D&D 5E Fluff and Mechanics in 5e

[pemerton]

They are not dissociated (as Justin Alexander would say).

There was a long discussion about Alexander's "theory" a while ago.

Needless to say, the description of "fortune in the middle" mechanics as "dissociated", as "not roleplaying", etc is strongly disputed by some of those RPGers who actually enjoy games with such mechanics.

 

[Mallus]

There was a long discussion about Alexander's "theory" a while ago.

To this day I don't understand how that "dissociated mechanics" argument gained any traction among D&D players.

Though I admit to taking no small amount of uncharitable pleasure from watching proponents of the dissociated mechanics critique twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels arguing that it doesn't apply to traditional old-school mechanics like saving throws, hit points, and AD&D's long, abstract combat rounds (which stress the unimportance of the specific actions melee combatants took).

I mean, it's basically terrible analysis used in service of telling some people they're not role-playing. This is... unhelpful.

 

[Rhenny]

This raises an interesting, and in my view slightly orthogonal, issue.

Given my own interests and prejudices, I'm inclined to frame it this way: is the players' main contribution to interesting action resolution their impact on colour, or their impact on situation? I agree that 4e's power usage can reduce colour. Some description becomes compressed. But 4e powers give players - and especially martial players - a lot of influence over the situation - in particular via forced movement and condition infliction. This is where the interest is to be found. (And it's true that in this particular respect, 4e martial PCs become more like traditional D&D spell-user, who have always had "macro labelled" abilities ("I fireball the orcs") which give them a high degree of influence over the ingame situation.)

Yes..I see what you mean. This is why so many people might feel that 4e is more about combat tactics and grid based strategy than roleplaying. What these comments really suggest is that D&DNext needs to strike a more equitable balance between the impact on color and the impact on situation. If it can do that, it will attract the fans of tactical combat and the fans of narrative story telling. Win..win. This is an issue that pops up again and again throughout threads.

 

[pemerton]

Yes..I see what you mean.

<snip>

What these comments really suggest is that D&DNext needs to strike a more equitable balance between the impact on color and the impact on situation.

<snip>

This is an issue that pops up again and again throughout threads.

It's hard for me to speak from the other side, although I suspect that some talk about "immersion" is deeply concerned with colour, and how the players "inhabit" and produce it.

From my side, a game in which the players only influence colour while situation is overwhelmingly controlled by the GM starts to sound like a railroad.

What these comments really suggest is that D&DNext needs to strike a more equitable balance between the impact on color and the impact on situation.

This might be something where "dials" are appropriate.

Another way to do it is to try to make colour matter to resolution - so impacting colour impacts resolution. Which links back to the discussions about "intimidating by crushing a mug".

 

[Andor]

From my side, a game in which the players only influence colour while situation is overwhelmingly controlled by the GM starts to sound like a railroad.

This is such a bizzare statement from my point of view, that I think I begin to see where the problem lies. It's a matter of focus, or focal depth perhaps.

To my mind a 'railroad' gm exists at the plot level. "No there is no alchemist in town. Also every bridge out of town except for the one that leads to my prepared dungeon mysteriously burned down last night. The town folk would like you to investigate, or they will lynch you for being responsible." It is impossible for a GM to railroad at the round-by-round tactical level unless he takes control of your character. Which is usually the end of the game without a damned good reason.

And this is because, for me, the plot level is where the game is important. I get the impression, from many of the strong 4e proponents, that the round-by-round tactical level of the game is the important part and all that 'plot' crap is just window dressing to get you to the next fight.

To my mind the GM is being a d-bag when a city of 50 thousand doesn't contain a single tailor because it might screw with his intricate plan if I can get some fake guards tabards sewn-up. At this level, while I do not expect to be able to seize narrative control and tell the GM that yes there is a damned tailor, I will be seriously annoyed if he lets his preconcieved notions of how I'm supposed to act get in the way of verisimilitude or creativity.

To your mind (if I interpret correctly) the GM is being a d-bag if he tells you that, no, you can't make the orc stumble back into the cooking fire with a trip attack.

