D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Neonchameleon]

Ah, that makes sense. I can see why you see Dogs the way you do now. I don't play it that way - I've started off conflicts off with guns drawn, then Escalated to talking. When I play there is no relationship between the situation and the size of the dice, only the actions of the characters involved.

Oh, I view Dogs in the Vineyard as a damn good RPG. This doesn't mean that it isn't almost as mechanically disassociated as it is physically possible for a RPG to be. In fact it is my test case to demonstrate that disassociated mechanics do not mean that a RPG is bad.

My objection isn't to DiTV. It's to people who use disassociated mechanics as a criticism and then claim it applies to 4e.

And P1BACK, the size of the fallout dice is just a four point scale. That DiTV says to narrate it rather than provide it as open information would be akin to Monopoly telling you to name every street you drive through rather than simply state the number on the dice and move that many squares. It is simply mandatory obfuscation as far as the mechanical design is concerned. Although it is more important if you also escalate downwards.

 

[CovertOps]

And CovertOps, P1NBACK was talking about Monopoly on a tangent there. Not 4e.

I'm well aware what he was talking about, but I'm trying to understand why/how Dogs is claiming to be different. From my perspective it's not. And what I said about his comments is true about his other assertions where he keeps saying Dogs is different because (insert intimidate skill check here) is fed by the fiction.

I think LostSoul hit the nail on the head, backed up by Vincent's quote and this text you just posted. You need the fictional details in order to use the mechanics.

This is no different from...was I using a long sword or a dagger. You have to know the fictional details in order to use the mechanics. Just that the mechanics happen to be different.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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?

This is more of a curious aside but how do you regard the above as non fiction?
An attack was made and countered with no change to the balance of the fight. I accept it is pretty minimalist as fiction goes but unless the player 1 and DM are fighting it out with real swords it is pretty clearly fiction no?

Just to be clear, I am not critising you requirement for more colour and description to the action. I just think the distinction between mechanisc and fiction is pretty arbitary. My own view is that the mechanics would be the prescriptions as to dice rolling and the arbitration of the die roll results.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm well aware what he was talking about, but I'm trying to understand why/how Dogs is claiming to be different. From my perspective it's not. And what I said about his comments is true about his other assertions where he keeps saying Dogs is different because (insert intimidate skill check here) is fed by the fiction.


This is no different from...was I using a long sword or a dagger. You have to know the fictional details in order to use the mechanics. Just that the mechanics happen to be different.

I think the difference between DiTV and 4e is more one of scale and intent. DiTV is a lot more abstract, thus it doesn't tend to capture every little nuance of the action in its mechanics. 4e OTOH every little thing is a lot more likely to be mechanically significant and thus if you play out a scenario in a purely mechanical fashion you HAVE the bare bones of the fiction. In DiTV if you left out the fiction you could still mechanically do the dice rolling, but you'd have ZERO idea as to what the conflict was about or what really exactly happened.

Thus it doesn't make SENSE to dissociate mechanics and fiction in DiTV, whereas you can get away with it in 4e, you are just always a lot closer TO the fiction to start with. Neither perspective is exactly incorrect, DiTV's rules don't directly incorporate much fiction and could be said to be 'dissociated', but you would never ACTUALLY do that and the RESULT is the fictional story is highly tied to the mechanical resolution in real world play.

In 4e you can easily slip into a purely mechanical mode of play and get away with it. The mechanics and fiction can be separated in PRACTICE, not just in theory. This leads back to the old "don't mess with my mechanics" position taken by many people. The game will work even if you grab swarms. Doing that kind of thing in DiTV would be pretty strange I'd suppose. Still, I think in the end you can draw parallels between them at every point and again that seems like just a consequence of the nature of RPGs.

 

[CovertOps]

I think the difference between DiTV and 4e is more one of scale and intent. DiTV is a lot more abstract, thus it doesn't tend to capture every little nuance of the action in its mechanics. 4e OTOH every little thing is a lot more likely to be mechanically significant and thus if you play out a scenario in a purely mechanical fashion you HAVE the bare bones of the fiction. In DiTV if you left out the fiction you could still mechanically do the dice rolling, but you'd have ZERO idea as to what the conflict was about or what really exactly happened.

Thus it doesn't make SENSE to dissociate mechanics and fiction in DiTV, whereas you can get away with it in 4e, you are just always a lot closer TO the fiction to start with. Neither perspective is exactly incorrect, DiTV's rules don't directly incorporate much fiction and could be said to be 'dissociated', but you would never ACTUALLY do that and the RESULT is the fictional story is highly tied to the mechanical resolution in real world play.

