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

[GreyICE]

But that wasn't the situation that was given. The situation given was a burning building that was always a narrative danger no matter what due to the fact that the damage and DC's were scaled... not due to the fact that the fiction changed. I'm not the one you should be explaining this too as I remember all the arguments presented in the former thread as well as how those who don't like 4e were willfully mis-representing the rules of the game... and yet here's a fan of 4e stating that the chart is supposed to be used to scale a building fire as a "narrative" challenge with no mention of changing the fiction.... because honestly if the fiction is changing in a narrative system shouldn't it also change in a simulationist system, if we are comparing, as well?


In other words we should be comparing like and like... So why are we comparing a regular fire in 3.x with magical drow-created demon-alchemist fire or whatever in 4e? I'm sorry but you're rationalization doesn't fit the comparison that was made.

*sigh*

If I want to make a burning building threatening, I will make it threatening. I'm the DM. I call DM Fiat. As I said, it doesn't much matter whether they're level 3 or 5, the building will be a threat. Why? Because for the love of god, I DO NOT KEEP A DAMN NOTEBOOK OF EVERY THING I HAVE EVER DONE. Got it?

I might have a burning building be threatening for a level 5 character, another DM might make it threatening for a level 3 character, and some other might make it threatening for level 8 characters. And we do it in such a way that we have fun.

Yes, if some sort of "Dungeons and Dragons Accountant" walked to every single 4E table that had any sort of homebrewed setting they'd find all sorts of inconsistencies. And said D&D Accountant's head would probably explode "THIS IS NOT WHAT LINE 34B SUBPARAGRAPH C ALPHA 3 SAYS YOU SHOULD BE DOING" he might thunder, in full rage mode. "HOW DARE YOU HAVE FUN WITHOUT CONSULTING THE BIG BOOK OF RANDOM STUFF? I SWEAR BY MY POCKET PROTECTOR AND THICK NERDY GLASSES YOU WILL NOT ESCAPE FROM IT!"

Those of us in the real world will simply note that in 3E's heyday, we still made up damage expressions for burning buildings, because 1d6 per round is loltastic. We just had a shoddy line in the DMG that people would drag out to start table fights with us over rules lawyering. "But despite the fact this encounter is interesting and tense and stressful, I feel as if you're breaking the rules to make it happen." "Uh, yeah, the rules are stupid. Burning buildings are dangerous, you should not be able to meditate inside of them, or wander around in them like they're friendly puppy towns." "Well that's not right, you should make the fire do what it says." *sigh* "Fine it's a magical fire because everything threatening in this world HAS to be magical. Are you happy now?" "How is it magical?" "Oh look, a bunch of burnt scrolls, they must have empowered the fire to new heights. Now stop rules lawyering and ROLL INITIATIVE."

 

[Desdichado]

Those of us in the real world will simply note that in 3E's heyday, we still made up damage expressions for burning buildings, because 1d6 per round is loltastic.

Over here in the real world, we just went with 1d6 per round, because it worked fine. And, frankly, it's more realistic than most people give it credit for, although we didn't particularly care about that.

Now, if you fell in lava, on the other hand, you just died. No save.

Lava is lava, after all.

 

[Imaro]

*sigh*

If I want to make a burning building threatening, I will make it threatening. I'm the DM. I call DM Fiat. As I said, it doesn't much matter whether they're level 3 or 5, the building will be a threat. Why? Because for the love of god, I DO NOT KEEP A DAMN NOTEBOOK OF EVERY THING I HAVE EVER DONE. Got it?

I might have a burning building be threatening for a level 5 character, another DM might make it threatening for a level 3 character, and some other might make it threatening for level 8 characters. And we do it in such a way that we have fun.

Yes, if some sort of "Dungeons and Dragons Accountant" walked to every single 4E table that had any sort of homebrewed setting they'd find all sorts of inconsistencies. And said D&D Accountant's head would probably explode "THIS IS NOT WHAT LINE 34B SUBPARAGRAPH C ALPHA 3 SAYS YOU SHOULD BE DOING" he might thunder, in full rage mode. "HOW DARE YOU HAVE FUN WITHOUT CONSULTING THE BIG BOOK OF RANDOM STUFF? I SWEAR BY MY POCKET PROTECTOR AND THICK NERDY GLASSES YOU WILL NOT ESCAPE FROM IT!"

Those of us in the real world will simply note that in 3E's heyday, we still made up damage expressions for burning buildings, because 1d6 per round is loltastic. We just had a shoddy line in the DMG that people would drag out to start table fights with us over rules lawyering. "But despite the fact this encounter is interesting and tense and stressful, I feel as if you're breaking the rules to make it happen." "Uh, yeah, the rules are stupid. Burning buildings are dangerous, you should not be able to meditate inside of them, or wander around in them like they're friendly puppy towns." "Well that's not right, you should make the fire do what it says." *sigh* "Fine it's a magical fire because everything threatening in this world HAS to be magical. Are you happy now?" "How is it magical?" "Oh look, a bunch of burnt scrolls, they must have empowered the fire to new heights. Now stop rules lawyering and ROLL INITIATIVE."

What is your point??? I mean if you want to have a discussion about DM Fiat, that's cool... but that's not what I'm discussing...

