D&D 4E 4e/13thA immersion question and 5e/13thA DoaM question

[Quickleaf]

1 - A question for 13th Agers or 4e-ers about immersion

My problem is that there are a lot of powers I can do as quick actions and a lot I can do as my regular action, so each round I'm looking over my stack of powers and the the rough layout of where everyone is and trying to figure out what the optimal set of them to use is. I can do it quickly enough to be ready before it gets to my turn, but it feels like once combat starts that I step out of character and into a generic strategy or video game. It's the same kind of feeling I had in 4e with the AEDU. I don't remember ever having to get immersed in previous editions at the levels we played at. Maybe it was because each situation had a bunch of things that you could do that easily meshed the language and effects (attack with sword, charge, circle around, etc...) and only a small handful of spells or special abilities that would be useful (and a lot of those were like fireball and heal, and not just flinging around some abstract bonus). Or maybe it was just years of practice.

IME that criticism of 4e (and its "sister game" 13th Age) - that you as a player look to your powers first as how to resolve a combat - is quite accurate. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be quite fun. But there is a certain kind of player whose creativity suffers in such a system. Now, this sort of "here's your hand of cards and what you can do" design is not new to RPGs or D&D, 4e just kicked it up a level.

When it comes to how this affects immersion, I think it's more on how it changes the table dynamic. When you have most of the players talking in game-speak ("Ok, I spend a minor action to heal up Dave, then move over here, and attack the goblin with Tide of Iron"), it is jarring for some players. I am one of them. More than in 1e and 2e (I didn't DM 3e so can't comment), I find in 4e as DM having to prompt players to give the group more description than that.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of D&D and 4e is probably my "favorite" edition, but I think it can be a buzz kill for a certain types of players and their creativity / immersion (which I tend to view as connected). It's one of the things that prompted me to put more effort into a system which focuses on creativity: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353104-A-Dark-High-Fantasy-RPG

Not to say that you can't play a "creativity before powers" / "fiction first" style of game in 4e, it's just that the 4e system seems to either attract or forge players who play "powers before creativity" / "game first."

 

[GMMichael]

1 - A question for 13th Agers or 4e-ers about immersion
. . .So, how do you stay feeling like you're in character or doing what your character would in combat instead of feeling like you're running through a checklist to see what you should do next? (Or would a real-life character in combat just have a mental check-list like an NFL quarterback and go on auto-pilot?) Does it work to just try to focus on visualizing, or to not consider the whole range of powers? Is it just a matter of practice?

If you're using an actual checklist, power-cards, or a 2+ page character sheet, this is probably inevitable. A lighter rules system that allows for more imagination or abstract gaming has a better chance to put you right in the driver's seat. (Unless that driver's seat is an actual seat in a warmech, where you'd expect a lot of computer screens with menus.)

2 - A question about 13th Age/5e and DoaM

So, there seems to be a mass of hate about DoaM for 5e. Did I miss the big hubbub of dissatisfaction when people read 13th Age and saw damage on a miss, or is the audience that completely divorced from 5e? Is there any difference in the conception between the two?

As far as my impression of DoaM after our first 13th Age session, that one of my powers let me increase the other party members DoaM didn't help with feeling immersed at all. . .That player did do a nice job of narrating what they did (after they saw the die result) though.

Are you saying it feels weird to help your companions do more damage...when they miss? Yeah, that does sound weird.

Compare it to this, and see if you feel better about it:

Modos RPG players don't hit or miss. They either succeed on a contest against enemy defense, or they don't. If they succeed, or the enemy doesn't have an action with which to defend, then they deal damage, which has two important features:

1) The attacker describes his attack, and the defender describes his defense. If the defender takes 8 damage, he's welcome to say that the attacker completely missed (due to whatever reason he wants), but he still must add 8 damage to his damage pool.

2) Physical damage is guaranteed when you're out of actions, and the attacker still has a reasonable chance to hit you. So if you've spent your round attacking the BBEG, and the injured goblin lying in the corner has an arrow knocked, he doesn't need to roll it - he's doing a minimum of one damage to you. This damage could be the effort you spend dodging the arrow, or your grunt as it hits you full in the face - whatever you call it, you can't avoid damage unless you spend an action on it.

 

[Emerikol]

I refer you back to the thread I linked to about half-a-dozen posts upthread.

I understand the "definition" very well: "dissociated mechanics" = metagame mechanics that Justin Alexander doesn't like.

Associated with the so-called theory are empirical claims about the connection between those mechanics, and the psychological experience of playing a game, which are false. I know they're false because I have personally witnessed and experienced counter-instances. For example, powers like the War Devil's "beseiged foe" are ostensibly "dissociated", and hence unable to be used while roleplaying or immersing - but I know from my own play experience that this is not true, and that players can both deploy and interact with abilities of this sort without breaking first-person narration or character immersion.

