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

[GreyICE]

As a player, I'm stuck in a simulationist role in D&D. I'm objecting to games where the DM can arbitrarily ignore simulation and set a fire to be as powerful as they want, to hell with any known properties of fire and PCs in the universe, because it furthers the narrative but if my character wants to tie a rope to the bannister, swing down, grab the innocent victim and swing out of the barn, I've got to make simulationist skill checks about tying ropes and swinging and grabbing and the whole bit.

As the DM, you've got the power to define the world as you want. If you want to declare this is full of barrels of pitch that make this fire especially dangerous, go for it. Pack it full of gnomish fireworks, or add in a rod of the archmagi that will blow up if it catches, or enchant the whole thing so when the fire does enough damage to the barn, everything including the innocent victims is getting sucked into the Negative Energy Plane.

Just don't start setting values based on narrative. If we encounter a burning barn at first level, and another one at 7th, it shouldn't simply do more damage with no justification.

And people say that 4E disempowers DMs?

I'll be honest, if you were like "well, three levels ago, we were stuck in a burning building, and that time it did less damage, and now it does more" I'd be like "well, this fire is hotter. And there's more falling debris." And if you were like "well that doesn't fit my simulation of the world" and were an ass about it, I wouldn't invite you back to any game I'm running. There's a strict limit on how much bull I'm willing to put up with, and players keeping copious notebooks and whining because something you did doesn't exactly match something you did friggin...

what is it anyway? Gaining 7 levels from 1 to 7, call it 21 sessions, every week, HALF A YEAR AGO?

And you expect me to remember or care? W/E, that was then, this is now. I'm trying to craft interesting and enjoyable stories and scenarios for the PCs based on the campaign world, their backgrounds, and the villains, and the history of what's happening around them.

And there are players in the group whining that a burning building maybe did less damage half a year ago?

Yeah, no. If DMs have players like this they should just throw em out. It's better for DM sanity in the long run.

 

[D'karr]

Yeah, no. If DMs have players like this they should just throw em out. It's better for DM sanity in the long run.

I agree. I refuse to play with asshats, and it's worked out magnificently. I haven't lacked for players ever.




-

 

[prosfilaes]

And if you were like "well that doesn't fit my simulation of the world" and were an ass about it, I wouldn't invite you back to any game I'm running. There's a strict limit on how much bull I'm willing to put up with,

It amazes me; any time I discuss online what I want as a player, somebody always throws a temper tantrum and says they're going throw me out of their game, as if I should care. Is that it? You have some power over players in your game and you want to wield over other people and hit them over the head with it? Welcome to the real world; even on a D&D messageboard, your position as DM does not give you power over the other posters.

Seriously? Can you not even have a discussion about whether DMs should try and simulate a consistent world without throwing the other posters out of your game?

 

[GreyICE]

So multiple people, over multiple discussions, in multiple places, have said the attitude you describe is disruptive, hostile, and toxic to the level that they'd consider booting anyone with that attitude from the table?

And you... You're okay with this and think all those DMs are at fault?

I'm sorry, people who keep a diary of every decision the DM has ever made and throw them in his face half a year later when he does something different are lethal to the game. It makes the DM's life suck. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I'd rather have the tools to build an interesting encounter, than a bunch of moving parts that might do something. Maybe. And even back in 3E I know a lot of DMs who would ignore things like the 1d6 rule to make fire threatening.

 

[S'mon]

When people complain about "disassociated mechanics" IMO its all a hoax. A way to put down something by using "elaborate sounding" language. Because maybe if somebody coined a term for it its really a valid complaint against a rules system, instead of what it really is, a personal preference.

I thought 'disasocciated mechanics' was a pretty simple idea - that what the player is doing at the table does not map to anything happening in the game world. (It's nothing to do with the level of abstraction of the mechanic, as somebody noted above - rolling a d6 in a strategic wargame to resolve the German army's assault at Kursk is not dissociated).

My favourite example of an associated mechanic is the to-hit roll: the player rolling a d20 to-hit maps directly to the PC taking a swing at the monster with his weapon. IME it's very immersive.

An example of a disasocciated mechanic would be a rule I remember from Heroquest RPG, where you bid points in order to resolve a conflict. The more important victory is to you, the more points the player bids. The bidding does not map to any in-world process. It's disasocciated.