In 4e you can easily slip into a purely mechanical mode of play and get away with it. The mechanics and fiction can be separated in PRACTICE, not just in theory. This leads back to the old "don't mess with my mechanics" position taken by many people. The game will work even if you grab swarms. Doing that kind of thing in DiTV would be pretty strange I'd suppose. Still, I think in the end you can draw parallels between them at every point and again that seems like just a consequence of the nature of RPGs.

This makes much more sense now assuming this is correct. A system that is more abstract would require something (not necessarily "fiction") to fill in what's not covered by the mechanics.

 

[DracoSuave]

So let me see if I am getting this right... in Dogs (I'm not intimately familiar with it, so bear with me...)... you have this thing called Fallout which is a mechanic to model a negative consequence, yes?

And, judging by how it's described, this same game mechanic can be used to describe the effects of a gun, of an argument, of a psychic attack, pretty much anything intended to harm in any abstract way.

So, what you have in Dogs is an abstract mechanic that inherently does not attempt to model any specific narrative, but instead, is used to adjudicate a number of narrative that could result, with an agent deciding the narrative interpretation of that mechanic's resolved effect.

And yet, you have people claiming that somehow this system is more inherently tied to the fiction than D&D4th edition, claiming that its effects do not model narrative because it's an abstract mechanic that inherently does not attempt to model any specific narrative, but instead, is used to adjudicate a number of fictions that could result, with an agent deciding the narrative interpretation of that mechanic's resolved effect.

I just can't follow where you guys are going with that.... the difference in 4th and Dogs is that Dogs has its abstraction fed by specific narratives, and 4th has its specific narrative fed by abstraction.

As an example, 'weakened' does not represent a specific thing. It can mean any number of different narratives, maybe you're disoriented, maybe you're numb with pain, or maybe you're cursed by an evil necromancer. Expecting the mechanics to be that specific is missing the point... they're supposed to be flexible in the same manner as Fallout.

The narrative is present, however, as it is informed by the context of those mechanics. Take the example of the Cleave. Cleave is an attack with a weapon that hits one guy, and somehow damage is applied to a second. It can mean that you stab with a knife and then kick his friend, or it could mean that you hack someone with an axe, and the follow thru grazes his buddy. Shield represents an arcane means of defending yourself against attacks that are not based on your toughness or strength of will.

This does not mean that the narrative cannot exist... it means that context must be provided that fills in the details. The cleaver could be a sword and board fighter, and the shielder could be a fire mage. Informed by that, the narrative could be that the fighter's technique of hitting a guy then shield bashing his friend was stymied by a sudden explosion of heat, causing a flinch throwing off his attack. The cleaver could be a execution-axe wielding berserker, and the shilder could be a mage specialized in summoning. In that case, the axe could be swung in a wild circle, only to be stopped by a split second summoning of an armored knight-angel parrying it with his massive holy sword.

In both games, the narrative context is supported by flexible rules that are designed to handle multiple contexts. Each individual context does not require its own mechanic--in fact, the best games at describing a narrative have eschewed specificity in mechanics for more general mechanics that require a context in order to function.

Spirit of the Century, for example, is a game where there's only a handful of mechanics, but they all interact with the contexts of the world around them. Your character has aspects, and from a narrative standpoint, the narrative informs the resolution of conflicts implicitly.

If I have the Aspect 'Shoot first, ask questions later' then when I need a burst of speed to gun down antagonists, that aspect can kick in to help me. If I'm trying to interrogate someone, that aspect will bite me in the ass. But here's the rub; the mechanic involved doesn't change whether that aspect is called 'Shoot first, ask questions later' or 'Women. The cause of and solution to all my problems.' or 'I am the second smartest man in the world.'

The mechanic -itself- does not have -any- bearing on the fiction... it's the -context- of that narrative that informs the fiction, with the mechanic merely there to give that context a mechanical effect.

That's why if I have a swordmage and a fighter both use a power that pulls an enemy, and shifts them one square, that I know they are different abilities. The context of the narrative before their use of that power decides the narrative after they've used the power. The power itself is merely the vehicle for that context to affect the mechanics.

 

[LostSoul]

The argument isn't so much about what Fallout is, it's about using the example of Fallout to show that you can't play the game without describing your action in game-world terms.

Let's say you change "Cleave" to "Fighter Attack Power A". You never describe what your character is actually doing* in the game world. The game rolls along just fine.

