Bring Back Verisimilitude, add in More Excitement!

[mmadsen]

My issue with this thead is, in my opinion, 4e has more verisimilitude than prior editions.

How so?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One thing I agree with Herschel on is that there are elements that cause people to get tripped up when it comes to verisimilitude and plausibility.

I also agree that making a game be a perfect reflection of reality is impossible.

However, that is not the goal of a simulation. People often have the idea that a simulation must be a realistic representation of all aspects of a given subject. And some game designers have believed this and tried to simulate everything. This also leads to the impression that simulation focused design must be large and complex.

It's actually the opposite. A good simulation is one where only a few aspects are targeted for modelling.

Let's take 4E as an example. It takes high power heroic fantasy and simulates some aspects of it. These include:

a) heroic characters that are competent and hard to kill.
b) escalating campaign story pacing
c) tactical combat where the participants have high situational awareness

It does a) well through high hit points, healing surges, encounter refresh systems, access to healing outside of clerical magic and more.

It does b) well through the use of tiers, the tying of leveling up to the xp budget of encounters and more.

It does c) well through it's grid based combat system and expectations of character knowledge in terms of bloodied values and assumed understanding of game effects.

4E is actually a good simulation of particular features the designers decided were important to their game play.

But what if the particular features or elements are not what other people want simulated? What if someone is more interested in traditional play where the procedure of play is about plausibility of cause and effect and continual referencing of the constantly evolving narrative? Or what if someone else is interested in procedures of play that create the structure of a story during play itself? Rising action, climax and resolution?

So back at 4E's release when I rejoiced that 4E was chucking out all that simulation stuff I didn't want, I was wrong. I didn't understand that it was still simulating, just different things. And now that I've gotten tired of those things, I'm hoping D&D Next's stated goals of having a broad appeal will materialize with strong support for games focused on a continual referencing of the narrative and a calling of the game mechanics by the narrative.

If I start with a 4E style base, I have to cut things out to get to that point. If I start with a OD&D/Basic D&D style base, I don't have to cut things out. But I can still add in the 4E style elements when I want to.

In short, a traditional RPG approach where you describe fictional elements, describe interaction with those elements, use the resolution system to resolve those interactions and then return to the beginning and describe the resolution as fictional elements would make a better generic core as you can transform it into a more game focused experience by adding elements. If you start with the game focused experience and make those who want a narrative referencing experience chop things out, it'll be more of a barrier.

Am I trying to argue for my preferred way of playing being the core of D&D next? I don't intend to be. I simply believe that it is easier to build upon it to create other forms of play than to chop things away to create it. And, actually, it's not a way of playing that I universally prefer. I like other modes of play and have enjoyed 4E immensely in the past.

I quoted the whole thing because it is all good. No, that doesn't mean that I agree with every last particular, or that I advocate precisely that for "the core". (I think the core needs to be more flexible than that.)

But IMHO, this is where all discussion of verismilitude should start, in a game meant to appeal to a widespread audience. And having taking yesterday off to think about it, and then seeing your excellent post, I can express why simply: "I want more verisimilitude" is a bad starting place for an argument. It doesn't really say anything useful, and it creates all kinds of wrong impressions. Whereas, "I want different verisimilitude"" is a good starting place, especially if it is quickly followed by, "I want my different verisimilitude to get the same support as you other people get with yours." From there, we can explore to see what can be done to satisfy as many people as possible.

P.S. You can't have this discussion usefully if you think that "disassociated mechanics" is an argument clincher. That's just a more indirect way of saying, "I want more verisimilitude"--in bad jargon, with a bad history tied to it. If you start with the "different verisimilitude" version, it's, "this mechanic causes me to be disassociated from the fiction" which is potentially offensive only because of the prior nonsense "associated" with the phrase "disassociated mechanics"--but technically, there is nothing wrong with that formulation, because it is a simple statement of experience being reported instead of a claim that the mechanic is somehow inherently the only thing at issue.

 

[mmadsen]

You can't have this discussion usefully if you think that "disassociated mechanics" is an argument clincher.

I honestly and sincerely don't understand your point. Like many people, I would like the game rules to approximate "what would really happen" if we had elves and wizards fighting orcs and wraiths -- even though the scenario is blatantly fantastic -- and I would like the players making decisions from the point of view of their characters, even if they can't take that point of view perfectly.

Thus, "disassociative" mechanics irk me.

If we're going to break with "what would really happen," I would like to be rather explicit about it, so the players know when they're acting as storytellers and modifying the outcome to make it "better".

Has D&D always had "disassociative" mechanics? Yes -- and people have always complained about them. Sometimes they're better than the more "realistic" alternatives that have been devised to replace them, but their "disassociative" nature is generally a negative, even if it's only a small negative for many people.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

How so?

