D&D 4E 4e and reality

[P1NBACK]

I'm not sure if most people are actually arguing against description. Well, ok, Hussar did at the start of this discussion, but the person in the actual original example, Tony Vargas, then went to on to note that he did indeed give a description of the scene.

But fair enough - let's say you can indeed reduce the game to a series of rolls, and the description is not required as it is in Dogs in the Vineyard.

Yet... that's the case for most games, isn't it? If that's what it takes for a mechanic to be fully disassociated, is this any different for the majority of mechanics of every version of D&D out there, as well as the bulk of most RPGs in existence?

So just to clarify - do you feel that the same is true every other edition of D&D (in which you could walk up to a monster, say, "I roll a 17", or "I hit AC -4 for 6 damage" or "DC 16 Reflex or take 13 fire damage") and that all versions of D&D "are more like a board game and less like a roleplaying game"?

Yeah. There were more than just Hussar arguing against description.

But, I think we've got several different arguments going on here.

Do we need to describe powers fictionally? Should they make sense in the fiction?

Are some of 4E's mechanics disassociated?

Is Monopoly an RPG?

Should a DM make rules in particular cases that break the general rules? e.g. Should a swarm be immune to grab in some cases?

And, all of those are getting mixed up. So, like, some of my posts address one, and not the other. And, in some cases, contradict each other. Like, for example, my argument for fiction isn't to address disassociated mechanics. You can't really address that. They either are or they aren't. You can houserule them to not be disassociated, but then you're houseruling every instance of them, like Jason Alexander said.

That's what I think your comment here is doing. It's not your fault, this whole thread is a huge pandora's box and there's a million different opinions on it. I'm not saying one way is the "right true one way". Not at all. Some people prefer 4E's disassociated mechanics (like Aegeri, I think does). This is why they're against descriptions because they fly in the face of the disassociated mechanics. They'd rather handwave the fiction and stick to the rules to a letter (even if that means sometimes they don't make sense fictionally, or we have to justify it in weird ways). I don't care if they do this, but that's not the "one true way" either.

And, that's my stance on this.

As for your example of old D&D, we've always said, "I swing my sword" before we rolled any dice. If you said, "I rolled a 17..." and I was the DM... I'd be like.... "Woah! Hold up there pardner! What are you DOING?"

If you're just rolling dice at our table, that's a big no-no. Similarly, don't come up to me and say, "I'm rolling a skill check. Got a 17." Huh? No. "What are you DOING?"

It's the same thing as someone pushing forward two dice in Dogs and not saying what they are doing. "Wait a sec! What are you DOING?"

That's what I do in 4E too.

So, in sum, I think of a lot of arguments are being made in this thread. It's too broad and it's becoming confusing. Maybe we should kill this thread and address some specific questions?

I don't know. But, it's hard to respond to some of these questions because they kind of cross threads that don't really need to be crossed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except, "guns" isn't a description of what your character is doing. Therefore, the DM can't push forward two dice because she doesn't know what dice to push forward or what traits she can bring into play, etc... etc...

Yes the DM can. Not as much. But it's sufficient. Guns determines two traits used and the gun bonus. Which is enough. As normal, your assertions about the actual rules have been mixed up with your meta-rules and your house rules (as I've demonstrated your claims about the d12 and the cliff are purely house rules).

Now I wouldn't play it that way. But mechanically it can be. This is sufficient for the mechanics to be disassociated.

At this point, I'm happy to say that you don't get it Neonchameleon. Clearly, something is wrong if both LostSoul, myself and Vincent Baker are on a totally different page than you are.

Oh, I get it. I get everything you are saying. But you are wrong. Vincent Baker is wrong. He may have written the game. But he expects it to be played in a certain style - and the thing grinds if you do otherwise. But it grinds to a halt rather than stops short if you just name the level. A couple of traits are automatically invoked from the rules and so is the size of the fallout dice. Which is sufficient for the mechanics to work.

If you're just rolling dice at our table, that's a big no-no. Similarly, don't come up to me and say, "I'm rolling a skill check. Got a 17." Huh? No. "What are you DOING?"

It's the same thing as someone pushing forward two dice in Dogs and not saying what they are doing. "Wait a sec! What are you DOING?"

That's what I do in 4E too.

Yes. Absolutely. This is what you do and what you expect. Without it, DiTV is a bad game that no one would bother playing. Without it there's enough in 4e that it can work. But this is not actually a part of the mechanics of DiTV. This does not make it impossible to use the DiTV mechanics.

