D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Ratskinner]

I don't think you've got this wrong, but some elaboration is probably necessary for continued exchange.

What I mean by "fictional positioning" is that what your character can do in the game is based on the "fiction" - that is, what's happening to your character, and all the little details that surround that. So if you're fighting with a spear, and there are two kobolds in line, you should be able to try to stab both of them with one thrust of your spear. Or something like that - where you actually resolve what's happening in the game world instead of resolving a mechanical "to-hit" roll or something like that.

I've personally seen - in my experience, so it has little meaning except that it informs my own beliefs - players attempt actions that their characters could do, only to be shot down by the rules (not the DM, the rules). When that happens, players start to "meta-game" - they don't think about what their PC could do, they think about what options the game offers to their PC.

Playing The Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil with a guy who hasn't played D&D before has opened my eyes to this - he does things that should make sense in the game world, and be reasonably optional choices, but with the system those choices tend to be very poor.

(I tend to ignore the rules in order to make his actions work.)

I agree and have even had similar experiences. My formative DMing experiences were during 2e and it probably taught me "bad" habits as far as discarding rules to "roll with it". I think its one of the reasons I like lighter systems, less rules to get in the way. I've recently had the chance to introduce some new players to rpgs, and its kinda amazing how few rules new players actually need to fuel their imagination. See my sidebar below.

I think this also points to one of my personal issues with 4e. It has a lot of great stuff in it, but its all pointed along what (to me) is a fairly narrow track of heroic fantasy adventure. There aren't that many "dials" available.

Sidebar:
I'm beginning to suspect that any kind of "points" are bad for roleplaying/immersion/whatever, because humans seem to fall prey to a "Points? I must get more of them!" mindset. Hit Points, Skill Points, even FATE points seem subject to this hoarder mentality. I thought the "use it or lose it" quality of 4e's Action Points was a great thing.

Now I believe that if the mechanics of the game were dissociated, but allowed the player to achieve the results that he expected given the colour/flavour of his class - I don't think there'd be a problem. I think that he would enjoy such abilities, those that allow his PC to act as he imagined his PC to act, as I expect (but have no way of telling) most new players would.

But only if the fictional actions - as chosen by the player - have an impact on resolution! It would require the player to describe the action and the DM to validate it. If that was met - player describing action - even if it was dissociated - and using powers to support the class/theme they chose, DM validating the action - then I think you'd have a happy gamer.

I could be wrong.

Generally, I agree. However, I suspect that there are some who would still find it unsatisfying. In post #313 of this very thread, talking about "immersion" (which I think we should change to "engagement"), I mentioned three things that support it. There are certainly some gamers for whom factor b is critical. Given recent history, I would conjecture that 5e would be wise to "associate" its mechanics fairly closely, considering its goals. At least, they need to make it appear that way...

I also think that there's a tension between rules-detail and fictional positioning, one that serves the publishers. That is, players seem to want on-paper justification for their actions, and so we institute rules about skills, stunts, feats, whatever. However, once we have those in place, things get pushed or sucked into those slots in never-ending profusion. For the publisher, this is great, splatbooks with New and Improved Fiddly Bits! are a source of income. At some point, though, they end up stifling the creativity in fictional positioning that they were intended to encourage. "I can't do that, I don't have Fiddly Bit X." Naturally, the critical rules-mass where that stifling begins is variable from table to table.

Possibly the design and presentation of the fiddly bits can affect that critical mass as well. I sometimes wonder how differently 4e would have been received if the flavor text were the final entry in a power description, rather than the first. Many players I know seem to consider that flavor text as definitive rather than suggestive or illustrative (or they did before abandoning 4e.)

 

[pemerton]

I also think that there's a tension between rules-detail and fictional positioning, one that serves the publishers. That is, players seem to want on-paper justification for their actions, and so we institute rules about skills, stunts, feats, whatever. However, once we have those in place, things get pushed or sucked into those slots in never-ending profusion. For the publisher, this is great, splatbooks with New and Improved Fiddly Bits! are a source of income. At some point, though, they end up stifling the creativity in fictional positioning that they were intended to encourage. "I can't do that, I don't have Fiddly Bit X."