The similar situation in Dogs would be pushing two dice forward as your Raise without describing your character's action. The game cannot continue. You need that description to determine what happens if there is any Fallout.

In one system, what your character does doesn't matter mechanically; in the other it does.

* - You do know some things - where your character is standing, where the other creatures are standing, if the terrain is difficult or not, line of sight, cover, concealment, illumination, the weapon you're using, those sorts of things, so it's not fair to say that the fiction doesn't matter mechanically. Where you draw that line is a matter of taste.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The similar situation in Dogs would be pushing two dice forward as your Raise without describing your character's action. The game cannot continue. You need that description to determine what happens if there is any Fallout.

Well, in the 4e example I'd have to tell the DM what power I'm using and what weapon(s) or implement(s). The analogous situation in DiTV is I have to tell you if I used guns, fists, or words. In that sense you can simply see those as having mechanical existence to that extent. At that point both systems can be run in an equally fluffless fashion like dice games. Like I said before though, DiTV will retain practically no trace of the narrative, whereas 4e will still retain a skeleton that concretely explains the action in game terms as it relates to the game world.

One is more abstract, but no more or less 'dissociated' than the other.

I think this whole dissociated meme came about from a misunderstanding people had about the DETACHABILITY of fluff from mechanics in 4e. That wasn't about playing a narrativeless wargame style tactical game. It was about the ability to choose alternate fluff without FORCING a change to the fluff or the mechanics to keep them in sync with each other. Somehow people have conflated various characteristics of 4e, relatively concrete mechanics and modular fluff into "fluff is irrelevant and should be ignored", which I think was never ever the intent.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The similar situation in Dogs would be pushing two dice forward as your Raise without describing your character's action. The game cannot continue. You need that description to determine what happens if there is any Fallout.

In one system, what your character does doesn't matter mechanically; in the other it does.

Oh, rubbish. What you are describing would be the 4e equivalent of rolling the dice, then picking up your minature to move it and not actually putting it back down again. The game can not continue because you are not making one of the fundamental mechanical moves. That it happens to be obfuscated by the fluff is a different matter entirely.

What the correct mechanical equivalent would be would be to push two dice forward and setting the dice marked 'fallout' to a 4, a 6, an 8, or a 10.

 

[P1NBACK]

Let me address all of these posts as a whole instead of individually. I think some big points are being missed.

1: I think some people are misunderstanding the word 'disassociated'. I've even seen a recent blog post by Keith Baker where he compares "Simulationism" in direct contrast to disassociated mechanics. It's a false dichotomy - and I think it's being used here also. Disassociated mechanics aren't mechanics that are "abstract". They are rules that function entirely outside of the realm of fiction. Abstract =/= Disassociated (although it can). Simulationist =/= Associated (although it can).

2: No one here is saying that all of 4E's mechanics are disassociated. Most of the mechanics in 4E are associated with the fiction. Someone earlier cited the fact that you need to know fictionally what kind of weapon you are using so you can apply your damage dice correctly. This is an example of an associated mechanic. Yes. 4E has these. Not all of 4E is disassociated.

3: Many of us consider parts of 4E disassociated (in some ways, mostly in combat) because there are portions of the game where what you are imagining can have no bearing on what is happening with the real world cues (dice, maps, figures, condition markers, etc...). You can literally play a 4E combat using no fiction, no imagined events. All those things are dice on the right and they can directly ignore the clouds on the left. You can play it exactly like you can play HeroQuest (a boardgame). This is why Dogs is entirely associated. You simply cannot play it without imagining what is going on in the fiction - and it has to be communicated to everyone clearly at the table so that they can apply the rules correctly.

4: You don't have to play 4E this way, nor at all times. If you play where there is fiction (by having players describe their actions), you can allow things to occur outside of the realm of the real world cues. I can say, "Well, I want to swing across this chandelier and kick the guy in the face..." or "I want to pick up a board and use it to corral the rats back into the hole..." or whatever. This is why page 42 of the DMG is so important (yet so often overlooked) because it opens up the game and allows those fictional events to have an impact on the game. It's also why it's so important for the fiction to matter (instead of just saying Grab is not actually fictionally grabbing something, but Condition Red) and to break the rules (albeit in a consistent way that everyone at the table agrees with).

5: If you haven't played Dogs in the Vineyard. Buy it. It's cheap. And, play it. You'll see what LostSoul and I mean when we say the game breaks down when there is no imagined events. It's really the game that opened up my mind about what an RPG can do and how to not only play, but how to GM.

I think that covers the broadest points I wanted to get across.