 

[P1NBACK]

Neonchameleon: Really. You don't get it. Saying the designer of a game doesn't understand the game as much as you do, well... Let's just say that's a bit... arrogant?

No really. Let's look at the rules for the game. Here is the rule:

Your Raise is both what your character does and the dice you’re using to back it up. Don’t put dice forward to Raise without describing your character’s action.

Your See is both your character’s response and the dice you’re using to get it. Don’t put dice forward to See without describing how your character deals with the Raise...

Literally. That's the rule. The rule says not to push dice forward without describing your character's action. "Guns" is not an action. It's the arena we're in. We have to describe ourselves using guns to even determine that. In order to raise, describe the fiction.

This whole argument you have about pushing forward two dice and saying nothing... Not only is that against the rules (no, not my houserules, the ACTUAL RULES), but it flies in the face of the whole game. It makes absolutely no sense when you sit down to actually play the game. It's laughable. No one would ever play that way. No one would say, "Guns" and push forward two dice. A) it doesn't make sense B) it's against the rules C) it doesn't let anyone respond...

You can pout and argue and say I'm wrong and the designer of the game is wrong and the RULES TEXT is wrong... But, really, what does that say about you?

 

[Neonchameleon]

That I'm an arrogant bastard who breaks things down into their component ideas and mechanics and then builds them back into useful constructions for a living? And I suggest you look at literary criticism to see how much privilege has been stripped from authors in terms of determining what they meant.

All that raise text is is the equivalent of the "Monopoly the RPG" rule of 'When you roll the dice you must narrate every square you travel over and why you are buying the property you are.' It's a bolt on to the underlying mechanics. Yes, it's against the rules then not to narrate in "Monopoly the RPG." But this doesn't mean a damn thing as far as the mechanics are concerned. The rule merely slightly obfuscates the underlying mechanics.

 

[P1NBACK]

That I'm an arrogant bastard who breaks things down into their component ideas and mechanics and then builds them back into useful constructions for a living? And I suggest you look at literary criticism to see how much privilege has been stripped from authors in terms of determining what they meant.

All that raise text is is the equivalent of the "Monopoly the RPG" rule of 'When you roll the dice you must narrate every square you travel over and why you are buying the property you are.' It's a bolt on to the underlying mechanics. Yes, it's against the rules then not to narrate in "Monopoly the RPG." But this doesn't mean a damn thing as far as the mechanics are concerned. The rule merely slightly obfuscates the underlying mechanics.

lol... You're right, Neonchamelon. All of us, me, the other posters here, Vincent Baker the author and commenter on how the game works, and the actual rules text. We're all wrong. You win.

Good job.

 

[Neonchameleon]

lol... You're right, Neonchamelon. All of us, me, the other posters here, Vincent Baker the author and commenter on how the game works, and the actual rules text. We're all wrong. You win.

Good job.

Thank you. Maybe next time you'll actually bother to think about the mechanics rather than simply produce arguments from authority, arguments that can be rebutted with counter-examples, and arguments based on faulty memory that are never apologised for or acknowledged.

And as I said, the rules text argument doesn't work unless any rules text saying "You must play it out" also means that a game can not possibly have disassociated mechanics. Like a hypothetical Monopoly the RPG. Either the RPG using monopoly qualifies or this is insufficient for Dogs.

But you have instead chosen to continually ignore rebuttals rather than engage with them. And having seen your arguments go up in smoke leaving you only with an argument from authority (Vincent Baker) you now choose to snark, declare "the other posters here" (meaning some rather than all - sneaky wording there) and leave.

 

[P1NBACK]

Thank you. Maybe next time you'll actually bother to think about the mechanics rather than simply produce arguments from authority, arguments that can be rebutted with counter-examples, and arguments based on faulty memory that are never apologised for or acknowledged.

And as I said, the rules text argument doesn't work unless any rules text saying "You must play it out" also means that a game can not possibly have disassociated mechanics. Like a hypothetical Monopoly the RPG. Either the RPG using monopoly qualifies or this is insufficient for Dogs.

But you have instead chosen to continually ignore rebuttals rather than engage with them. And having seen your arguments go up in smoke leaving you only with an argument from authority (Vincent Baker) you now choose to snark, declare "the other posters here" (meaning some rather than all - sneaky wording there) and leave.

Yeah. That's it! Good detective work. It was certainly an enlightening conversation. Thanks for the ride, Nonchameleon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As far as fictional stuff not changing things mechanically in D&D, in some cases it certainly does! I knock him down! Sweet, you get a +2 to attack a guy who's lying down. I get behind him! Sweet, you get a +2 for flanking. I hide! And, then, when he walks by without noticing me, I spring out and attack him! Great! You get a +2 to attack and bonus damage for attacking from concealment.

