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

[billd91]

You can disagree all you like, the simple fact is that you have suspended the normal rules, replacing them with alternate rules that justify some GM desired outcome. Combined with your post elsewhere about minions I find this surpassingly odd; the creatures in the world, apparently, have some sort of independent existence that is inviolable and must remain sacrosanct, and yet the actual rules for creature interactions my change without warning. This seems to be utterly inconsistent; how can it simultaneously be inadmissible to change a creature's hit points or armour class through the game, and yet should that armour class every become inconvenient it is simply ignored or bypassed?

Since the players would have had their say on the encounter - by deciding to take the target out - certainly that's also a player desired outcome. This isn't a players vs GM thing at all.
And there's no inconsistency. The target's going to fall whether we roll for it or I make an adjudication for it based on what I know of the PCs' and target's relative strengths.

Ah, so presumably, this revised mechanism may be initiated by the players, as well? I can't help thinking that, like Keynes' "in the long run, we're all dead", the fact that some things are indeed inevitable (or, at least, extremely likely) does not mean that there is no "story" in the way that they play out.

My players take 10s and 20s on skill checks quite frequently. They don't do so with respect to combat because of the wider range of unknowns. But, as GM, I have the information they don't have and can take similar measures to keep the game moving without bogging down in dice rolling.

 

[Balesir]

Taking 10 isn't necessarily player-initiated. For example, players frequently ask "do I need to roll for this?" or "what should I roll?", leaving the DM to adjudicate the situations.

Erm, isn't that "player initiated"? The players are initiating - in this case by asking for permission - and the DM is deciding whether or not they may execute, no?

True enough. The question is, do I as a DM want to tell that story. I frequently skip through things to get to parts of a story that I find interesting. I might skip a week of travel and just tell the players they get there, ignoring the travel rules or the events that might have happened along the way.. Battles aren't fundamentally different.

If a GM wanted to "tell a story" I would rather they wrote a book, frankly, but regardless I can see some validity to the "it's just another choice about what to gloss over" argument. I'm still inclined to say that combat is a significant enough occurrence that it should not be glossed over completely, however.

While damage scaling is less absolute than to-hit scaling, I think that the current iteration of 5e still allows you to build high-level characters that render lower-level opponents trivial. The curve isn't as sharp though (which in principle I think is a good thing).

Low to-hit scaling and high damage scaling effectively just generates minions via a "back door". Higher level characters reach a point where lower level creatures are a one-hit kill - but they still have to hit.

 

[Balesir]

Since the players would have had their say on the encounter - by deciding to take the target out - certainly that's also a player desired outcome. This isn't a players vs GM thing at all.
And there's no inconsistency. The target's going to fall whether we roll for it or I make an adjudication for it based on what I know of the PCs' and target's relative strengths.

Hmm. A story about a minion:

In a game I'm running, the PCs had just made themselves known to the Big Bad Guy, found out about his plan to assault the nearby town and teleported back to scupper his plans. In retribution, he directed some of his agents in the town to attack the party as they rested. Such an attack not being unexpected, the town had provided guards; as a result, we set up for the encounter with the players getting control of several town guards - who would be the only ones awake to begin with - who I decided to represent as minions.

After a ding-dong battle, the assault was fought off. One of the minion guards actually survived the whole fight, not by running away but simply by never actually getting hit. He was feted by the characters and is now a leading light in the town militia.

You say your players don't take 10s or 20s in combat "because of the wider range of unknowns"; I think this same logic applies to NPCs and "monsters". Combat is too uncertain and too "tense/dramatic" to handwave, basically.

 

[pemerton]

If I'm understanding correctly those who are saying that CAGI isn't dissociated in regards to player decision-making and character decision-making (i.e. "I'm going to make my character impose his will on his enemies and draw them over to him" vs. "I'm going to impose my will on my enemies and draw them over here"), it's not dissociated for that reason, but could it still be dissociated by nature of the AEDU structure?

It's definitely a metagame mechanic for that reason. But like I said upthread, all this means is that, in deciding whether or not to CaGI, a player has regard to a consideration that the PC does not. But this is always the case - eg the player also considers how much time is left in the session, whereas the PC obviously does not!

 

[pemerton]

If it's OK to have "taking 20" in combat via GM fiat (and obviously spell casting in D&D has always worked this way), why is the auto-success dimension of CaGI so radically impermissible?

 

[pemerton]

The question is, do I as a DM want to tell that story.

To my mind this reiterates my point upthread - fundamentally different attitudes towards the role of GM force.

 

[innerdude]

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.

I'm not sure how to respond at all to the first part of this post. I mean that sincerely; what is the point of this statement as it relates to mechanical dissociation? Because I'm having a hard time finding any relationship to the topic at hand.

(The second response does, in fact, remove CAGI's dissociation, since now the player and character ARE thinking the same thing---"I'm going to use a technique to attempt to overcome that creature's inherent mental will, so they'll react in a way I desire. Let's see if I succeed." It's also interesting that WotC felt they needed to errata that power in that particular way to begin with. )

 

[Neonchameleon]

The second response does, in fact, remove CAGI's dissociation, since now the player and character ARE thinking the same thing---"I'm going to use a technique to attempt to overcome that creature's inherent mental will, so they'll react in a way I desire. Let's see if I succeed." It's also interesting that WotC felt they needed to errata that power in that particular way to begin with.