And if that is your focus, then I can see how 4e is an improvement for you since the powers system does allow you to seize narrative control at this crucial juncture and slide the orc into the cooking fire.

To me, that doesn't matter worth spit, and so I wonder if I'm right in thinking that the minutia of round-by-round combat is all that is really in focus in the minds of 4e fans. Because 4e give the player exactly 0% greater control over that plot-level GM railroading.

To you

 

[pemerton]

This is such a bizzare statement from my point of view, that I think I begin to see where the problem lies. It's a matter of focus, or focal depth perhaps.

To my mind a 'railroad' gm exists at the plot level.

<snip>

It is impossible for a GM to railroad at the round-by-round tactical level unless he takes control of your character.

<snip>

for me, the plot level is where the game is important.

<snip>

To your mind (if I interpret correctly) the GM is being a d-bag if he tells you that, no, you can't make the orc stumble back into the cooking fire with a trip attack.

<snip>

4e give the player exactly 0% greater control over that plot-level GM railroading.

I don't think you've got me quite right, but you're by no means way off base either.

I agree that railroading is about plot. But, in an RPG, how does a player influence the plot except by engaging a situation and changing its outcome?

Trying to connect this to combat: if the outcome of combats, or even the way they unfold, isn't relevant to the broader plot, than in my view something is going wrong in the setup of the game - the participants are wasting their time on stuff that doesn't matter. (I posted fairly recently on another thread around here that I don't like "filler" encounters.)

Coversely, if the combat does matter, because both the way it unfolds and the way it results link to the matters at stake more broadly in the plot, then the players need to have control over the situation within combat if they are to affect that plot.

Sometimes this is just expressing a PC's flavour ("I'm the 'get all angry in their faces' guy", "I'm the 'wizard with subtle tricks' guy", etc). But sometimes (hopefully, often), it feeds into the relationships between the PCs and other story elements - whom do they hate, who hates them, what are their priorities, what moves them? It's also about the players investing emotionally in the situation, and therefore engaging it with their PCs - being able to control it, at least in my experience, encourages the sort of investment and therefore the sort of engagement that I want to GM for.

Linking it back to the context of my exchanges with Neechen, I think that this sort of approach - from a player's point of view, the idea that "I can play my PC hard, give it all I've got, and it will matter to the way the game unfolds" - is what makes for an interesting game. And I also think that the surest way to stop it is for the GM to exercise a lot of force, to fudge or block or otherwise stop the players making their own calls and pushing their PCs as hard as they want to, to make the players' choices count only for colour.

So whether or not the orc can be pushed into the fire is to be settled by the action resolution mechanics (which may, at certain points, call for GM adjudication as part of the process). But that the players are free to choose (within the mechanical parameters of the game, and the limits of the social contract) how their PCs deal with the orc - that's pretty central. And if one cost of a system that gives the players a lot of resources for making those choices is that all players describe their actions in the sort of language that the players of spellcasters have been using for years ("I fireball them", "I hit them all with Come and Get It"), that's fine. A little more colour wouldn't do anyone any harm, but for me it's a secondary priority.

It follows from all of the above that I've got no interest in Adventure Paths - as far as I can see, all that a player gets to add to an AP is colour, because the plot is predetermined.

It also goes without saying that there are other ways to do what I'm looking for from an RPG without putting so much weight on the combat mechanics - The Dying Earth focuses on social conflict as the core of the game, for example - and even if combat is the focus of conflict, it can be done in very different ways from how 4e does it (4e is its own special breed of crunchy combat mechanics).

But for pretty banal reasons - I like fantasy, I like super hero comics, I grew up on Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks and D&D and dodgy science-fantasy Flash Gordon cartoons - I enjoy combat as a site of conflict resolution in my RPGs. I like to think of my approach to 4e as a less gritty, more gonzo version of the sort of vibe given off by Burning Wheel or The Riddle of Steel.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't know how bizarre my RPG orientation seems to you (Andor) or others. Sometimes I think it's pretty normal, but then I read other posts around here and think that some posters are playing on a different planet from me.

But anyway, here are some links to descriptions of combats in my 4e game, which might give some idea of what I'm talking about.