D&D 5E Can mundane classes have a resource which powers abilities?

[Manbearcat]

DM: The orc king has accepted your challenge, and he will allow the party to pass through his territory if you can beat him in a game of one-on-one basketball. That's an opposed check.

Player: Cool, I have a +15 bonus to Dexterity (Basketball) checks, because of my Dex 20, and my proficiency +5 with Expertise for another +5.

<snip>

DM: *rolls dice behind the screen* The orc king lumbers around and tries his best to block your shots, but you're just too fast for him, and you easily win with a final score of 26 to 14.

That's associative, because the player is not using any information that the character doesn't have - the character is perfectly aware of how good she is at basketball.

In the first quote from Saelorn "association" is defined as "player and character making the same decisions for the same reasons".

In the second quote from Saelorn the character is clearly making decisions that the player is not, but the test for "association" has become "the player is not using any information that the character doesn't have".

Which is the actual definition of "association"? And is it relevant that the player in the second example very obviously is using information that the character doesn't have - such as the location of the d20, mathematical knowledge, etc?

That is a good question.

In the above scenario which Saelorn graciously carved out, you have a player pressing the simulate this basketball game button in the same way that you would do if you were playing John Madden's Football at home ("Do you want to simulate this game/play?"). It is interesting that this is used to display an alleged coupling of the following:

1) player:character perception/orientation

2) player:character decisions

3) shared player:character reasoning for the decision that was made in 2

Forget the action portion of an OODA Loop. Just consider the above. What basketball player is aware of some mesh of lumped basketball goo that they will then deploy to simulate the results of a contest? What basketball player decides that they're going to press this pile of abstract goo button that they aren't aware of? Consequently, how in the world could any basketball character and player share the reasoning for pressing the button when one of them is utterly unaware of the existence of said button.

Basketball players are aware of lots of information like spatial orientation and their velocity relative to another object moving in space. They are aware of their own psychological state, the state of the crowd, the disposition of their teammates, and their opposition. They are aware of potential macro outcomes within a certain margin of error. They commit to very small decisions, and attendant actions, based on those perceptions and orientations. Those, and tons and tons of other parameters, add up (like in a high resolution model) to determine the outcome of a contest. Under no circumstances is any basketball player aware of a "basketball skill sludge". What they are not aware of they, of course, cannot deploy. Consequently, they don't deploy it for any reason that a player might deploy it. Finally, they certainly aren't aware of the mathematical properties of fortune resolution.

If there is no association for fate points or "shrodinger's <whatever>", then there is no real association for "press basketball skill sludge" button/mesh with fortune resolution versus target number to determine the outcome of a game/play or anything of the like.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. A very simple model can easily relate to a very complex model. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the concept of "relation"?

I would hate to embarrass myself. My point, which I would have hoped was clear, was to use the statement in context with what we are discussing. It wasn't a throw-away statement with no point.

A simple box model is a pile of sludge which is assumed to be mixed homogenously. A two box model is an extremely simplified model of a complex system which is linked by a flux. They're often used to ("unphysically") model complex systems in order to derive the parameters that you would then use as singular inputs for a very high resolution model with a considerable swath of discretised equations. The high resolution model doesn't make mixing assumptions. It is actually attempting to "inhabit the process (make the same decisions for the same reasons)" of the organism/system, actually attempting to model that complex system "physically." It will use the derived inputs from the simple model to parameterize the phenomenon actually taking place at the cell/grid level so discrete equations can simulate micro-processes.

Understanding those micro-processes is step 1 in being able to share the portfolio of observations, orientations and decisions (and accordingly, the "reasoning for why" those decisions are made).

I don't know - if the decision was "to win this basketball game", then they (PC & player) are both making the same decision. (Whether or not that's an interesting decision is another issue.)

When you start to drill down into more detailed actions you can still maintain the relationship. I'm not familiar with basketball so I'll use hockey instead: "gain possession" "enter the offensive zone" "shoot on-net". You might not know how the PCs gain possession, just that they do; and maybe they enter the zone using a dump-in and puck recovery or a controlled entry. You don't know, and at this level of resolution it doesn't matter.

Of course, when you add stop-motion initiative into the mix, things get strange...