I sincerely disagree that that's what most fighters would be thinking - at least if my experience of swordplay is anything to go by. Both before and after the errata they are thinking exactly the same thing. "I want to bring them over here." And with slightly more streamlined thoughts the so-called disassociation has disappeared whether you have 100% success or not.

Indeed IME with that second thought "Let's see whether I succeed" you've disassociated from most fighters - and you've broken most of the visualisation techniques many sports people use (and in addition added cruft to your OODA loop, slowing you down). To quote Yoda "Try not. Do or do not! There is no try."

And this is part of what I mean when I say there are few disassociated mechanics and a lot of disassociated players. AD&D disassociates me with its one minute combat rounds. I can't visualise where a combat will be in a minute's time - so I'm completely disassociated from what's going on.

 

[innerdude]

@innerdude Let me first say that if the revision to the original article has focused on on solely that facet of things then it is such a far cry from the initial article (both in its content and in the interpretation of it that drove a 100? page thread) that it can barely be called a revision. It is tantamount to a total reframing. It should probably just be considered a new article if this is the case; and not as interesting (at least in terms of trying to sift through the confirmation bias and get your head around what the author is actually positing that bears out some objective value). It doesn't say a whole lot and I'm uncertain how there is much of a problem with most of the issues that he formerly had (that were 4e specific).
Action Economy is a metagame construct to facilitate turn-based play. It is never, ever shared, not in perspective nor awareness of it as a reference point for decision-making, between player and character. As such, if the premise of the new article is as you have outlined, there can never be an association between a player decision/action (with perspective driven by and awareness of it as a reference point for decision-making) and a character decision/action. Lets forget for a moment that player:character decisions are fundamentally dissociated due to the metagame construct of the action economy.

What is relevant to decisions/actions?; time, space, awareness and the application of will/force. Time/temporal concerns appear to be a big part of his issue with the player decision:character decision interface (Dailies and Encounters being the favored whipping boy). As such, I'm left wondering why the temporal nuance of an extended duration combat round (1 minute) and the inevitable decisions that should arise from being a martial actor within that time-frame and the associated action economy dissonance with respect to that is not a problem? PLAYERS reference the action economy when making their decisions. The fundamental OODA loop for player and character is this:

Player OODA: <spoken aloud and viewed from 3rd person omniscient> Enemy is 30 feet away? I spend my action economy to move forward, my movement rate allows me to get there within my movement economy, and attack using my 3/2 attack matrix for this 60 second round.

What proportion of the character OODA loop below is associated with the above?

Character OODA: <subconsciously internalized and viewed from 1st person> Enemy at 10 paces. Close the distance and try to expose his defense to attack while warding off his attack. Ok, I've done that. That took all of 5-10 seconds. Now that I've done that, I'm going to Observe my surroundings, Orient myself, Decide what to do and Act for the next 50-55 seconds.

Player: No he's not.

Character: Yes, I am...I'm absolutely doing stuff. I'm not standing here paralyzed for 50-55 seconds. Its just that you're OODA loop, adjudication of my action economy (the means by which you are associated with my in-world actions), is just suspended and dissociated from me for the next 50-55 seconds cause stuff happens during that duration. We are just unsynched for that period; dissociated.

Player: Ok.

How is that player:character OODA Loop/action economy/temporal dissonance scenario less or not dissociated?

Meanwhile, we have a resource scheme that says a character exploits a specific opening 1/encounter/5 minutes or exploits extreme circumstances 1/day. There is metagame temporal stuff going on here but from an OODA Loop perspective, this temporal issue can be handled as: player performs OODA loop and says character exploits opening and presumably the character performs same OODA loop, is aware of that opening, and initiates its exploitation within the fiction. By my estimation, there is much more interfacing and agreement between actors there (they interface in a way that is sensical...but the player is aware of metagame constructs so he can interface with the world that the character is not...but they still perform an extra-fiction OODA loop and in inter-fiction OODA loop that is comparable and relatively synched.) than there is in the 50 - 55 seconds of a 1 round combat where player:character OODA loops are utterly unsynched.

First--You've just proven the point---the 1-minute combat round is associated, using your own example. It's just (admittedly) a crappy abstraction.

Second, the entire premise of encounter and daily powers as being "there's a strategic combat opening" is inherently dissociated, because the player is "deciding" that the opening occurs, while the character is not. The act of choosing to use the power necessarily implies that the player has decided to create the opening.

The character can NEVER make that choice. The character doesn't magically decide, "Okay, that opening is happening at this . . . exact . . . moment." If the character could, he or she would do it way more than once per encounter! That's a fundamentally different choice / mental mapping between the player and character. If that's not clear and obvious, I don't know how else to discuss what dissociation is and is not.

(Which is why the whole "Well, the character just found the right opening" argument sounds like a weak cop-out to players who dislike dissociation.)

 

[billd91]

If it's OK to have "taking 20" in combat via GM fiat (and obviously spell casting in D&D has always worked this way), why is the auto-success dimension of CaGI so radically impermissible?

The auto-success of CaGI doesn't give the target an even break. That's a fundamental problem. You'll notice that attempts to charm, dominate, enchant, bluff, and otherwise influence typically involve meeting or beating some kind of threshold. It might be beating a DC or hitting a static defense if the resolution is managed from the attacker's side. Or it could be surviving saving throw attempts if resolution is on the defensive side.

Try using it much on your players and see how well they enjoy being sucked into close contact automatically. I suspect you'll get complaints.