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

[innerdude]

. . . snip of well-intentioned reply . . .

I think you're missing the main premise of Alexander's argument. It has nothing to with "how the character is experiencing the game world." The character's experience in the game world, is the character's experience in the game world.

The premise is about how choices made as a player map to choices made by the character.

The one minute combat round is wholly associated (if unrealistic and crappily abstracted--which is another point Alexander makes, that "realism," "abstraction," and "association" can very much be orthogonal to each other). Both the player and character are making the choice, "I'm going to fight the enemies in front of me, using every combat resource at my disposal, in full out attack." The mental map is identical, hence the mechanic is associated (if unsatisfying in other ways).

The fact that the underlying "rate of movement" and "3 attacks per 2 rounds" are the mechanics for adjudicating the outcome doesn't change the fact that the underlying choice is associated.

You can have associated mechanics using a resolution as simple as a flip of a coin. Whether you think that's an "unrealistic" or "unnecessarily abstract" way of doing that resolution has nothing to do with its association, assuming the player and character's choices map to each other.

 

[pemerton]

The reason "Come and Get It" is inherently dissociated is because the player and character ARE in fact making different choices. Yes, they're both choosing to "influence the outcome of the scene," but that's pretty much EVERY CHOICE EVER MADE IN AN RPG. The player chooses to influence the scene, the character chooses to influence the scene.

You have misunderstood what I said. I didn't say "influence the scene". I said "impose my will upon the situation." This is what I do, in real life, when I glare at my child; when (during a lecture) I shuffle my papers and clear my throat while looking at a talking student; when (while riding my bike through an intersection) I catch a car driver's eye and thereby ensure that s/he gives way.

The player who declare CaGI is deciding to impose his/her will on the situation. This is exactly what the PC is doing too. No special "mapping" is required.

I know that some people believe that it is unverisimilitudinous for a fighter to be able to impose his/her will on enemies like that. Some people also believe that it is unverismilitudinous for a fighter wielding a longsword to be able to infict critical damage on a dragon or T-Rex (and a system like Rolemaster reflects that belief in its special crit tables for Large and Huge creatures). But this has no bearing on "dissociation".

CaGI it does not entail dissociation in the sense that you have characterised that notion. Contra Justin Alexander, the issue with CaGI (as I posted a page or ten upthread) is the scope of non-magical capacity to impose one's will upon others and karma vs fortune in martial conflict resolution. It's metagame character as such is unremarkable.

 

[pemerton]

Honestly, GMs have been doing this long before 4e came along.

Sure. My point is that there is a reason some people prefer 4e's minions to GM force as a way of handling pacing and related issues. And that once we recognise that this is the issue - ie the role of GM force in pacing, action resolution, etc - then 3 to 4 years of rants about minions dying when they cut thesmselves shaving are suddenly revealed as the nonsense that they always were.

 

[innerdude]

You have misunderstood what I said. I didn't say "influence the scene". I said "impose my will upon the situation." This is what I do, in real life, when I glare at my child; when (during a lecture) I shuffle my papers and clear my throat while looking at a talking student; when (while riding my bike through an intersection) I catch a car driver's eye and thereby ensure that s/he gives way.

The difference is, your attempts at imposition of will are not 100 percent reliable or infallible, like CAGI is. We're basically forced to accept that the fighter's force of will is so undeniably strong and imposing that it works, 100 percent of the time, every time. Regardless of relative circumstance, location, or any other factors. THAT'S where the dissociation comes in. The character cannot EVER know in the game world that what he or she is about to do is 100 percent reliable. The character cannot be thinking, "I'm going to save my 'imposing will,' because I know it works 100 percent of the time, and thus I'm only going to use it when it's most important to be imposing." Whereas the player fundamentally knows that it IS 100 percent reliable, and is making choices with that information, choices that are wholly unavailable to the character as a result.

Fundamental disconnect = dissociation.

. . . the issue with CaGI (as I posted a page or ten upthread) is the scope of non-magical capacity to impose one's will upon others and karma vs fortune in martial conflict resolution. It's metagame character as such is unremarkable.

I think I completely agree with you here; I think there's some interesting vagaries inherent to what you're suggesting (imposition of will, the role of chance versus inherent trait in determining outcomes).

