D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Neonchameleon]

Nah. I wanna sneak past without them noticing I'm crashing there. Or, better yet, I want to seduce the hostess and get her to comp me this time. Or, even better, I want to hold the place up with my gun and rob them. Maybe I'll thrash the place so that the owners have to pay from their cash supply to repair the houses, or maybe even burn them all down. I want to bribe the police to not give Joe building permits so he can't get those hotels he's been saving for. I want to become the mayor, that way I can section off boardwalk as a state park so that no one can build there. Etc... etc...

Can I do these things in Monopoly? Not without substantial house-rules.

Could I do these things in Dogs? Most assuredly.

If you don't see the difference between Monopoly and Dogs or D&D, then we can't have a serious discussion here.

And not one single shred of what you have written is actually relevant to whether or not the rules in Monopoly are less disassociated than those in Dogs in the Vineyard. I'm not claiming that Dogs isn't a damn good RPG. And Monopoly wouldn't make an absolutely terrible one. I'm simply demonstrating that disassociation is not the reason. (Inflexibility is a major one.)

What I am saying is that DiTV is a purely disassociated one. In precisely the way Monopoly is - that the fluff doesn't feed directly into the mechanics. This is a technical description of how it works. And I'm explaining why this is the case - and why if you put disassociated the way round you do then even Monopoly isn't disassociated. The only possible way you can have a disassociated game under your claims is to utterly ignore the mechanics and have them not impact anything.

Your argument there is that Monopoly is inflexible. This is true. And Dogs is extremely flexible. I'm not arguing. Both the abstract nature of the rules and the massive level of disassociation help Dogs' flexibility.

 

[P1NBACK]

Your argument there is that Monopoly is inflexible. This is true. And Dogs is extremely flexible. I'm not arguing. Both the abstract nature of the rules and the massive level of disassociation help Dogs' flexibility.

That's not what I'm arguing.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[LostSoul]

Mechanically, if you introduce fiction into monopoly then it matters in the same way the fiction in DiTV does.

You can't play through a single raise in Dogs without fiction. The most obvious question is how much Fallout do you take?, since the only thing that determines Fallout is the fiction.

You can play a game of Monopoly without having any idea that you're in Atlantic City, even though the values of the properties are fictionally associated.

 

[Alex319]

I think I see the problem here and that is that it's not clear what the distinction you're trying to make is between DitV and 4e as far as the relationship of the mechanics to the fiction.

For example, in 4e we have:

1. (FICTIONAL ACTION) Player: "I try to swing my axe in a wide arc to hit the target and go through into the guy next to him."
2. (MECHANICAL ACTION) Player: "I use Cleave. (rolls) 24 vs. AC, 12 damage."
3. (FICTIONAL RESPONSE) DM: "The enemy generates a magic force field around himself."
4. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) DM: "The enemy has AC 22, but he uses his Shield immediate interrupt to buff his AC to 26."
5. (MECHANICAL RESULT) Player: "Okay, then I miss."
6. (FICTIONAL RESULT) DM: "You swing your axe, and just as you think it's about to hit him a force field appears around him, and your axe bounces harmlessly off the force field."

Here is your example for DitV:

DM: Jim shoots you in the face! (pushes forward two dice)
Player: Oh no you don't! Sam ducks! (pushes forward two dice to match)
Player: And, after you miss, Sam draws his gun and fires back! (pushes forward two dice)
DM: Crap! I can't match those. Well, Jim takes the blow. (pushes forward 4 dice) You shoot him right in the chest. Blood starts pumping out in time to his heartbeat. It spills all over his white shirt. But, he's not dead yet...

Breaking it down:

1. (FICTIONAL ACTION) DM: "Jim shoots you in the face!"
2. (MECHANICAL ACTION) DM: (pushes forward two dice)
3. (FICTIONAL RESPONSE) Player: "Sam ducks! He draws his gun and fires back!"
4. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) Player: (pushes forward 2 dice for the duck, then 4 dice for the counter-attack)
5. (MECHANICAL RESULT) DM: "Jim takes the blow." (And mark off whatever injury it is)
6. (FICTIONAL RESULT) DM: "You shoot him right in the chest."

In both cases, there's a sequence of action, possible response by the opponent, and final result, and each of those is described by both mechanics and fiction. I'm not clear on what "arrow between mechanics and fiction" or vice versa is present in DitV but is missing in 4e.

