LostSoul
Adventurer
That's reading fiction into the mechanics. Your chances to draw a beauty contest card aren't based on the fiction - if you're a young, attractive woman your odds don't go up, nor do they go down if you've been in jail.
D&D 4E 4e and reality
- Thread starter Ahrimon
- Start date
That's reading fiction into the mechanics. Your chances to draw a beauty contest card aren't based on the fiction - if you're a young, attractive woman your odds don't go up, nor do they go down if you've been in jail.
I can't believe you guys ignored this awesome post.
4e:
Power -> Dice -> Mechanics -> Results
OR
Fiction [pg 42] -> Dice -> Mechanics -> Results
Dogs:
[Fiction -> Dice -> Mechanics ->] Results
It seems to me the difference here is the factor that in Dogs you have an Iterative process involving the fiction, the dice, and the mechanics (See, Raise, Take the Blow). At it's core 4e will never be dogs simply because of it's lack of iteration in the resolution mechanics and it's written that way to be simple and straight forward. Roll die. Did you exceed target #? -> success else failure.
[MENTION=83768]P1NBACK[/MENTION]: Please clarify your position in regards to the fiction. And so I'm clear what I mean ... state specifically how "Fiction" interacts with the other components [Dice, Mechanics, Results]. I don't really want to debate corner cases like the grabbed swarm and such. Your descriptions in relation to that have been pretty vague other than "The fiction impacts the mechanics". If we're debating "The fiction impacts the results" then I want to know that's what you're saying and how that comes to pass with examples and such.
Right.
Boardgaming combat.
OR
Roleplaying combat.
Alternatively, you could do this:
Power -> Fiction -> Dice (Mechanics) -> Results -> Fiction
See how that works?
Me: Hmmm. I want to push that orc back... (me thinking to myself) "I run up to the orc and slam my shield into him trying to push him back."
Choose Iron Tide. Roll dice. Results: Hit. Push 1. 10 damage.
DM: "You slam your shield into the orc and he stumbles back 5 feet. You can see the bruise on his forehead where your shield met his face."
It's not that hard. It takes more effort, because the mechanics don't encourage us to describe the fiction part (that's why some people give that +1 or +2 bonus for the description - like say, Sorcerer). But, we can deduce the fiction based on the mechanics.
That's all I'm saying. Why do that? Because it opens up possibilities for describing things NOT on your power sheet. If I don't have Iron Tide, I can skip the Power selection and go right to the fiction. The DM can then decide what the power is using DMG page 42.
My ideal D&D RPG would go like this:
Fiction -> Power -> Dice -> Results -> Fiction
Rinse. Repeat.
I'm working on it as we speak. It's pretty much based around page 42 of the DMG.
Something like that. Yeah.
Well, yeah. Basically. Dogs' mechanics (dice) feeds into the fiction and the fiction feeds into the dice. That's something 4E lacks in some cases. Not in all cases. In some cases, it works really well if you let it. However, in some cases, specifically in combat, the fiction (and when I say fiction, I mean the shared imagining events we're describing at the table) fades into the background and can cease to matter if you let it. It ceases to matter when the real world cues (power cards, dice, character sheets, minis, battlemat) stop creating those imagined events.
Take my two examples above about using Iron Tide. One of them creates an imagined event. One of them doesn't. The one that doesn't, instead uses real world cues to replace the imagined event. We don't need to imagine the orc because he's right there on the table - his mini. We don't need to imagine him being pushed back because we saw the DM move the mini back one square.
It's not necessarily a bad way to play. Not at all. It's just more like a boardgame. Yah dig?
Covert. Let's discuss this offline. PM me and I'll give you the best example I can at the moment.
Hussar
Legend
P1NBACK said:
And this is where we disagree. You can claim, "I'm climbing the wall" all you like. You can claim exactly how you want to climb that wall - quickly, carefully, dancing, whatever.
But, until you roll that climb check, you're standing at the bottom of the wall doing nothing. Nothing actually happens in the game world until you roll. And that roll defines what happens. You can narrate it, again, however you wish. If you succeed on the climb check, you move a certain distance.