Pemerton and Neonchameleon touched on this a bit. Actual martial actors don't make decisions "to win this basketball game." Funny enough, and you hear it constantly when players and coaches speak, any deviation in perception from the extremely zoomed-in micro to the zoomed-out macro (when asked about anything beyond the moment the mantra is always "one play at a time" or "one game at a time") is taboo. Focus on what is happening right in front of you, right at this exact moment (staying present) is Sports Psychology 101. Players in a TTRPG must deviate from this naturally as a result of simply playing the game. Martial actors do not (willfully so) and forbid themselves the inclination. It is fundamental to the culture.

Now you, of course, know I"m a huge proponent of abstraction and a necessary uncoupling (overall) of player and character. I rather appreciate systems that do this and do it well as it allows for better access of genre tropes, exciting rising action, and proper climaxes to conflicts. However, I certainly dispute that players resolving a deeply abstract system element at a table are inhabiting any part of the fundamental decision-making process (and the attendant reasoning for the decision-making process is naturally incoherent) that the actual martial actors would be making.

For hockey, when a hockey player decides to abandon an attack of the offensive zone, he is making it for a series of discrete reasons that are, effectively, removed from any macro goal of winning a hockey game. Successful implementation of each of those micro-decisions and actions will add up (hopefully) to winning a hockey game. But his perception, orientation and decision-making for that discrete micro-decision might be something like:

1) They're trapping the neutral zone.

2) The defender has the angle on me and is going to separate me from the puck if I proceed at this effort. We just changed and I want to keep this offensive possession. (Perhaps if they needed a change, he would dump and chase to facilitate the change behind him).

3) I'm not a good stick handler in traffic and there is a lot of traffic. I need to give it up or I'm going to turn it over.

4) A forward is changing and lagging behind the play.

5) I'm friggin tired and I need to change because I'm well past the end of my shift but on the wrong side of the ice. I'm going to retreat and give the puck up to a safe defenseman in our zone so I can get to the other side of the rink.

And plenty more. The actual martial actor is never thinking about deploying "hockey sludge button" to win the game. He doesn't know it exists. He has no idea about fortune resolution and the mathematical percentages therein. The player of that guy and the hockey player himself never have shared deployment of resources and never have shared reasoning for the deployment of resources. The player is oriented toward resolving a macro-conflict with some kind of fortune resolution and in the aim of winning the game, he deploys the skill pile of goo and a dice pool/d20. The character is always oriented towards a discrete, micro-process and trying to facilitate his micro-goals the best he can. Hopefully, in the end, that will result in successfully winning the hockey game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Which is the actual definition of "association"? And is it relevant that the player in the second example very obviously is using information that the character doesn't have - such as the location of the d20, mathematical knowledge, etc?

Player knowledge of the d20 and mathematics is the character's knowledge of probability and all of the various random factors than can influence the course of the event being modeled. You know, going into the situation, that things might not go as planned and you might not perform as well as you usually do, or you could do much better.

If a character knows that she can funnel her positive energy from being a hero last week into a better performance in this basketball game... well, I guess you can make it associative if you really try, but you're really straining suspension of disbelief on that one. Don't expect that other players would be willing to follow you on that.

Which I suppose is really the end-goal of all of this dissociation talk, is that we're trying to reduce suspension of disbelief down to a manageable level. It's much easier to believe in a world with dragons and elves (as long as it's internally consistent) than it is to believe in a world with quantifiable narrative causality.

 

[Hussar]

But the world doesn't have a quantifiable narrative causality. Unless you also think that thing like hit points and experience are also quantifiable in the game world.

Take critical hits. One in twenty attacks (depending on weapon) has a chance of hitting really hard regardless of character skill.

Which generally means you will only see them once per adventuring day. Maybe twice but usually once.

So what's the difference between a randomly determined special attack that occurs once per day and a daily power?

IOW why can't I do x3 damage with my great axe on every attack?

 

[pemerton]

Player knowledge of the d20 and mathematics is the character's knowledge of probability and all of the various random factors than can influence the course of the event being modeled. You know, going into the situation, that things might not go as planned and you might not perform as well as you usually do, or you could do much better.

If a character knows that she can funnel her positive energy from being a hero last week into a better performance in this basketball game... well, I guess you can make it associative if you really try, but you're really straining suspension of disbelief on that one.

<snip>

It's much easier to believe in a world with dragons and elves (as long as it's internally consistent) than it is to believe in a world with quantifiable narrative causality.

I agree with Hussar's reply.