I mentioned on another recent thread that I think the detailed spell descriptions in AD&D (eg the fireball stuff that begins in Gygax's PHB, and the absence of which from 4e casued such consternation) are an instance of this: someone else play experience of GM adjudication of the fictional positioning being presented now as a mandated constraint on the adjudicaiton of action resolution.

 

[Nagol]

I mentioned on another recent thread that I think the detailed spell descriptions in AD&D (eg the fireball stuff that begins in Gygax's PHB, and the absence of which from 4e casued such consternation) are an instance of this: someone else play experience of GM adjudication of the fictional positioning being presented now as a mandated constraint on the adjudicaiton of action resolution.

And some of us just prefer eager binding of power effects to in-game expression like that presented by Champions, for example, to lazy binding at the table.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I mentioned on another recent thread that I think the detailed spell descriptions in AD&D (eg the fireball stuff that begins in Gygax's PHB, and the absence of which from 4e casued such consternation) are an instance of this: someone else play experience of GM adjudication of the fictional positioning being presented now as a mandated constraint on the adjudicaiton of action resolution.

Yes, I think this has a lot to do with the problems people have with the presentation.

 

[Sunseeker]

I mentioned on another recent thread that I think the detailed spell descriptions in AD&D (eg the fireball stuff that begins in Gygax's PHB, and the absence of which from 4e casued such consternation) are an instance of this: someone else play experience of GM adjudication of the fictional positioning being presented now as a mandated constraint on the adjudicaiton of action resolution.

I tend to agree with this. And unfortunately I don't think there's a way to write a prose-founded spell description(as opposed to the more clinical 4e writups*) without being forced to use a singular interpretation of the spell. You either take a singular fiction and run with it(which is fine in certain regards), or your remove the fiction entirely(or dilute it to the point of irrelevance).

*There was good prose to 4e powers, aside from the names, many of them had very evocative fluff, but they were clearly secondary, stemming from 4e's duplication of the MTG spell card design style.....which being an avid MTG player, appealed to me greatly, and it's got a pretty hefty amount of flavor and fluff to it, it's all just secondary and optional. I completely understand that some people want the fluff to be mandatory and primary to D&D.

I just have to ask those people: whose fluff are we going with, there's quite a bit. If we must have primary and mandatory fluff, I want it to be specific. Generalized fluff is worse than clinical fluff-less-ness, at least with a clinical mathematics you can add anything. Generic fluff is so boring it IMO, makes it more difficult to be creative with it, since you're not working from nothing and creating your own, you're working from a foundation so poor you almost have​ to eliminate it to get creative.

 

[Libramarian]

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] could you come up with an example that shows what you mean by fictional positioning mattering even though the mechanic is disassociated?

 

[Nagol]

I tend to agree with this. And unfortunately I don't think there's a way to write a prose-founded spell description(as opposed to the more clinical 4e writups*) without being forced to use a singular interpretation of the spell. You either take a singular fiction and run with it(which is fine in certain regards), or your remove the fiction entirely(or dilute it to the point of irrelevance).

*There was good prose to 4e powers, aside from the names, many of them had very evocative fluff, but they were clearly secondary, stemming from 4e's duplication of the MTG spell card design style.....which being an avid MTG player, appealed to me greatly, and it's got a pretty hefty amount of flavor and fluff to it, it's all just secondary and optional. I completely understand that some people want the fluff to be mandatory and primary to D&D.

I just have to ask those people: whose fluff are we going with, there's quite a bit. If we must have primary and mandatory fluff, I want it to be specific. Generalized fluff is worse than clinical fluff-less-ness, at least with a clinical mathematics you can add anything. Generic fluff is so boring it IMO, makes it more difficult to be creative with it, since you're not working from nothing and creating your own, you're working from a foundation so poor you almost have​ to eliminate it to get creative.

There is a third option: the player identifies the fictional elements that will be invoked when the effect occurs for that character as the character acquires the ability.

