In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[wrecan]

So if X = Hypnotism, is A > B, or A = B?

A=B, as should be obvious if you read the bit I wrote that you quoted. Sheesh.

Of course, you can always improvise additional effects using page 42 as you and CrazyJerome indicate. But if you do that, and decide the improvisations work differently in and out of combat, then it's up to you to justify those distinctions.

How is any of this pertinent to the topic? And what does it have to do with Zones of Truth, Choruses of Truth, and world building?

 

[Yesway Jose]

A=B, as should be obvious if you read the bit I wrote that you quoted. Sheesh.

Yet IIRC with Baleful Polymorph, A > B

That is, a wizard might be able to turn people into frogs for longer periods of time outside of combat, but once in combat, due to constraints of time and concentration, he can only turn them into frogs for approx 6 seconds

Yet with Hypnotism, A = B by default

So is Hypnotism not affected by constraints of time and concentration, or does Baleful Polymorph out of combat only turn people into frogs outside of combat for approx 6 seconds.

Of course, you can always improvise additional effects using page 42 as you and CrazyJerome indicate. But if you do that, and decide the improvisations work differently in and out of combat, then it's up to you to justify those distinctions.

Do you agree that in an average game these improvisations are not used? Your question does seem to imply that it's not the norm in your experience.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My emphasis added for the sticking point:

A=B, as should be obvious if you read the bit I wrote that you quoted. Sheesh.

Of course, you can always improvise additional effects using page 42 as you and CrazyJerome indicate. But if you do that, and decide the improvisations work differently in and out of combat, then it's up to you to justify those distinctions.

How is any of this pertinent to the topic? And what does it have to do with Zones of Truth, Choruses of Truth, and world building?

And Yesway, that also answers your question about why the designers didn't include it. First, daze and slow aren't always ok, running unhampered. Second, even if they were, you can't possibly include everything that would be ok, or conditionally ok. And finally, if you include a whole bunch of stuff, this detracts from the fact that they expect you to make some of those justifications yourself. A designer can never do as good a job of that as you can. (This, BTW, is the most telling criticism to the sheer bloody number of powers--and one that many 4E fans have made in one form or another.)

I think it is pertinent to the topic because to "justify those distinctions," in 4E you have to use somewhat different methods--in the social contract, if nothing else. In prior versions, people could gloss over the justifying if they wanted. In fairness, they had all different kinds of motivations for so glossing, but some of those motivations were definitely not the kind that others at the table appreciated. See abusing fabricate and the 3E craft and equipment rules.

Some people have trouble (or no interest) in adapting to the justifications that 4E expects. Others have trouble understanding how some of the rest of us are using it. I think it seems terribly constricted to them.

Me, I see it as liberating. Even with a table of good folks, prone to clever play but not to abuse the spirit of the system, all those little details littered in the spells as fluff never seemed to quite work out right. That is, they work well enough if you make a ruling and keep and eye on them, but they can't run unfettered. If I'm going to need to keep an eye on them, might as well make the base simple.

tl;dr version: It has always been true that if you allowed something like zone of truth, then you were responsible for not letting it abuse your campaign. 4E has simply made that transparent and explicit--by means that require you to think about some of the edge cases yourself, rather than "clever" being defined as "caster memorized the right spell this morning and thought to cast it just now." And then "dealing with it" being defined as the GM being a preemptive wizard, vastly experienced, or willing to ad hoc and ad lib his way out of trouble.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Do you agree that in an average game these improvisations are not used? Your question does seem to imply that it's not the norm in your experience.

In 3E, the trouble cases get used anywhere that the GM or players don't put a stop to them. This also means that all the improvisations get used--until the table puts a stop to them.

In 4E, the improvisations are used when the table actively decides to use them. This means that the trouble case don't get used except when they sneak into the game.