Adding to that: as a player, I know that I am sitting in someone's living room, picking up a die to roll it, doing maths etc. This is all knowledge that (ex hypothesi) is not an obstacle to willing suspension of disbelief. As I inhabit my character, I know that - say - if I go all-out I can probably feint these 5 orcs into a bad position in which I can cut them all down. So I - as my character - decide to go all-out. And back in the real world, much as I might pick up a die, do some arithmetic etc, I put a tick next to Come and Get It on my character sheet.

The claim that doing this thing purely as a player must be an obstacle to suspension of disbelief that is any different in kind to the obstacle posed by doing arithmetic is an empirical claim about human psychology. My own personal experience of gameplay gives me no reason to think that such a claim is true. In fact, with a well-designed character sheet which the player can easily review at a glance, and which has various available abilities individuated in an intuitive way (eg by scope of targeting and potency of effect), the cognitive experience of deciding how hard to draw on one's resources and push back against the enemy can support immersion in character, because this roughly correlates to the sorts of decisions the character is making. Likewise, looking at your PC sheet and seeing that the tank is empty correlates to the character's experience of feeling drained, of having given it his/her all and having nothing more left to give.

And going back to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s reply: the effect of random crits is that the player, when inhabiting the character, has no power to decide to put in more effort, to push harder. It is entirely random. For me, at least, this is undermining of verisimilitude because contrary to my own experiences of physical endeavour (admittedly not fighting, but running and cycling).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But the world doesn't have a quantifiable narrative causality. Unless you also think that thing like hit points and experience are also quantifiable in the game world.

They are, at least to some extent. You can measure how many hits from a longsword it takes to drop someone, on average; it's a knowable quantity. You can measure, on average, how many crusades a knight must go on before her aim improves to the point where she can hit an archery target at twice the range she could when she set out. This is all objective information which exists within the world inhabited by the character.

So what's the difference between a randomly determined special attack that occurs once per day and a daily power?

Circumstances. A critical hit is supposed to be when you, in performing the best effort which you typically put forth, are presented with the perfect conflux of circumstances that let you exceed your normal limits.

Of course you always want to do your best, but you don't have control over external circumstances, so you take what you can get.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hussar[/I]'s reply: the effect of random crits is that the player, when inhabiting the character, has no power to decide to put in more effort, to push harder. It is entirely random. For me, at least, this is undermining of verisimilitude because contrary to my own experiences of physical endeavour (admittedly not fighting, but running and cycling).

I'm all for that. I think critical hits are kind of silly, myself. And I'm all for giving the fighter (or all mundane classes, really) some sort of resource with which to power their abilities. Especially if it's something as simple as Fatigue Points, which correspond directly to an observable condition for the character, it just makes sense that you can choose when to put in that extra effort.

 

[pemerton]

You can measure how many hits from a longsword it takes to drop someone, on average; it's a knowable quantity. You can measure, on average, how many crusades a knight must go on before her aim improves to the point where she can hit an archery target at twice the range she could when she set out.

I guess my issue with this is that the answer to the first is "1 hit" and the answer to the second is probably "unlimited", assuming that the knight had already trained in archery.

Improving "in the field" is undoubtedly a FRPG conceit, but does it really have much correlation to real life? Likewise for standing up while taking multiple whacks from a sword.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Player knowledge of the d20 and mathematics is the character's knowledge of probability and all of the various random factors than can influence the course of the event being modeled. You know, going into the situation, that things might not go as planned and you might not perform as well as you usually do, or you could do much better.

If a character knows that she can funnel her positive energy from being a hero last week into a better performance in this basketball game...

Then you need to find me a system where this happens. Fate Points, Plot Points, Karma Points are all fungible and go into a pot. There are very few times you can say specifically "This plot point came from that event". You can say "I am relaxed, happy, and buoyed by confidence from recent events such as rescuing people". And possibly you are going to find something wrong with that - but I don't see any problem with suspension of disbelief here.

They are, at least to some extent. You can measure how many hits from a longsword it takes to drop someone, on average; it's a knowable quantity.

One solid hit. Next question?

You can measure, on average, how many crusades a knight must go on before her aim improves to the point where she can hit an archery target at twice the range she could when she set out. This is all objective information which exists within the world inhabited by the character.

Indeed. There are very few games that don't have skill systems.

Of course you always want to do your best, but you don't have control over external circumstances, so you take what you can get.

Once more you are inventing characters who do not pace themselves. You don't always want to do your very best. Sometimes you just want to do competently, saving your best for when it is needed. I'm not going to burn through my fatigue facing kobolds when I know there's a dragon around, leaving myself exhausted for the dragon, unless I have no other choice.

