errata.

And even if we take Skip Williams rulings there as official, for the entire life of 3.0 and over half the life of 3.5 this was not so. We know that creatures were immune to things by category (for instance Constructs were immune to precision damage) and this wasn't stated for oozes, therefore we can assume it not to be so. This means that if Skip Williams column is part of the rules of 3.5, it changed them. Arguments to common sense just show that common sense generally isn't.

Er, I'd be more amenable to this argument if an EN World post by Rodney Thompson hadn't been used in the "Changes in Interpretation" thread as an authoritative source to clarify a point of 4e's rules. A column by one of the game's authors, on the official website, titled "Rules of the Game", and without any preamble such as "this is how I play it", but presented as an authoritative examination of the rules deserves to be treated as more than "a house rule". Claim it changed the rules, if you like, but we don't get to just write it off as a house rule. Would a 4e rules clarification by Keith Baker on "Rule of Three" be considered "just a house rule"? I doubt it.

I am entirely unpersuaded by the "dissociated mechanics" argument. But the arguments against are strong and sound enough not to resort to semantical nitpicking. They are not weakened by conceding a point or two to the other side.