The other problem with CAGI (at least with me, and maybe others) is that the mechanic itself isn't modeling those vagaries, really. The mechanical results are far too precise and (again) predictable.

 

[Bluenose]

The difference is, your attempts at imposition of will are not 100 percent reliable or infallible, like CAGI is. We're basically forced to accept that the fighter's force of will is so undeniably strong and imposing that it works, 100 percent of the time, every time. Regardless of relative circumstance, location, or any other factors. THAT'S where the dissociation comes in. The character cannot EVER know in the game world that what he or she is about to do is 100 percent reliable. The character cannot be thinking, "I'm going to save my 'imposing will,' because I know it works 100 percent of the time, and thus I'm only going to use it when it's most important to be imposing." Whereas the player fundamentally knows that it IS 100 percent reliable, and is making choices with that information, choices that are wholly unavailable to the character as a result.

Well, let's ignore the errata to CaGI, which does exactly what you say is required. How often do casters make a mistake when casting their spells? Or is that supposed to be an exception to the rule that says PCs can't be certain that what they want to do will happen?

 

[Neonchameleon]

The difference is, your attempts at imposition of will are not 100 percent reliable or infallible, like CAGI is.

This is
1: A completely different argument. If the problem is that you are too good at something as it now is then it has nothing to do with disassociation.
2: No longer true anyway. CAGI is now an attack vs will.

 

[Guest 85555]

Sure. My point is that there is a reason some people prefer 4e's minions to GM force as a way of handling pacing and related issues. And that once we recognise that this is the issue - ie the role of GM force in pacing, action resolution, etc - then 3 to 4 years of rants about minions dying when they cut thesmselves shaving are suddenly revealed as the nonsense that they always were.

Minion rules are fine on their own, savage worlds has had the, for years. They are a great way to achieve a cinematic feel to a game. I think the problem minions faced in 4E, is not everyone approaches D&D as a cinematic experience. Minion rules are essentially designed to imitate the one-hit guard on your way into the castle (or similar cinematic trope).

 

[billd91]

2: No longer true anyway. CAGI is now an attack vs will.

IF you've kept up with your DDI subscription and aren't still using the stand alone application to build your PCs. Every version of CAGI I have is not an attack vs will, and at any particular table, I think you have to expect there will be that variation.
I'm glad they changed it. That doesn't cut through the other issues with it, but at least that one is fixed.

 

[billd91]

Sure. My point is that there is a reason some people prefer 4e's minions to GM force as a way of handling pacing and related issues. And that once we recognise that this is the issue - ie the role of GM force in pacing, action resolution, etc - then 3 to 4 years of rants about minions dying when they cut thesmselves shaving are suddenly revealed as the nonsense that they always were.

Oh, I don't think arguments against minions are necessarily nonsense. That depends on the specifics of the argument. I still have misgivings about the implementation of the minion rules in 4e. Short cutting the mechanical resolution of a conflict because of pacing and making the target a minion, I think, are significantly different things. Against weaker PCs, I'm not going to cut the mechanical conflict resolution nor am I going to change the stats on the target NPC depending on how tough the PCs are. The NPC is who he is and his stats will be the same whether you encounter him at 1st level or 20th level (unless he has specific reasons and opportunity to change).

 

[pemerton]

The difference is, your attempts at imposition of will are not 100 percent reliable or infallible, like CAGI is.

How often do casters make a mistake when casting their spells? Or is that supposed to be an exception to the rule that says PCs can't be certain that what they want to do will happen?

Bluenose here is, in my view, exactly on point.

Innerdude is correct that, in the real world, imposition of will is not 100% reliable. But it is equally the case that, in the D&D gameworld, casting of spells is not 100% reliable - it can be disrupted by bumpy roads, bad weather etc. Yet most of the time the game system doesn't bother to model that. (That's the whole point of my discussions upthread of karma vs fortune in resolution.)

Using the language of "abstraction", the best explanation of automatic spell casting is that the system abstracts away most possibilities of spellcasting failure (eg it doesn't worry that you might sneeze while trying to cast Cure Light Wounds on the fighter). CaGI is abstract in the same way: the fighter is so awesome (much more awesome than me giving a lecture!) that the game system abstracts away the possibility that imposition of will may not succeed because the fighter sneezes when s/he is trying to stare his/her opponent down.