 

[CovertOps]

Nah. I wanna sneak past without them noticing I'm crashing there.

This is not combat...it is a skill check.

Or, better yet, I want to seduce the hostess and get her to comp me this time.

This is also not combat...it is a skill check.

Or, even better, I want to hold the place up with my gun and rob them.

This sounds like a skill challenge.

Maybe I'll thrash the place so that the owners have to pay from their cash supply to repair the houses, or maybe even burn them all down.

More skill challenge.

I want to bribe the police to not give Joe building permits so he can't get those hotels he's been saving for.

Skill challenge

I want to become the mayor, that way I can section off boardwalk as a state park so that no one can build there. Etc... etc...

Skill challenge

Can I do these things in Monopoly? Not without substantial house-rules.

Could I do these things in Dogs? Most assuredly.

If you don't see the difference between Monopoly and Dogs or D&D, then we can't have a serious discussion here.

Every single one of your examples has nothing to do with combat or how you use the rules to resolve combat OR HOW THE FICTION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH COMBAT. Give me an example where the fiction tells the rules what to do without actually referencing the rules to see what you're allowed to do. By that I mean...don't invoke pg. 42 for an ad hoc action then try to say the fiction told the rules what to do. That is a case of the rules telling the rules what to do. And all that stuff about Dogs (since I've never played) about pushing dice forward is just the rules telling you what you're allowed to do and the fiction seems to have nothing to do with it. Perhaps there is something you haven't said where the fiction in Dogs can trump the rules, but so far I have yet to see it from your explanations of it.

[MENTION=45678]Alex319[/MENTION]: If you set aside skill checks and talk for a moment about combat resolution only...then I don't see ANY arrow coming from the fiction into the mechanics. What I do see is mechanics feeding into mechanics. Immediate Interrupts are mechanics (can you flavor them into the fiction/narrative? Yes.)

The only really good example I can think of where the fiction "feeds" the mechanics is a case where you have to interact with an NPC and (as DM) you determined ahead of time that if the players use a certain skill (intimidate for example) the DC for the check will be higher because the NPC is offended by (in this example) threats. It could also be argued that this isn't the fiction, but simply DM fiat as well (unless the PCs had a chance to ask around about the Duke and everyone told them..."Don't try to threaten him...he doesn't take threats well...".

 

[P1NBACK]

I think I see the problem here and that is that it's not clear what the distinction you're trying to make is between DitV and 4e as far as the relationship of the mechanics to the fiction.

For example, in 4e we have:

1. (FICTIONAL ACTION) Player: "I try to swing my axe in a wide arc to hit the target and go through into the guy next to him."
2. (MECHANICAL ACTION) Player: "I use Cleave. (rolls) 24 vs. AC, 12 damage."
3. (FICTIONAL RESPONSE) DM: "The enemy generates a magic force field around himself."
4. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) DM: "The enemy has AC 22, but he uses his Shield immediate interrupt to buff his AC to 26."
5. (MECHANICAL RESULT) Player: "Okay, then I miss."
6. (FICTIONAL RESULT) DM: "You swing your axe, and just as you think it's about to hit him a force field appears around him, and your axe bounces harmlessly off the force field."

YES!

Only, some people don't play that way (as evidenced here in this thread). They play like this:

1. (MECHANICAL ACTION) Player: I use Cleave. *rolls d20* Got 29 to hit. 13 damage.
2. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) DM: I use Shield. That makes his AC 30.
3. (MECHANICAL RESULT) Player: Damn. I miss.
4. DM: Do you want to move your mini?
5. Player: Nah. I'm done.
6. DM: Ok, Player 2. You're up.

They skip the fiction.

In 4E, you can do this and still have a playable game (albeit a game with only real world cues [like, maps and figures and whatnot], not fictional ones [the stuff in your imagination]).

In Dogs, you can't.

Make sense now?

 

[LostSoul]

edit: Too slow!

4E will run just fine if you do this:

1. (MECHANICAL ACTION) Player: "I use Cleave. (rolls) 24 vs. AC, 12 damage."
2. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) DM: "The enemy has AC 22, but he uses his Shield immediate interrupt to buff his AC to 26."
3. (MECHANICAL RESULT) Player: "Okay, then I miss."

This is typical of my 4E play.

Let's try the same thing with Dogs:

1. (MECHANICAL ACTION) DM: (pushes forward two dice)
2. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) Player: How much Fallout will Sam take from that?

