I get to decide what is absurd to me.
My point is that absurd to me is not an inherent property. You don't find the fact that a 3E cleric can heal a farmer's mortal wound by casting a Cure Light Wounds spell absurd. I do find that absurd. Similarly, you find that martail encounter powers spoil your immersion. They enhance mine.
Which is what I stated previously.
pemerton said:
There is no inherent property of martial encounter powers - "dissocation" - that explains your response. It is as idiosyncratic to you as my inability to tolerate the idea that a wound can at one and the same time be mortal and light.
"Dissociation" is not a matter of fact. The only criterion you can point to that makes martial encounter powers dissociated depends upon your psychological response to them (eg their effect upon your immersion).
This is not the case. The state of dissociation is a question of fact, not opinion - though whether or not that's an issue for you is one of opinion. If a metagame rule has an in-character effect without an in-character explanation for why that is, then it's objectively dissociated. Now, you can if such an in-character explanation is present or not, but that's a question of interpreting facts, rather than differing opinions.
pemerton said:
For instance, it's not true that there is no reason in the fiction why certain things can't be repeated - it's just that the relevant material is added into the fiction in a different way from what you prefer.
In the case of certain things not being able to be repeated, where limited-use physical powers are concerned - even if you interpret the page 42 rules as allowing you to break the metagame limitation on how often such powers can be used, you still can't utilize them with the same degree of efficacy, for no in-game reason that stands up to scrutiny, as demonstrated in previous posts.
pemerton said:
Nor is it true that, as a player using only mechanics that you label "associated", you can always work out from the fiction what is feasible for a character. Just one example: as players of the game we have no idea what it is in the fiction that explains why a cleric, but not a pious fighter, can have his/her prayers answered. The way that we work out that a fighter can't cast cleric spells isn't by inference from the fiction; it's by reading the rulebooks. Which is the same way that we work out that an encounter power can't be used twice by a player within a given episode of play.
Quite the contrary, a player using only the associated mechanics knows exactly why
in the fiction something is or is not feasible for their character. Your characters in the game know
exactly why a cleric, but not a pious fighter, can cast divine magic (mostly due to their being a difference between having divine intervention in answer to a prayer, and being granted divine spells). The rules necessarily inform us of what is happening in the fiction - true, the answer isn't a detailed one, but it doesn't need details for the exact nature of what clerical training is anymore than it needs to give us the details for exactly what type of attack a fighter is making each time he makes an attack roll.
That's different than figuring out why an ostensibly physical power can't be used more than once during a fight.
pemerton said:
This is why I regard the notion of "dissociated mechanics" as spurious.
Likewise, the above is why I maintain that the existence and definition of "dissociated mechanics" is a question of fact, rather than personal interpretation. How much that fact impinges on your enjoyment is up to you, of course, but saying that it doesn't exist is self-evidently not true.
pemerton said:
Magic is not explained to the players. You yourself have to explain clericism by reference to the game rules - classes, spellcasting progressions, etc - and yet insist that there is no metagame element to this!
You're not making any sense here. No one is saying that there's no metagame element to clerical training - of course there is! You can't have "associated mechanics" without the "mechanics" part of it.
pemerton said:
From the rules, we can imagine that there might be some ingame rationale.
The rules provide a self-evident rationale. Class progression is something the characters
do - your cleric is advancing in his religious training enough to learn how to harness and utilize greater degrees of divine magic. A fighter that likes a certain god a lot isn't the same thing - if he was undergoing the same religious training, that'd be associated under the rules by his actually taking a level of cleric.
pemerton said:
Similarly, when a player knows that s/he can't declare a certain power a second time we can imagine that there might be some ingame rationale. For me, there is no difference in these things. For you, there obviously is, but it can't be because one begins from the ingame and the other from the mechanics. Because both are driven entirely by the mechanics, and the fiction is simply hypothsised to take some form or other that will accord with the mechanics.
Except that one is associated (the clerical spellcasting rules inherently present an in-game explanation for what's happening in the context of the game world) and one is dissociated (being able to utilize a purely physical power once in a fight does not inherently present an in-game explanation for why that is in the context of the game world).
Now, you can try to re-associate the latter mechanic with an in-character explanation for why that is, but so far there hasn't been an attempt to do that that survives any sort of scrutiny. Saying that that necessarily solves the problem is the Rule 0 Fallacy all over again.
pemerton said:
You are insisting, in your debate with Tony Vargas that it is absurd that physical abilities might be quarantined into separate reservoirs, yet you can't see why someone might think it absurd that a 30 DEX character can't get off a shot without letting a 6 DEX goblin get the drop on him/her?