But until you make that roll, you don't move an inch.
Until you roll that attack, you don't attack.
Until you roll, you don't actually do anything.
At least you don't do anything that is mechanically determined. If an action is not mechanically determined, you can narrate however you see fit and you do that action. But, as soon as an action is determined by mechanics, you don't even start until you roll.
And this is true in most (sorry, mispoke the first time) RPG's. It's always been true in D&D.
Quoting out of order because a further thought occured
P1NBACK said:
Let's break down your narrative for a second:
- I run up to the orc - not mechanically determined - although distance is, there are no checks for running up to the orc. But, what happens if there is a pit trap in front of the orc? Now your narrative contradicts events in the game?
- and slam my shield into him trying to push him back. - This IS mechanically determined though. Again, what happens if you miss? Your narrative is wrong again - you didn't slam your shield into him.
You keep adding and dropping "I try" into the sentences as needed. The narrative you came up with is entirely dependent on the mechanics. If something prevents your movement, your narrative fails. If you miss, your narrative fails.
And you, the player have ZERO control over any of that.
If I say nothing other than, "I move here and use tide of iron to Push 1", it's exactly the same. Sure, your description is more interesting, but, from a game perspective, nothing changes.
The in game narrative is determined by the mechanics, not the other way around. The narrative is determined AFTER the fact, not before. You can claim intentions until the cows come home, but, until the dice are rolled, the in-game narrative is in a cloud of mechanics that don't resolve until the mechanics tell you how they are resolved.
Being fluffy and flavourful is good role-playing. Totally agree. But, not being fluffy and flavourful is not bad role-playing. It makes zero difference to the game.
Just like role playing in Monopoly. The only things I could actually, really narrative before resolution is whether or not a buy a property or choose to build a hotel, because that's the only action in Monopoly that is not mechanically determined. Everything else occurs after mechanical resolution.
Just like any mechanically determined event in most RPG's.
Last edited:
Yup. We totally disagree on this.
As far as I'm concerned, what you say happens, until we have a contention at the table. I walk over to the captain. Happens.
I walk over to the captain. No wait, I grab your arm and say, "Hold on a sec." Someone has contended. Therefore, the action doesn't happen at this point.
UNLESS. The walking person contends with THAT action.
No way, I dodge his arm and continue walking.
Ok. NOW we need mechanics. Now we need dice. You've started walking and he's started trying to grab your arm to stop you. Let's find out what happens.
By your rules, he can't start grabbing my arm until he rolls dice, but why would he need to roll dice unless I'm stopping him (or attempting to stop him)??? Doesn't make any sense unless you roll dice for every. single. action. in the game.
And this is my point. What actions are determined by the mechanics? None unless someone disagrees with the outcome. If I say, "I kill the kobold" and everyone else at the table says, "Yup. You do." Then there's no action there that needs to be determined by any mechanics. You just do it.
No. It's not. It's not true in any RPG.
"I run up to the orc"
Fiction
"Well, there's a pit trap..."
Fiction
"Ok, as I get close to the pit trap I leap over it..."
Fiction
"Ok, move your mini up to the edge of the pit trap and give me an athletics check."
Mechanics
"Ok, I got a 7."
Mechanics
"Yeah, that fails."
Mechanics
"As you leap over the pit trap you make it just to the other side, but you can tell instantly, you're too short. You land hitting hard against the other side, but try as you might to grasp onto something you fall into the pit. Falling, you see spikes at the bottom... they look coated in some kind of sticky substance."
Fiction
"The trap gets to make an attack now. It got a 22 vs. your Reflex. I take it that's a hit?"
Mechanics
"As you hit the bottom of the pit, a spike also punctures your left arm and you feel the sticky substance seeping into the wound."
Fiction
"You take 10 damage and 5 ongoing poison."
Mechanic
It's pretty simple to see here. The mechanics resolve the fiction.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this. How can you possible know what to roll if you don't know what the fiction is?
"Roll an Athletics check."
"What? Why?"
"To see if you fall in or not."
"What? I haven't done anything."
"Well, you're going to jump over it right?"
"But, I haven't tried that."