It's how Champions does it. "Energy Blast" is a common ability. Saying a character has a 10d6 Energy Blast gives a mechanical description of the effect, what the expectations are at the table for its invocation, but is only a partial description of the power. The rest of the description binds the power to the world. It could be a ray of utter cold so intense atomic bonds fail in its presence, a blast of sound, or phantasmal hands punching the target. It's up to the player to decide as the power is acquired and each variation can have small effect on how the power operates in different circumstances.

I understand that from a Narrative point of view, binding the power to the world at each invocation instead of at creation offers some advantage to fit a power into the story. It's just not a minigame I enjoy. Rather than the table trying to find meaningful situations for my abilities to be of use, I prefer the minigame where I try to find meaningful uses for the abiliities I have, if that makes sense.

 

[Sunseeker]

There is a third option: the player identifies the fictional elements that will be invoked when the effect occurs for that character as the character acquires the ability.

It's how Champions does it. "Energy Blast" is a common ability. Saying a character has a 10d6 Energy Blast gives a mechanical description of the effect, what the expectations are at the table for its invocation, but is only a partial description of the power. The rest of the description binds the power to the world. It could be a ray of utter cold so intense atomic bonds fail in its presence, a blast of sound, or phantasmal hands punching the target. It's up to the player to decide as the power is acquired and each variation can have small effect on how the power operates in different circumstances.

I understand that from a Narrative point of view, binding the power to the world at each invocation instead of at creation offers some advantage to fit a power into the story. It's just not a minigame I enjoy. Rather than the table trying to find meaningful situations for my abilities to be of use, I prefer the minigame where I try to find meaningful uses for the abiliities I have, if that makes sense.

I don't really have a problem with "generic" spells, "Energy Blast" "Energy Ray" etc...and then allowing players to determine the specific appearance of the power, but I don't think that's really outside the concept of "generic description" which still elicits the problem of it being too generic, so players are going "I use my energy ray!" While the DM rolls his eyes over how boring it is.

But this is important roleplay advice that NEEDS and MUST be given to the players in the core books. Players should be free to reflavor a power all they way. "Fireball" and "Iceblast" might be exactly the same mechanically, but when Bob describes the flames forming on his fingertips and then shooting away at his target as opposed to Bill describing it as summoning the equivalent of a giant snowball or Sue looking at it more ala "Avatar" style Earthbending of ripping a giant boulder from the ground that explodes into tiny shrapnel when it hits it's target, THAT is what really makes the game good.

I honestly don't think D&D has ever provided this kind of ability to players. I really have a general feeling that D&D ignores the issue at best, or encourages players to NOT mess with the flavor of their spells/powers/attacks/abilities, etc... And that's kinda sad. I want to see this kind of advice given on like, page 5 of PHB1, and repeated at various points to emphasize that the player is in charge of the flavor of their character.

 

[Libramarian]

The idea that magic strips the knowledge from your brain, but not the knowledge that you have the knowledge written down in your handy dandy spellbook is IMO, dumb.

Are you familiar with the concept of short term or working memory? That's how I think of spell memorization. When you hold a spell in your mind it's like mentally rehearsing a phone number you've just heard. Forgetting a spell when you cast it is like how you forget the number if you do something else that occupies you mentally before writing it down somewhere. For some reason spells never transfer into long-term memory (that's the magic part -- they're too weird, or abstract, or subjective, or something). Or else, something terrible happens to anyone who memorizes a spell by heart and part of a Wizard's training is the ability to keep spells in short-term/working memory without ever memorizing them completely.

 

[Sunseeker]

Are you familiar with the concept of short term or working memory? That's how I think of spell memorization. When you hold a spell in your mind it's like mentally rehearsing a phone number you've just heard. Forgetting a spell when you cast it is like how you forget the number if you do something else that occupies you mentally before writing it down somewhere. For some reason spells never transfer into long-term memory (that's the magic part -- they're too weird, or abstract, or subjective, or something). Or else, something terrible happens to anyone who memorizes a spell by heart and part of a Wizard's training is the ability to keep spells in short-term/working memory without ever memorizing them completely.

That's an interesting concept, but I don't much care for it. It still strikes me as weird and artificial, besides this isn't a "number you just heard" it's a "number you wrote down in your phonebook and spend each morning memorizing"....at some point you're going to remember it forever.