I'm all for that. I think critical hits are kind of silly, myself. And I'm all for giving the fighter (or all mundane classes, really) some sort of resource with which to power their abilities. Especially if it's something as simple as Fatigue Points, which correspond directly to an observable condition for the character, it just makes sense that you can choose when to put in that extra effort.

The problem here is that supposedly associated systems, by their nature, put bounds on what you can do this way. If we look at, for example, D&D 3.X, it might "make sense" that you can choose to put in that extra effort - but putting in the extra effort has absolutely no effect. (Unless you are a barbarian who has started raging or the like). In an associated system if you do not have fatigue points then you can't meaningfully put in extra effort under the rules of the game. If you are playing GURPS you can, of course. But I've written at length in the past about GURPS, Fate, and Alcoholism. And the rules overhead for GURPS is higher than that

In an associated system you are playing a pawn using the rules of physics that match to the game engine. Associated systems tell you there is literally nothing out there other than that which is specifically modelled by the game engine. This is where the "Fighter can fight all day at top efficiency" idea comes from. Although there are magical effects that fatigue a character in 3.X, general fatigue from hard work does not exist. Therefore the characters don't experience it. Therefore fighters can fight all day (as is a common argument for fighters in the fighter vs wizard debate).

In a so-called disassociated system you are not compelled to run a character under the artificial physics model represented by associated rules. In fact you get to decide how your character thinks and where their stress points are. And it might vary week to week or session to session.

It might be possible to make an associated system that meaningfully captures all the important factors that a disassociated system like Fate does. But I've not seen one yet. Not GURPS, not Rolemaster, not Rifts, not D20 Modern or 3.X. Not even all the code involved in creating World of Warcraft. And it would have to be an order of magnitude bigger than any of them (except possibly WoW) because anything the rules system doesn't capture directly isn't something that is ever important. Fate (or most other disassociated systems) capture whatever is important at the time - and the rules for Fate will fit on a side of A4 with PCs fitting on index cards and NPCs on post-it notes.

 

[Bluenose]

I guess my issue with this is that the answer to the first is "1 hit" and the answer to the second is probably "unlimited", assuming that the knight had already trained in archery.

Improving "in the field" is undoubtedly a FRPG conceit, but does it really have much correlation to real life? Likewise for standing up while taking multiple whacks from a sword.

The human body is a funny thing, so while one solid hit might be the right answer it also might not. I can hardly be the only person who remembers Bert Trautmann playing on in the FA Cup final after his neck was broken, or the large number of cyclists who've finished races with various bits of broken anatomy. Still, most fights are likely to be ended with one solid hit somewhere significant.

As for improving "in the field", it's certainly not technique that improves - that comes from training until you can get something right. I also wouldn't expect to learn a new trick from seeing it, though after the event if someone was willing to show it off that would be a chance to learn it. What my experience both as a re-enactor and sportsman seem to show is that what you get out of actual fights/matches is awareness of what's going on, the ability to notice opportunities and react to them, and with some people a certain mental toughness that lets them recognise when things are going wrong and respond without panicking. Basic technique is something you learn from repetitious practice, and I despise the whole "zero to hero" "peasant boy who picks up a sword" and goes into battle without any training - they're going to look a fool the first time they run into anyone with actual serious training. That's the case in the indoor football league I sometimes play in, where there's one player who was an apprentice at a pro club, never made it in the professional game, and can make anyone else look inept.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I guess my issue with this is that the answer to the first is "1 hit" and the answer to the second is probably "unlimited", assuming that the knight had already trained in archery.

Improving "in the field" is undoubtedly a FRPG conceit, but does it really have much correlation to real life? Likewise for standing up while taking multiple whacks from a sword.

You're not playing a real person in real life, though. Sure, a real person would be worn down from taking repeated injuries, rather than getting tougher merely by surviving them.

Within the game world, which is the only world that our characters know, it is a fact that Sir Ezrix Doomhammer (while wearing a simple chain shirt) can survive ~20 strikes from the longsword which he hands to Floyd the courier in order to demonstrate his toughness (and of course, Floyd will ignore any opportunities to sneak the blade past the chain - to score a critical hit, in game terms - because he's not actually trying to kill Ezrix). It is a fact that Sir Ezrix has better aim now, after returning from his third campaign against the orcs, than he did when he was a green recruit. These are simple truths of the world.

Unless you want to narrate your Hit Points as plot armor, of which the character is entirely unaware, but that's on you if you consciously choose such an inconsistent model.