"Oh. Well, what do you want to do?"
"I uh... jump over the pit."
"Ok. Roll for Athletics."
"To see if I jump?"
"Uh... No. I guess not. To see if you make it. You're already jumping."
But, what if I didn't? Can I not do that action fictionally? Of course not!
This is why the description (fiction) is so important. I slam my shield into the orc and try to push him back.
Well, do you have a power?
No.
Ok. Lemme pull up page 42!
No it doesn't. "I swing my sword at him..."
I'm not rolling dice to see if I swing my sword. I'm rolling dice to see how effective I swing my sword.
If I were rolling dice to see if I could swing my sword, it'd go like this:
I swing my sword!
No, you don't. Roll dice.
Ok! I got a 21!
Ok, now you swing your sword!
Cool! What happens?
I don't know.
Over whether I swing my sword? Of course I do.
It changes if I don't have Iron Tide.
Unless I don't have that power right? As a player, I say:
"I want to run up to the orc and thrash at him with my axe hoping to scare him away from Jim the Wizard!"
Tell, me. How do you adjudicate that?
No. Really.
What do you say to that player?
I'm not talking about being "fluffy" and "flavorful". I'm talking about describing fictional events.
"I swing my sword at him..." is fictional. And, in most cases it works. We know what weapon you're using, we know what attack you're using (in 4E, it'd be Melee basic attack).
The mechanics then help us resolve how effective (do I hit?) the attack is.
This is so out of sync with what I think makes a roleplaying game and experience, I have no clue how to respond. I'm just flabbergasted that people would consider this roleplaying.
I can't do anything except what's mechanically present? That's not roleplaying. That's a board game. And, that's my point. Putting "fluff" or "flavor" on it, as you put it, does not make it a roleplaying game.
We can't agree on that, so talking about roleplaying games (4E) is a meaningless discussion. This is the crux of this argument.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Yup. We totally disagree on this.
I walk over to the captain. Happens.
I walk over to the captain. No wait, I grab your arm and say, "Hold on a sec." Someone has contended. Therefore, the action doesn't happen at this point.
Therefore the action you indicated never happened. That is the problem.
And now we are actually getting into the core difference between Monopoly and a RPG. In Monopoly, that which isn't permitted is forbidden. In DiTV that which isn't forbidden is permitted (a.k.a. "Roll the dice or say yes"). It has nothing to do with how associated or not the mechanics are.
If you don't oppose it's an automatic success - but choosing not to oppose was still a decision point.
By "someone" you mean to include the physics of the world?
I'm pretty sure the kobold is going to object unless he's helpless...
And as we can see, the mechanics feed directly into the fiction - and the fiction feeds directly into the mechanics. Thus it's associated. DiTV doesn't have the fiction feeding directly into the mechanics - it always requires an intermediary.
Tying backwards, there's a world of difference between "I swing my sword at him" and "I shoot him in the face".
Is he a fighter? Serious question. If not, page 42 with something intimidate based. (MBA + intimidate check probably - successful intimidate check and you mark the orc and either way you grant him combat advantage - or straight intimidate check and the orc will not attack Jim next turn but you don't get to attack at all).
Yup. And they do what dramatist mechanics should do - resolve conflict. (I prefer the older GDS system to GNS, although both have flaws).
Here we agree. The core difference between RPGs and boardgames is (as I said above) a difference between whether what isn't prohibited is allowed or what isn't allowed is prohibited. This has nothing to do with association of rules (Agricola is moderately associated despite being a boardgame - think like a farmer and you will do competently even if you barely know the rules.)
And going back round again, all this doesn't make Dogs or Dread associated. What both those games do well is the only thing Dramatists demand out of a system - simple conflict resolution (paper, scissors, stone works for basic conflict resolution...) What they then bring is a set of rules that engages the players emotionally rather than intellectually whether through being very careful round the tower and watching it wobble or the bid/raise mechanic to build tension. This isn't a gamist or simulationist virtue (and it's the simulationists that want associated mechanics). It's using the mechanics to bring the equivalent of truly awesome mood music and lighting.