If your table is heavy improv and low on trouble (abusing the spirit of the rules), then 3E and 4E can work equally well here. There is a shift in 4E of responsibility for how and when it gets handled, and this might mean that one or the other will work better for a given table or person. For people like me that prefer the 4E take on the responsibilities, the switch actually leads to more improvisation. YMMV.

To the extent that a table has trouble, then the people that dealt with in 3E are not going to be inclined to let it back in easily in 4E, and thus I would expect such improvisations to occur less often. I'd also expect a dog to stop coming when you call it, if you whack it with a stick every time it did before.

To the extent that a table has a GM nervous about improvisation for some other reason besides trouble (e.g. heavy focus on playing strict and literal RAW for the sake of playing strict RAW), but otherwise has a pretty good game going--then the 3E to 4E shift is probably not going to work well. And why would it? The 3E design was centered on helping him out! He had a nice steak bone before, but now you want him to go with this low-grade plastic model?

 

[Pentius]

Yet IIRC with Baleful Polymorph, A > B

That is, a wizard might be able to turn people into frogs for longer periods of time outside of combat, but once in combat, due to constraints of time and concentration, he can only turn them into frogs for approx 6 seconds

Yet with Hypnotism, A = B by default

So is Hypnotism not affected by constraints of time and concentration, or does Baleful Polymorph out of combat only turn people into frogs outside of combat for approx 6 seconds.

If I recall pemerton's example correctly, with Baleful Polymorph A did equal B by default. Allowing the npc wizard to do more with it outside of combat is the same thing, in essence, as allowing your wizard with the Hypnotism power to do Hypnoticy stuff outside combat. I think he also alluded to having a more permanent version as a ritual, which would be mechanically a different option than the specific Baleful Polymorph power.

And a note on these sorts of rulings and/or houserules. You keep mentioning being afraid of breaking the balance, but I think that is something you can relax on. The game designers didn't hand out daze and such on an at will basis, but they also have different design considerations than a DM making a ruling or house rule. The game designers need to make a game playable by many people, including those who absolutely will abuse abusable things if they can. At your table, though, the house rule only needs to be balanced against the players present. It doesn't really matter if a houserule could be abused, only if the players do abuse it. Even then, when making houserules, I generally go with a disclaimer like, "We're gonna try doing it like this, but if you guys abuse this nice new toy I am giving you, I will take it away."

 

[wrecan]

Yet IIRC with Baleful Polymorph, A > B

You recall incorrectly. Nothing in baleful polymorph's description indicates it operates differently outside combat than within it.

does Baleful Polymorph out of combat only turn people into frogs outside of combat for approx 6 seconds.

Yes.

Do you agree that in an average game these improvisations are not used?

I do not agree. I wrote an article on improvising terrain because I felt that DMs were improvising actions in the average game.

But will you answer my question? What does this have to do with world-building?

 

[Yesway Jose]

I think it is pertinent to the topic because to "justify those distinctions," in 4E you have to use somewhat different methods--in the social contract, if nothing else. In prior versions, people could gloss over the justifying if they wanted. In fairness, they had all different kinds of motivations for so glossing, but some of those motivations were definitely not the kind that others at the table appreciated. See abusing fabricate and the 3E craft and equipment rules.

You wrote before that page 42 "hints at this around the edges" about defining out-of-combat properties for a power. So it seems adjucating combat vs out-of-combat is not well understood in average gameplay.

Many games are being played to the letter of the rules. Of those many games, many DMs/players may not have gotten the "hint around the edges" and if they did, they might be afraid to experiment with that social contract and affect game balance.

You then wrote that for everyone else who does get it, 4E expects you to make some of those justifications yourself due to a social contract.

What I'm seeing here is a kind double standard if you will...

On one hand, 4E doesn't do a good job of clarifying page 42, or maybe not many people are seeing it, and many people instead play by the rules, and for those that do swing with page 42, there is a social contract to justify those distinctions.

Yet with zone of truth, fabricate, etc. there is a Problem that Needs to Be Addressed.