In all honesty, no. Dexterity isn't a measure of your speed, nor does it mean that you can't make a mistake in combat and leave yourself open enough where even an opponent with a slower reaction time couldn't
make the attempt to take advantage of it. Simply put, you've imbued that particular example with properties that I find to be absurd, rather than saying that the example itself is absurd.
pemerton said:
The "association" here is all post-facto: because the game mechanics dictate that the goblin gets the AoO, you then read into the fiction that my 30 DEX PC dropped his/her guard. That is no different to a fighter player declaring CaGI, and then everyone at the table reading into the fiction that the orcs decided to charge the fighter.
It's not post-facto at all. There's a reason it's called an "attack of
opportunity." You don't become immune to mistakes, bad decisions, or otherwise leaving yourself open long enough to prevent someone else from taking advantage of that opportunity when you have a high enough Dexterity bonus. That's incredibly different than a fighter somehow being able to compel three orcs to charge him, but only once per day.
pemerton said:
You can't define whether or not my PC will let his/her guard down in 3E until you attempt to resolve my action declaration. For instance, if my archer stands there but I don't declare an attack, the goblin doesn't get an AoO. But if I do declare an attack then suddenly, without any reference to my stated intentions, my PC's DEX, etc then I have dropped my guard and the goblins gets to attack me. (Except if the goblin misses, we might then narrate that I didn't drop my guard at all! - Scrhoedinger's guad-dropping!)
You're misreading the situation here - absolutely nothing in the example you posted requires a resolution of the events in order to define them. For example, the existence of an attack of opportunity
does include a reference to yoru stated intentions: you just said that
you declared an attack! Likewise, if the goblin misses, you are still narrated as having dropped your guard - the goblin took advantage of the opportunity and made an attack (since he made an attack roll); it just failed to damage you.
Schrodinger has no place in the scene you described.
pemerton said:
You keep repeating this. But in fact the character can do it again, as has been pointed out repeatedly. It's just that the gameplay pathway to that - the action declaration conventions, and the mechanical devices - might be different.
There is no "might" about it. Even if you avail yourself of page 42 to say that such limits don't exist, you still can't perform them with the same efficacy that you could beforehand. Ergo, they're not performing the same action - they're performing a gimped version of the same action. You've still impinged on the character's ability to try something to the point where it's noticeable in-game without a narrative reason for why that is.
pemerton said:
In AD&D combat, the action declaration is not identical with the action the character attempts. The character attempts many strikes, parries, etc - the player's action declaration determines against which foe a telling blow was possible, and triggers the resolution of that telling blow.
No, they don't. The idea that an attack roll represents a flurry of strikes, counter-strikes, feints, etc. is one that I've never found to be slightly plausible. If that was the case, then why does wielding a weapon in your other hand grant you an additional attack? Why does having poison on a weapon still poison an opponent if all you did was make him more tired from dodging when you dealt hit point damage? Etc.
pemerton said:
Furthermore, the standard wording for an action declaration is "I make an attack roll" or "I roll a skill check" or "I roll a saving throw" - none of these things, all of which involve manipulation of dice and consequent arithmetic, is done by the character.
All of these things are done by the character. They have an associated consequence for what's being attempted in the game world.
pemerton said:
But action declaration happens in regular, ordered sequences. This is why, in 3E and 4e, player action declaration is not the same thing as a character acting in the fiction.
See my previous posts for this. The construction of ordered "turns" in combat is an issue of presentation as the players see it. The segmenting of different "turns" in combat represents characters all dong things in the same short amount of time, where some actions manage to complete before others - even then, the issue of "complete before others" is an issue of presentation for the players, since the issue of "one round ends and another begins" isn't one that affects what happens in the game world.
pemerton said:
Can you please explain how (i) a peasant rail gun is impossible and yet (ii) turn-based mechanics are "associated"?
I just did. See above.
pemerton said:
No. Just as there is no ingame reason why sometimes when my PC is friendly to someone I roll a Diplomacy check but other times I don't.
Yes. There is an in-game reason why being friendly requires no check, whereas trying to convince someone to feel better towards you requires a Diplomacy check.
pemerton said:
Correct. Effectiveness is determined by observing effects.
Incorrect. Efficacy is determined by how well you attempt to do something, not by a retroactively judging it based on its success.
pemerton said:
The presumtion is correct. The game mechanics are known to the players. They are not known to the characters. Likewise for the results of dice rolls. For instance, when a PC hits a dragon for 8 hp of damage (a minor scrape, let's say, given the dragons 80 hp) and hits an bugbear for 2 hp of damage (also a minor scrape, given the bugbear's 20 hp), the character doesn't necessarily experience anything different even though the dice rolls were different. And when the character runs his/her sword into a gelatinous cube (doing, let's say, 8 hp of damage) s/he almost certainly experiences something different from scraping the dragon.