And 4e (combat) is like a good rock concert. Great music - if you like rock. But even if you do it can make it difficult to talk let alone think clearly about other styles of music.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I disagree. (Big surprise, huh?
) "Roll the dice or say yes" is about driving towards fictional conflicts, not about what's forbidden or permitted. Dogs has rules just like Monopoly does. You're expected to follow those rules. What Dogs - and D&D - have that Monopoly doesn't is fiction influencing the resolution of actions. Dogs and D&D are designed to leave spaces for the players to create the fiction and have it influence the resolution, and the resolution of what happens in the fiction influences what fiction the players add next in a manner specific to the goals of the game. Monopoly doesn't have any space to add fiction that has an influence on what happens next.
Neonchameleon
Legend
I disagree. (Big surprise, huh?
If by "fiction" you mean that {talk, fist, weapon, gun} is deeper than property/house/hotel/mortgage, I want to know why. Especially as they are just fancy names for {d4, d6, d8, d10}. Great game you've got there. "Choose your dice size!" Which is all Vincent Baker claims is the reason Dogs will break down without fiction boils down to - you supposedly need fiction to tell what size of dice someone is using. That mechanically it gets dressed up in a rhetorical disguise means nothing in the same way that mechanically blindfold chess is no different to chess although they feel different to the players.
The difference is that in Monopoly the rules are a list of permissable actions. In Dogs the rules are primarily to evaluate potential actions - and anything within reason within the fiction is permissable.
I disagree. (Big surprise, huh?
Dogs and D&D are designed to leave spaces for the players to create the fiction and have it influence the resolution, and the resolution of what happens in the fiction influences what fiction the players add next in a manner specific to the goals of the game. Monopoly doesn't have any space to add fiction that has an influence on what happens next.
I think this is hilarious. Add in P1NBACK's XP comment and we have all 3 of you agreeing to the same thing while appearing to disagree. The whole permitted/forbidden thing is basically saying that (for Monopoly) if it isn't in the rules you can't do it because Monopoly doesn't have a pg 42. A better way to say "fiction can influence the resolution of actions" would be "By the rules you're allowed to try anything (page 42)". Monopoly has no such rules allowance. Perhaps a better way to define an RPG is that you can try anything within reason. In Monopoly you can only roll the dice and do what the rules tell you can do.
Let me revise my previous flow charts:
4e:
Player -> [what can I do that will most help the party? -- FICTION] "I use Tide of Iron on the Orc" -> Dice -> Result
Player -> [what can I do that will most help the party? -- FICTION] "I want to push the Orc back so I bull rush him" -> Dice -> Result
Player -> [what can I do that will most help the party? -- FICTION] "I swing from the chandelier and smash feet first into the Orc to knock him over (prone)". -> Dice -> Result
The point I've been trying to make is that in 4e there is no difference between using a power (pre-written fiction) or invoking page 42. You always have the choice to make EITHER action. This CHOICE is not allowed in Monopoly. You can compare the use of powers in 4e and say "You're just going into board game mode", but the fact of the matter is saying it doesn't make it true. You ALWAYS have the option to do something else (invoke page 42) EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE IT. Claiming that because you don't ever invoke page 42 that therefore you're now playing a board game is at best wrong and at worst offensive. The "fiction" that keeps getting lauded so highly here is nothing more than the "player deciding what his character will do" with little to no restrictions which leads back to exactly what Neon said.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Because conflict resolution in Dogs takes place in a much deeper fictional context than "I talk to him" or "I shoot him". There's more to the game than that: you need to create characters, create stakes for the Dog's initiation, create a situation for the Dogs to interact with, create stakes for the conflict, deal with Fallout, deal with any follow-up conflicts, deal with the changes to the situation, and continue until the situation is resolved. The game tries to make people want to engage with the fiction on a deeper level than "I shoot him".
Monopoly doesn't have that.
I agree with that. That's why I don't like to look at the list of powers (including ones such as Bull Rush) as a list of permissible actions. I like to play like this: you describe what action your character takes, and then we figure out how to resolve it; we don't pick from a list of options, resolve that choice, and then figure out what that means.