Those are associated mechanics in D&D. They are fictional things that allow a character to get mechanical advantages.

What about your wall example? What if I... go get a ladder? Does that help my chances? What if I... use a grappling hook and tie a knotted rope? Does that help my chances? In my game it does.

Except that 4e is VERY concrete in its mechanics. So a ladder, flanking, prone, etc are all not just fictional components of the game world, they are also mechanical components of the game. In fact the rules have generalized ways to create these mechanical proxies for the fiction. Ladder isn't actually in the rules, but you can easily construct it in accordance with the encounter design guidelines for terrain. It can also have properties as an object, etc.

In DiTV you REALLY could consider it to be basically the same way. Guns are mechanical constructs, as are cliffs, etc. They are a lot less concrete because the rules utilize a higher level of abstraction. Thus you can't get a narrative out of the mechanics. I won't really argue about whether or not the mechanics can work at all without narrative in DiTV but it is clear that even if they can at some level it is hair splitting since it would never work in practice.

While 4e's concrete low level mechanics DO allow for the players to simply use the mechanics to describe their actions I really have to wonder if anyone can seriously call this a very meaningful distinction. 4e without added player narrative is pretty bland, but you could as easily play DiTV with people that don't supply you with much narrative either, just enough to get by with. So really we're talking about play style differences here, not anything dictated by rules. You can definitely argue that DiTV might encourage a more in-depth narrative but it isn't a point that can be demonstrated by logic, it depends on the players.

The thing is the whole argument stemmed from the house ruling debate point about how mechanics in 4e can produce nonsensical results that can't be narrated or seem absurd and out of keeping with the setting. If you take the position that the fiction is preeminent and the mechanics serve that, then is there really ANY significant difference between DiTV and 4e at a basic level? Not much. Sure, you roll dice first in one and later in the other, but I don't see where that's really all that significant. You could roll a d20 in 4e and then describe your actions too, it wouldn't change the game much. In fact this is EXACTLY what I do in the case of largely narrative player actions in 4e anyway. Want to bribe the gatekeeper? OK, what skill do you want to use and how do you try to use it? Roll a d20. Narrate the result. If you think about it, this is still how combat works too.

 

[P1NBACK]

Except that 4e is VERY concrete in its mechanics. So a ladder, flanking, prone, etc are all not just fictional components of the game world, they are also mechanical components of the game. In fact the rules have generalized ways to create these mechanical proxies for the fiction. Ladder isn't actually in the rules, but you can easily construct it in accordance with the encounter design guidelines for terrain. It can also have properties as an object, etc.

Oh, I agree! It's when you say that a ladder isn't a ladder, instead it's Condition Red that gets me. Remember, that's what this conversation is in the context of.

In my game, a ladder is a ladder. And, it can be represented mechanically. Guess what? In my games, grabbing something is grabbed something. And, it too can be represented mechanically (with the Grab attack).

People are arguing against this stance is my point. They are arguing that there is no "fictional" grab. It's Attack Blue imposing Condition Red. Remember?

In DiTV you REALLY could consider it to be basically the same way. Guns are mechanical constructs, as are cliffs, etc. They are a lot less concrete because the rules utilize a higher level of abstraction. Thus you can't get a narrative out of the mechanics. I won't really argue about whether or not the mechanics can work at all without narrative in DiTV but it is clear that even if they can at some level it is hair splitting since it would never work in practice.

Exactly. I agree. Abstraction does not equal disassociation. Some people are getting this confused.

While 4e's concrete low level mechanics DO allow for the players to simply use the mechanics to describe their actions I really have to wonder if anyone can seriously call this a very meaningful distinction. 4e without added player narrative is pretty bland, but you could as easily play DiTV with people that don't supply you with much narrative either, just enough to get by with.

Enough to get by is enough. That's the thing. No one is judging what you say, so long as you say it. Tell me how you attack when you push forward two dice. Tell me how you use Iron Tide when you declare it and roll the d20. Same thing.

Only, DitV doesn't function without it. 4E can. That's the only distinction.

So really we're talking about play style differences here, not anything dictated by rules. You can definitely argue that DiTV might encourage a more in-depth narrative but it isn't a point that can be demonstrated by logic, it depends on the players.

No. Description in Dogs is most definitely dictated by the rules. And, in 4E, as LostSoul pointed out, it is for skills also. The problem (for me) comes in combat. But, this isn't a problem for everyone! Some people don't want that fiction there. They want to switch to a tactical miniatures game. That's FINE!