Im my opinion the report of a 4e combat is closer to a fight scene in Captain Blood, the Crimson Priate or the Princess Bride than can be obtained in any other edition of D&D.

And that this kind of fight is more in line with what i want in fantasy combat than what I have obtained in many other rpg's.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I honestly and sincerely don't understand your point. Like many people, I would like the game rules to approximate "what would really happen" if we had elves and wizards fighting orcs and wraiths -- even though the scenario is blatantly fantastic -- and I would like the players making decisions from the point of view of their characters, even if they can't take that point of view perfectly.

Some of the basic thropes of D&D work against that though;
What I mean here, hte basic one that though guy, sneaky guy, magic guy and holy guy go traipsing about in haunted ruins and abandoned places fighting monsters that make 20 year veterens wet themselves but in all that time, tough guy never learns much about magic, magic guy never learns new sword tricks and nobody learns hightly useful tricks from sneaky guy. Also despite daily miracles from holy guy nobody ever converts to the worship of holy guy's god.

Now, on the second issue above that players make decisions from the point of view of characters. Take something like trip, now triping people that are expecting it is not that easy. In a fight it is not even something that one would try every attack. It would be bad tactics, it is realy only something that can work when you and the opponent are lined up the right way.
How does one best model this?
4e does it by giving the player as the player (not in the person of their character) a token in the form of a power that can be used in a limited way to say that the character is now in a position to try the trip.

How do you think it should be done?

Thus, "disassociative" mechanics irk me.

If we're going to break with "what would really happen," I would like to be rather explicit about it, so the players know when they're acting as storytellers and modifying the outcome to make it "better".

Has D&D always had "disassociative" mechanics? Yes -- and people have always complained about them. Sometimes they're better than the more "realistic" alternatives that have been devised to replace them, but their "disassociative" nature is generally a negative, even if it's only a small negative for many people.

So would 4e have worked better for you if all encounter and daily power had a preamble that in effect use of these powers represented a moment where the player (not the character) was invoking that an occasion would now occur where his character could do some cool signature move?

 

[mmadsen]

Now, on the second issue above that players make decisions from the point of view of characters. Take something like trip, now triping people that are expecting it is not that easy. In a fight it is not even something that one would try every attack. It would be bad tactics, it is realy only something that can work when you and the opponent are lined up the right way.

How does one best model this?

4e does it by giving the player as the player (not in the person of their character) a token in the form of a power that can be used in a limited way to say that the character is now in a position to try the trip.

How do you think it should be done?

That's a good question, and I can see why a game like 4E went with the mechanics it did; they just don't gel for me.

If you want to model the same thing in a simulation, you need to have openings for different moves appear at different times. In theory, you could roll for each of your formerly daily moves every turn, with, say, a 10-percent chance of an opening to use it. Or you could draw from a stack of cards, with far more at-will cards than per-encounter or daily cards.

So would 4e have worked better for you if all encounter and daily power had a preamble that in effect use of these powers represented a moment where the player (not the character) was invoking that an occasion would now occur where his character could do some cool signature move?

The problem is that there's no underlying simulation for that; it's purely meta-game. So the players are choosing their tactics and strategies based on how they should allocate their signature-move resources.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I honestly and sincerely don't understand your point. Like many people, I would like the game rules to approximate "what would really happen" if we had elves and wizards fighting orcs and wraiths -- even though the scenario is blatantly fantastic -- and I would like the players making decisions from the point of view of their characters, even if they can't take that point of view perfectly.

Thus, "disassociative" mechanics irk me.

It's exactly the same point as earlier in that post. "I want more verisimilitude" and "disaassociated mechanics" assumes that there is some kind of inherent and objective scale, and then proceeds from the assumption that all we need to do to make more simulation fans happy is to move up that scale.

Whereas, "I want different verismilitude", or if you prefer, "This mechanic makes me feel disassociated from the fiction," acknowledges that there is no such scale. That acknowledgement is crucial. Sure, there are broad classes of things that we can discuss that apply to a lot of people. But they aren't all on a scale. This is important not only because some people want more or less simulated reality (which everyone here has acknowledged from the beginning), but also because many people who want more of X simulated are in inherent conflict with people who want more of Y simulated--at least if you want the game to be playable at all.

I realize it is a pedantic distinction, but it is an important one. It is especially important with the "disassociated mechanic" phrase, because the purpose of the essay was in part to pretend that the distinction did not exist, so as to advocate forcefully for the writers' preferences as if they were objective fact. In short, it was either logically wrong or dishonest, take your pick.

And if you want to take the more sensible approach (which the essay should have done), that "disassociated mechanics" is explicitly and firmly nothing but short-hand for "a mechanic that makes me feel disassociated from the fiction", then you must accept that there is no argument there, but a mere tautology coupled to an observation about a person and their feelings. How do we know the mechanics is disassociated? Someone feels disassociated. Circular argument. How do we know it it happens? Someone tells us it does. Observation. Of course, if one was going to take that approach, it might have been better to talk about disassociated people, instead of mechanics. That has its own problems, of course. To be really correct, you'd have to say "disassociated relationship".