 

[S'mon]

That's the same line as they have for holding your breath in a stinking cloud. I was assuming that it was modifier because that alternative makes zero sense too. The average person can hold their breath for 2 minutes? Well... okay. I guess for certain values of average that's correct. "The average olympic swimmer" is indeed an average.

Yes, the average healthy person can indeed hold their breath for around 2 minutes. If you assumed it meant 0 minutes then I guess you're not that.

 

[Balesir]

My favourite example of an associated mechanic is the to-hit roll: the player rolling a d20 to-hit maps directly to the PC taking a swing at the monster with his weapon. IME it's very immersive.

It might be "immersive" if you really don't know how weapon fighting works, but it's really complete tosh. The idea of "making a swing" with your weapon runs against all the concepts of tempo and the creation of openings that such combat relies upon. It's in the same boat as the idea of a shield as a purely defensive implement and the idea that a weapon has a "damage type" that it (always) does. It does a tolerable job of regulating the outcome of a round of combat, but it really doesn't map to any specific character action in a plausibly "real" fight.

It's really a mystery, to me, why a combatant using skill to select a sequence of actions, predicated by current circumstances, to create and exploit an opening to strike an opponent with a weapon is "associated" while the same combatant using skill to select a sequence of actions, predicated by current circumstances, to trick, enrage, fake out or otherwise manipulate an opponent into an unwise move is not. It's exactly the same sort of process going on, here.

Yes, the average healthy person can indeed hold their breath for around 2 minutes. If you assumed it meant 0 minutes then I guess you're not that.

Quite right - when I swam "seriously" I could hold my breath for two minutes under water fairly easily - and I'm no paragon of athleticism, I assure you! Free divers and the like can go over 5 minutes, though, and those 3.x drowning rules really don't cover that at all. It's not a 'modern' thing, either - pearl divers go back to antiquity.

 

[S'mon]

It might be "immersive" if you really don't know how weapon fighting works, but it's really complete tosh. The idea of "making a swing" with your weapon runs against all the concepts of tempo and the creation of openings that such combat relies upon.

I strongly disagree, and your tone is pretty offensive.

 

[prosfilaes]

I'm sorry, people who keep a diary of every decision the DM has ever made and throw them in his face half a year later when he does something different are lethal to the game.

And? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I never said that. But you know what? As a DM, I think I'm doing a better job if I try to be consistent from game to game. That's the question, not whether players should throw things in DM's faces, but whether or not it is a value to create a consistent world for players to deal with.

I think DMs who change their mind every game, who have no idea how they ruled a player's ability last game so they rule it differently this game, are pretty lethal to the game. If you want your players to remember who the hobgoblin warlord of the nation next door is, perhaps you can remember the things that are important to them.

I'd rather have the tools to build an interesting encounter, than a bunch of moving parts that might do something.

Right, because if fire is no longer a threat to the PCs, you're totally at a loss. I gave you a half dozen different ways you could keep simulationist consistency and build an interesting encounter. If your only option is "orc with pie" with 10 levels to make it a CR 10, then perhaps it's time to retire.

As I've said about 14 times here, the player is locked into a narrow set of simulationist/gamist choices. A DM isn't; I have a huge range of choices, including making up something completely new. All with accepting that once I've stuck the PCs in a burning building the next one should be pretty similar and that if the orphans on Hack Street have DC 15-20 Sense Motives today, they're probably have about the same when the PCs level up a few times.

 

[Balesir]

I strongly disagree, and your tone is pretty offensive.

Sorry - that did come out a good deal harsher than I intended

I stand by the idea, though, that the idea of "taking swings" at the opponent is a really poor - even misleading - way to look at melee weapon combat. Even the idea that you "attack with the weapon" is wrong; the main weakness of even having a weapon is that it gives the opponent only one thing to defend against, so the first thing you do with a fighting style is make sure that's not true!

The moves made to score a hit are not the same - or even similar - every time. An attack routine might begin with a straightforward "swing", but unless the defender is totally unskilled that will not be the strike that connects, and the attacker will not expect it to be. An "attack" will almost always be a short sequence of (ideally) flowing actions that start (probably) with a rote move and then flow into followups that will depend on the situation and the actions and responses of the opponent. The aspect (edge, point, pommel) and strike location of the eventual connecting blow - if there is one - will usually not be planned or expected by the attacker when the move is started.