The thing is the whole argument stemmed from the house ruling debate point about how mechanics in 4e can produce nonsensical results that can't be narrated or seem absurd and out of keeping with the setting. If you take the position that the fiction is preeminent and the mechanics serve that, then is there really ANY significant difference between DiTV and 4e at a basic level? Not much.

Agreed. 100%. At a basic level, no. Not much difference (as far as resolution). But, that's if you play that way. The difference comes in that DitV kind of requires you to play that way. 4E doesn't.

Sure, you roll dice first in one and later in the other, but I don't see where that's really all that significant.

It's not. At all. Some people were just asking about the comparison, so I explained the difference.

You could roll a d20 in 4e and then describe your actions too, it wouldn't change the game much. In fact this is EXACTLY what I do in the case of largely narrative player actions in 4e anyway. Want to bribe the gatekeeper? OK, what skill do you want to use and how do you try to use it? Roll a d20. Narrate the result. If you think about it, this is still how combat works too.

It does change the game though. Maybe not by "much", but it does. But, like you said, it's not really significant when it comes to the other concerns like fictional merit and disassociated mechanics and what it means to actually be playing a roleplaying game.

Here's how I know when I play 4E that it's a roleplaying game. Because in combat, my players can always ignore the "powers" they have and do something entirely outside of the box, outside of the mechanics, and outside of the prescribed actions - and 4E gives us the tools to resolve it (page 42 DMG).

That's how I know. If you ignore those things, that's when it becomes a "board game" to me. If you ignore the ability to bend the rules to the fictional actions, you're ignoring the roleplaying game in 4E.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, I agree! It's when you say that a ladder isn't a ladder, instead it's Condition Red that gets me. Remember, that's what this conversation is in the context of.

In my game, a ladder is a ladder. And, it can be represented mechanically. Guess what? In my games, grabbing something is grabbed something. And, it too can be represented mechanically (with the Grab attack).

People are arguing against this stance is my point. They are arguing that there is no "fictional" grab. It's Attack Blue imposing Condition Red. Remember?



Exactly. I agree. Abstraction does not equal disassociation. Some people are getting this confused.



Enough to get by is enough. That's the thing. No one is judging what you say, so long as you say it. Tell me how you attack when you push forward two dice. Tell me how you use Iron Tide when you declare it and roll the d20. Same thing.

Only, DitV doesn't function without it. 4E can. That's the only distinction.



No. Description in Dogs is most definitely dictated by the rules. And, in 4E, as LostSoul pointed out, it is for skills also. The problem (for me) comes in combat. But, this isn't a problem for everyone! Some people don't want that fiction there. They want to switch to a tactical miniatures game. That's FINE!



Agreed. 100%. At a basic level, no. Not much difference (as far as resolution). But, that's if you play that way. The difference comes in that DitV kind of requires you to play that way. 4E doesn't.



It's not. At all. Some people were just asking about the comparison, so I explained the difference.



It does change the game though. Maybe not by "much", but it does. But, like you said, it's not really significant when it comes to the other concerns like fictional merit and disassociated mechanics and what it means to actually be playing a roleplaying game.

Here's how I know when I play 4E that it's a roleplaying game. Because in combat, my players can always ignore the "powers" they have and do something entirely outside of the box, outside of the mechanics, and outside of the prescribed actions - and 4E gives us the tools to resolve it (page 42 DMG).

That's how I know. If you ignore those things, that's when it becomes a "board game" to me. If you ignore the ability to bend the rules to the fictional actions, you're ignoring the roleplaying game in 4E.

Yeah, although I would say that if someone is calling a ladder "terrain element #24" or prone "code red" that they're DEFINITELY diverging from the way the rules were intended to relate to the narrative to a fairly wide degree. Sure it will WORK at SOME level, sort of, but I'd again venture to say this is really never done in practice. The closest you'll come to that in 4e is the grabby fighter grabbing the swarm or the ooze being 'prone' and refluffing those things in some fashion (or not bothering to at all). You can see the opposite thing in DiTV sometimes where it doesn't really matter much what the explanation is for the See. 4e has powers which largely bring their own bit of narrative along, DiTV doesn't so player supplied narrative is more important there is all.

Anyway, this really did go pretty far afield from the original debate. I think there's really not much more to be said on the whole subject really. At least not without writing up a whole treatise on narrative vs mechanics in RPGs, which has been done to death already elsewhere. Seems to me we all understand the various facets of the thing. At least I think I do!