I'm prepared to believe the essay as a piece of autobiography - that is, Justin Alexander is not able to use such mechanics while roleplaying - but nothing of broader consequence follows from that biographical oddity.

Well you got the definition wrong so no wonder you can't figure things out. You most especially got the bolded part wrong. While true that it could effect some people that way the word dissociation is not referring to a feeling or experience while using the mechanic.

Mechanics which force you to leave actor stance and enter author or director stance are dissociative because they dissociative the character from the player. When the player is making a metagame decision, he is not "being his character". Some people like that sort of thing and some don't. But the definition is what it is whether you like the effect or not. The name is not talking about the effect or feeling.

It's been explained a million times so I can only guess this answer doesn't fit your mental model so you ignore it.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Mechanics which force you to leave actor stance and enter author or director stance are dissociative because they dissociative the character from the player..

Like hit points and levels? Mechanics you've, in the past, insisted aren't dissociated at all?

 

[Emerikol]

Like hit points and levels? Mechanics you've, in the past, insisted aren't dissociated at all?

None of those things force me out of actor stance. They are known to the character in the world. I don't think a lot of people have issue with this even though apparently you do. I view hit points as overal health and vitality both of which are known. Level is just a measure of effectiveness so I don't consider that a secret either.

Your inability to see this may be why you've had trouble understanding my side on this issue.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

They are known to the character in the world.

And this is where I completely stop taking you seriously.

How do people know their exact HP in your world? Do they have the number on the wristwatches or something that they can check to see when they need to fall over dead?
In your world it makes sense that a Fighter knows he can fall off a cliff with a 100% survival rate because he has enough hit points?

This is the reason people accuse your definition of DS being completely arbitrary.

And the reason I have trouble understanding your side of the argument is BECAUSE of that arbitrariness. Your use of DS never has any consistent or logical definition beyond "things I don't like," and you typically get incredibly hostile whenever you're called out on it.

 

[Emerikol]

And this is where I completely stop taking you seriously.

How do people know their exact HP in your world? Do they have the number on the wristwatches or something that they can check to see when they need to fall over dead?
In your world it makes sense that a Fighter knows he can fall off a cliff with a 100% survival rate because he has enough hit points?

This is the reason people accuse your definition of DS being completely arbitrary.

And the reason I have trouble understanding your side of the argument is BECAUSE of that arbitrariness. Your use of DS never has any consistent or logical definition beyond "things I don't like," and you typically get incredibly hostile whenever you're called out on it.

I might agree that knowing you have 62 versus 63 is pretty arbitrary but knowing with 5 or 10 is not. I don't consider the additional bookkeeping worth it and to be honest with the vagueness of damage even knowing the number is limited knowledge. The reality though is that you know your relative health.

I never heard anyone ever think differently until I went online. I probably know a hundred people that think their characters know their hit points. I know that is anecdotal but I just never met any resistance on that. The point though is that if I thought hit points were completely unknowable then I would be opposed to them and probably just quit D&D altogether. The objection is the same. I just don't view hit points and AC the same way you do and a lot of people don't.

I'm surprised you don't know people who think like I do. It's strange. So when your character cries out to the cleric that he needs healing that is just some irrational babbling by that character?

 

[EnglishLanguage]

So when your character cries out to the cleric that he needs healing that is just some irrational babbling by that character?

When I want the Cleric to heal me, my character doesn't go "Hey Cleric, I only have X Hit Points left, heal me!" He goes "Ow, that got me right in the kidney. Hey Bob, I need some magic!"

 

[Emerikol]

When I want the Cleric to heal me, my character doesn't go "Hey Cleric, I only have X Hit Points left, heal me!" He goes "Ow, that got me right in the kidney. Hey Bob, I need some magic!"

But how does he know he needs some magic? What if it's only 1 hp of damage?

That is my point. Perhaps for a character with 100 hit points it is too fine grained. I'd call that a concession to playability but the basic concept of hit points which represent well being (at least for me they do) are known to the character.

I hope this is eye opening for you. It should make you pause and think that maybe just maybe we are consistent in our approach. I guarantee the Alexandrian thinks the character knows his hit points. The whole game falls on it's head to me if they are unknown. In fact if I really felt they were unknown, I'd have the DM track them and not tell the players. Why? Because players knowing things that characters don't about in game matters is immersion breaking for us.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

But how does he know he needs some magic? What if it's only 1 hp of damage?

Because he's injured? I can't tell if this is a trick question or not.

I'd call that a concession to playability but the basic concept of hit points which represent well being (at least for me they do) are known to the character.

Which also supports DoaM being completely fine because the results of what DoaM causes(fatigue, chip damage, etc) are well-known to the character.

Because players knowing things that characters don't about in game matters is immersion breaking for us.

Until it suddenly isn't.