Crash. The game stops working. You need the fictional action in order for the player to make a mechanical decision, and only then can you proceed to the mechanical result. That's the arrow that comes out of the cloud and back into the player.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You can't play through a single raise in Dogs without fiction. The most obvious question is how much Fallout do you take?, since the only thing that determines Fallout is the fiction.

You can play a game of Monopoly without having any idea that you're in Atlantic City, even though the values of the properties are fictionally associated.

Not true. Fallout is measured by the dice and the stage of calling. Without the fiction game you'd be in a gambling game with exponential raises. What the fiction determines (and not always even that) is the exact nature of the fallout you take.

I think I see the problem here and that is that it's not clear what the distinction you're trying to make is between DitV and 4e as far as the relationship of the mechanics to the fiction.

For example, in 4e we have:

1. (FICTIONAL ACTION) Player: "I try to swing my axe in a wide arc to hit the target and go through into the guy next to him."
2. (MECHANICAL ACTION) Player: "I use Cleave. (rolls) 24 vs. AC, 12 damage."
3. (FICTIONAL RESPONSE) DM: "The enemy generates a magic force field around himself."
4. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) DM: "The enemy has AC 22, but he uses his Shield immediate interrupt to buff his AC to 26."
5. (MECHANICAL RESULT) Player: "Okay, then I miss."
6. (FICTIONAL RESULT) DM: "You swing your axe, and just as you think it's about to hit him a force field appears around him, and your axe bounces harmlessly off the force field."

Here is your example for DitV:



Breaking it down:

1. (FICTIONAL ACTION) DM: "Jim shoots you in the face!"
2. (MECHANICAL ACTION) DM: (pushes forward two dice)
3. (FICTIONAL RESPONSE) Player: "Sam ducks! He draws his gun and fires back!"
4. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) Player: (pushes forward 2 dice for the duck, then 4 dice for the counter-attack)
5. (MECHANICAL RESULT) DM: "Jim takes the blow." (And mark off whatever injury it is)
6. (FICTIONAL RESULT) DM: "You shoot him right in the chest."

In both cases, there's a sequence of action, possible response by the opponent, and final result, and each of those is described by both mechanics and fiction. I'm not clear on what "arrow between mechanics and fiction" or vice versa is present in DitV but is missing in 4e.

You've missed the arrow patterns out. It's not fictional action -> mechanical response you're describing. There's the player + dm in the middle every time. Both are coming out of the player interpretation.

You're missing at the crudest level "I swing at him" *rolls* "He's dead." No ifs, no buts, no working out what happened. The mechanics directly change the fluff. And you're also missing out "This fight is on a cliff edge" - a nice piece of fluff. No representation for that in DiTV under anything other than extraordinary circumstances. Although it might be brought in by the fiction. In 4e, that cliff is there. It's drawn on the battlemap. It's a fictional construct but it has mechanical representation. And any attempt to use it changes the game, mechanics and fluff both, in meaningful and well defined ways. (Push someone over the cliff by mechanics and that really adds to the fluff).

(In Spirit of the Century, the rules aren't dissociated either. The aspect "Serial Cliffhanger" or "By the skin of his fingertips" could be invoked by either side if there was a cliff in the fluff. Despite its abstract nature, the cliff now has mechanical representation and the feedback cycle works.)

 

[P1NBACK]

Let's try the same thing with Dogs:

1. (MECHANICAL ACTION) DM: (pushes forward two dice)
2. (MECHANICAL RESPONSE) Player: How much Fallout will Sam take from that?

Crash. The game stops working. You need the fictional action in order for the player to make a mechanical decision, and only then can you proceed to the mechanical result. That's the arrow that comes out of the cloud and back into the player.

There's an echo in here!

Nah, it just goes to show that we're clearly on the same page.

+1 XP if I hadn't given it recently already.

 

[LostSoul]

Can you elaborate a bit on what those "principles" are? Let's take my "blocking swords with your bare hands" example - what "principles" would you use to determine whether or not it works?

I don't have any principles about that level of things; it's more about telling the DM what his job is. The main principles I'd be using there are "Maintain Consistency of the Game World", so that the player knows if he's going to be able to do that or if he'll just get his hands chopped off (though I'd tell him that when the player describes the action) and "Remain Impartial", so that I'm not hoping for any specific outcome or playing favourites.