The double standard is that 4E is exempt from Problems due to a social contract clause, but 3E is fraught with problems like Zone of Truth and does not have the right to use the "social contract" clause like 4E does.

I'm not saying that YOU said all of the above, but it's got to be one or the other -- if 4E is allowed to use a clause to escape from [some scenario] then 3E is allowed to use the same clause to escape from [zone of truth, fabricate, etc.]

 

[Yesway Jose]

And a note on these sorts of rulings and/or houserules. You keep mentioning being afraid of breaking the balance, but I think that is something you can relax on. The game designers didn't hand out daze and such on an at will basis, but they also have different design considerations than a DM making a ruling or house rule. The game designers need to make a game playable by many people, including those who absolutely will abuse abusable things if they can. At your table, though, the house rule only needs to be balanced against the players present. It doesn't really matter if a houserule could be abused, only if the players do abuse it. Even then, when making houserules, I generally go with a disclaimer like, "We're gonna try doing it like this, but if you guys abuse this nice new toy I am giving you, I will take it away."

This is great, but forum users do not or may not represent the average gameplay. I recall an anectode of a WoTC employee ruling that a power cannot be used on an object because the spell only affects creatures. There was some controversy and some backpedalling after IIRC. I do not think that this thread in general is all that useful if everyone is discussing their game philosophy if it doesn't match the average gameplay philosophy, if such can be defined.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I do not agree. I wrote an article on improvising terrain because I felt that DMs were improvising actions in the average game.

So why did you get frustrated with my example of Hypnotism in combat being houseruled to include falling prone as an effect, and it was ruining the fun for everyone, and so and so. There must be some sort of limit on houserules vs fun and game balance.

But will you answer my question? What does this have to do with world-building?

Not yet. I'm running out of time, and I've gotten no work accomplished today.

 

[wrecan]

for those that do swing with page 42, there is a social contract to justify those distinctions.

Yet with zone of truth, fabricate, etc. there is a Problem that Needs to Be Addressed.

And this is where the world-building aspect comes in. If you play 4e, then you only have to consider the campaign-altering aspects of individual improvisation you make, and in the vast majority of cases, that won't happen.

With 3e, the campaign-altering aspects, such as Zone of Truth and Fabricate, and others are hidden in the rules. It might not become apparent that it renders pieces of the game nonsensible until after the mechanic has already been implemented and relied upon and established.

So, for example, an adventuring party may have been gleefully using Zone of Truth once or twice to extract information from NPCs. Then, much later, the adventuers find themselves in some Name of the Rose situation at a secluded community of priests, where a murder has occurred. One of the players pipes up... hey, this place is full of priests? Why didn't they use Zone of Truth? The DM suddenly realizes there's no in-game reason. Now he and the players have to figure out how to undo all that's been done.

4e doesn't have that issue. Instead, what happens is a player says, "Hey, I worship the god of truth... can I have a ritual that compels people to tell the truth?" Only at that point, do the DM and players have to contemplate how this might affect the campaign world.

For 3e, the campaign issue is ubiquitous yet also hidden. Every campaign world, theoretically, either has to figure out why wizards aren't getting rich off Walls of Iron, why masons exist in worlds of Lyres of Building, and why every court isn't equipped with a Zone of Truth item and a collection of Helms of Opposite Alignment, as well as a host of other problematic spells that many DMs may not come across, but may stumble across after it's too late, or house rule them. In 4e, the campaign is built around cinematic heroic fantasy. If your campaign world incorporates that style, you're probably fine, and then you only have to worry about altering your campaign world when you improvise.

I still have no idea what this has to do with dissociation. Now we seem to be discussing broad mechanics that allow more creativity with the risk of imbalance and campaign damage, against narrow mechanics.

I'm not saying that YOU said all of the above, but it's got to be one or the other

No, it doesn't, because the social contract operates very differently when you discover a problem after it manifests in a campaign vs. anticipating a problem as you improvise.