That presumption is incorrect. The game mechanics represent in-character analogues that the characters are aware of. The results of the dice rolls reflects this. In your example, the characters both know that they've scored minor damage on a few, but are aware of the difference due to an intuitive understanding of the difference in the scaling damage. That is, they can determine that what's a scratch to a dragon would be a serious wound to a bugbear, which makes sense - a dragon is a much greater creature, and so requires a great deal more damage just to scratch!
pemerton said:
Similarly, in D&D there is no difference between hitting with a 10 on the d20 and hitting with a 12 - in fact, if I hit with a 10 and then roll 8 hp of damage I was more effective than if I hit with a 12 and then roll 1 hp of damage.
There is a difference between hitting on a 10 and hitting on a 12. Hence why hitting on a 20 is a critical! You can make an awkward attack that still manages to score a large amount of damage, the same way you can land a skillful attack that deals only a little.
In both cases, what's important to take away is that each die roll resolves itself, rather than being part of stringing together a narrative that can only be interpreted after the fact. You know that a roll of 10 is a modestly-skilled blow on your part - how much damage it then inflicts is a separate issue, decided by the damage roll. Now, you can narrate the specifics of what your attack was for the attack roll, and what sort of wound you inflicted on the damage roll, but the association in each case has already been made.
pemerton said:
There are systems in which there is a much closer correlation between dice rolls and "feel" - eg RQ, RM - but they have quite different mechanics from D&D to achieve this, and even they still have some of the same features as D&D (eg high attack roll but low damage/crit roll).
They have their own associated mechanics. Lots of games do.
pemerton said:
I think that this aspect of your debate with Tony Vargas might be enhanced by referring to the actual text of the 4e PHB (p 54):
Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while. . . .
Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit. . . .
Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords, among others, their power.
Nothing there implies that the "reserves" in question are purely physical, given the express reference to "mental resources", "willpower" and "dedication". Also, even if it's true that, in the real world, physical resources are generic - which personally I doubt - there is no reason to suppose that abilities that "stand will beyond the capabilities of ordinay mortals" would behave in the same way as prosaic, real world physical abilities.
Besides the ambiguous reference to "some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals," there's nothing suggesting that these powers are anything but ordinary physical abilities. As I've stated before, the presumption is that - even in a fantasy game - something that has an analogue in the real world and is not explicitly redefined within the context of the fantasy world is presumed to function the same way that it does in the real world.
Now, you could argue that that "beyond the power of ordinary mortals" line is such a redefinition, stating that martial powers are a form of unnatural abilities. In that case - even if they're apart from magic - they're still a sort of "super power," which removes them from the standard presumptions of how physical effort functions. As I stated, if that's the case then there's no problems of association; any sort of magic/supernatural/preternatural/unnatural powers get to set their own rules, and by virtue of that can associate themselves with the game world.
In other words, saying "my fighter powers are magic by another name" solves the underlying problem.
pemerton said:
Can you give an example of an "associated" metagame mechanic?
There should be plenty throughout the thread; that said, here's a self-evident one: an attack roll is associated with making an attack.
pemerton said:
In my personal experience, this is overly simplistic.
For instance, how do players of 1st level PCs in Moldvay Basic act so as to emulate the genre of "heroic action fantasy"? In heroic action fantasy, the protagonists get into fights which they win against the (apparent) odds. In Moldvay Basic, 1st level PCs who get into a fight have a very good chance of dying.
That's because you're leaving the GM out of the equation here. If all of the players want to emulate a particular genre, that should include the GM attempting to frame the world, the campaign, the adventures, and the encounters in ways that lead into that. If the GM hears that the PCs want to play "heroic action fantasy" (where "heroic" means "we win") and puts the PCs up against encounters that are likely to kill them, then all of the people playing the game aren't on the same page.
pemerton said:
Given that, in an RPG, the mechanics are pretty important to outcomes; and given that the outcomes are pretty important to genre; it follows that an RPG's mechanics are pretty important to the genres that it supports.
I'm not suggesting that mechanics - and even genre, believe it or not - are unimportant. I just don't think they're more important than the player's ability to let their character attempt to do whatever the player wants them to try.
pemerton said:
My point is one from the philosophy of action and intention. It's generally accepted that "A tries to do X" entails something like "A believes that it is possible for A to do X." Hence I can't try to jump to the moon, given that I don't believe that it's possible for me to do so.
Leaving aside that the question of what is possible or not are very different in a fantasy world, I don't believe that that follows. You can try to do something even if you don't believe it will succeed - just because failure is a (virtual) certainty does not gainsay the attempt. You might not be able to fly, but you can still try to jump off a cliff and do so. Characters in a game world have - or at least should have, in my opinion - that same freedom to try.