EDIT: Also, since were using words in capital letters for no real reason... HEAT DAMAGE RULES... SMOKE INHALATION RULES are all in 3.x...USE THEM...if you want a non-loltastic "fighting while in a burning building" encounter... JUST sayin.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No character, in the game world, is thinking, now is the time for my daily power! The player is not thinking like the character.

No. They are thinking "Now is the time to pull out all the stops". Which is mechanically represented by the daily power.

Who was challenging 4E's realism?

The term "disassociated mechanics" was invented as one of the early blasts of the trumpet in the edition wars. And is, largely for this reason, almost invariably used as a slam against 4e.

I'm not familiar with the Crusader from the Book of 9 Swords. Can someone explain?

At first level a crusader knows five maneuvers and has a deck containing five maneuver cards. On turn 1 they draw two. Then they draw one each subsequent turn until they run out, when they shuffle the whole lot again and draw a new hand of two. This has the advantage that you don't always start with the same maneuvers and can repeat them as often as the opportunity turns up.

As I said before, disassociated mechanics make sense when the player and character should be disassociated, like when the character is plot-protected against the real odds of something or when the character desperately wants something that the player knows is wrong for him.

Or in the third case where it's something that's important and should be taken account of but any actual modelling would have to go to a ridiculously low level.

Also, a good simulation shouldn't have ten pounds of rules, because the more detailed and complex it becomes, the more likely it is to be wrong -- and difficult to overturn.

This is always a mistake made by simulationists.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What is your point??? I mean if you want to have a discussion about DM Fiat, that's cool... but that's not what I'm discussing...

No. What you are discussing is that you are completely missing the point. The 4e improvisational rules are there as a good guide in the absence of everything else. You seem to think that they are as crippling as a physics model would be in a game where you can be dropped from orbit with a 100% chance of surviving at high level.

To understand why your attempts to drive a wedge between GreyICE's explanations and mine are simply missing the point we need to step back and consider things like the nature of a hit point. (Answer: a unit of plot protection as used by Gygax that causes things to turn seriously weird when you think they are proportional to meat and yet as people are cut away at people don't slow down. Damage before you hit 0hp is purely cosmetic in D&D).

 

[GreyICE]

What is your point??? I mean if you want to have a discussion about DM Fiat, that's cool... but that's not what I'm discussing...

EDIT: Also, since were using words in capital letters for no real reason... HEAT DAMAGE RULES... SMOKE INHALATION RULES are all in 3.x...USE THEM...if you want a non-loltastic "fighting while in a burning building" encounter... JUST sayin.

Heat damage from extreme heat adds in another 1d6 per minute. That's an average of about 0.5 damage per round. No.

Smoke just shuts down the encounter as no one can do anything, which is kind of the opposite of dramatic. "And then the orcs who accidentally knocked over the candelabra as they were kidnapping the princess, the princess, and our adventurers all stand here choking a little and doing nothing for a while." At that point it's a Monty Python routine.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

You seem to be suggesting that it is somehow ridiculous for players to want rulings from the DM which are within the same ballpark of consistency.

"Hey, Dave, I know that your fireball spell did 3d6 a few weeks ago, but I don't find that interesting, so orcs are going to be immune to fire this week. What? You don't like it? Get the hell out!"

I don't believe you'd have to ask me to leave that game.

 

[GreyICE]

You'd leave because you encountered a group of fire elementals at some point after learning fireball?

Well... okay.

 

[Imaro]

No. What you are discussing is that you are completely missing the point. The 4e improvisational rules are there as a good guide in the absence of everything else. You seem to think that they are as crippling as a physics model would be in a game where you can be dropped from orbit with a 100% chance of surviving at high level.

No I don't think they are crippling for anything.

They are meant for a style of play where things in-world that are interacted with are by default meant to scale to the level of the party. What I have seen done when I, or others who are not fans of 4e, state this is... various 4e fans do mental gymnastics to claim this intepretation is wrong and that the DC should scale with the party level only if the fiction matches a challenge for the party's level... otherwise it shouldn't. GreyIce on the other hand used an example of a burning building as the fiction and stated the DC's would scale with the party to create narratrive difficulty. Basically saying that regardless of the fiction... it should be dramatic and thus everything should scale to the level of the PC's. His way ultimately boils down to a system that assumes scaling per level for damage and DC's... which is the opposite of what I have seen you and many other fans of 4e argue when stated by a non-fan as a reason they don't care for the system.

To understand why your attempts to drive a wedge between GreyICE's explanations and mine are simply missing the point we need to step back and consider things like the nature of a hit point. (Answer: a unit of plot protection as used by Gygax that causes things to turn seriously weird when you think they are proportional to meat and yet as people are cut away at people don't slow down. Damage before you hit 0hp is purely cosmetic in D&D).

A hit point has nothing to do with what we are discussing and I'm finding your attempts to veer the core of the conversation onto other topics and examples a cheap rhetoric trick that's accomplishing nothing but to obfuscate the conversation. So no, I'm not going to engage in a hit point discussion with you right now because it bears absolutely no relevance to my point.

 

[Argyle King]

You'd leave because you encountered a group of fire elementals at some point after learning fireball?

Well... okay.

That's not anywhere near what I said.