Edit for clarity: This is no way implies that the person or their feeling is not important or should not be considered. Just about every gamer that has ever got into a character at all has got some feelings along these lines somewhere or another (albeit different ones). But going down that particular rabbit hole is a bad way for people with those feelings to get what they want. Better to just say clearly and unashamedly that its your feeling, and you want it--and you don't need any faux argument to justify having it. Then we can talk about how to get you what you want, along with all those other people that have different feelings.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's a good question, and I can see why a game like 4E went with the mechanics it did; they just don't gel for me.

If you want to model the same thing in a simulation, you need to have openings for different moves appear at different times. In theory, you could roll for each of your formerly daily moves every turn, with, say, a 10-percent chance of an opening to use it. Or you could draw from a stack of cards, with far more at-will cards than per-encounter or daily cards.

The problem with cards or other randomisers is that from a sim prespective it is nonsence. While random wierd stuff does happen in a fight one has an element of control of the tempo and pace unless one is completely outclassed.

The problem is that there's no underlying simulation for that; it's purely meta-game. So the players are choosing their tactics and strategies based on how they should allocate their signature-move resources.

I agree but the output is more agreeable to me than any sim system i have tried.

Basically I have come to the conclusion is that sim sytems then to breakdown in glaring obvious ways that tend to throw me out of the fiction mostly because they tend to forbid actions that may follow logically from what is there because doing so is game breaking, or they produce outcome that do not follow genre convention.

So I am quite happy with a purely mtagame construct that gives the desired output as a black box. I really don't care about how its wired up.

 

[nnms]

It doesn't really say anything useful, and it creates all kinds of wrong impressions. Whereas, "I want different verisimilitude"" is a good starting place, especially if it is quickly followed by, "I want my different verisimilitude to get the same support as you other people get with yours." From there, we can explore to see what can be done to satisfy as many people as possible.

I think the main problem is that people don't have much in the way of real familiarity with what simulation actually is. They associate the idea with rules heavy complex approaches that try to make everything as realistic as possible. So when someone talks about verisimilitude, it ends up conjuring all these ideas about realism at any cost and fun or enjoyment being intentionally tossed out as a priority.

P.S. You can't have this discussion usefully if you think that "disassociated mechanics" is an argument clincher.

It has far too much baggage from previous online message board fighting.

I think I avoided using the term, even if I described something that might be covered by it.

I am specifically talking about the actual procedures at the table where you hit a "what happens?" moment, resolve it with the system and immediately narrate the results back into the shared story to answer the question, which then creates a new described element which people react with in a constant cycle.

A mechanic that doesn't do that is not inherently bad or wrong. But it does provide a different play experience. And it can cause people who are looking more for an approach where the mechanics constantly refer back to the fiction to have a WTF?! moment.

And making it work for everyone by forcing narration is problematic. I'm probably not the only one who either heard someone describing their 4E power use in narrative terms and thought "ugh, just get on with the game" or who described it myself and had someone else think (or say) "ugh, just get on with the game."

When people say "That doesn't make sense," they have a valid complaint. And when people explain, "It could make sense, if you think about it in this particular way," or "It doesn't have to, just ignore it and enjoy the game," they're not actually addressing the problem. The problem is that the game mechanics are not producing results that the person finds pleasing and they need to look elsewhere for different mechanics that they will find pleasing.

I think we're going to see more and more people who want a more traditional approach to system resolution as more and more people who left D&D with 4E come and check out what's up with the new edition. And some of these people feel that WotC fired them as a customer. When you've got a negative experience like that and you talk about the way 4E is different than most previously published versions of D&D, it's easy to take a vague idea of "verisimilitude" and make it a point of contention.

Fun times ahead.

 

[nnms]

Whereas, "I want different verismilitude", or if you prefer, "This mechanic makes me feel disassociated from the fiction," acknowledges that there is no such scale. That acknowledgement is crucial.

There is a reason people think there is a scale though. We may not like the reason, or agree with it, but it's still there:

The vast majority of published RPGs over the last 40 years including the majority of D&D versions start with a general approach of tying the mechanics directly to the fiction in both terms of when the system is used and what is done with the resolution the system produces.

If we want to understand why there was such a big edition war around 4E's launch, I think it's worthwhile to note where 4E departed from the approach of most parts of most previous editions of D&D.

When it comes time to discuss what people want with D&D Next, I don't think we should be surprised when people who want 4E's departure from a traditional approach reversed speak their mind. Nor should we really be surprised that they feel that the traditional style is somewhat of an objective measure.

Humans tend to do that. Equate tradition with objectivity.