D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[Balesir]

3) The player/PC examines what game-mechanics means are available for achieving these goals. If a suitable power fits, it is selected. If not, return to step 2 or examine whether a scene resource can justify a stand-in. At this point the (probabilistic) effects are generally fixed.

This was in general a fine post, but I would add just one detail that I find important just here.

With a little practice, I find it quite possible to think in (quasi-)game-world terms at this stage. I say "quasi" because there is an important difference that I think is inevitable; my own knowledge and understanding of the game system substitutes for the character's knowledge and understanding of the game world. The realities of fighting even human-sized enemies with edged weapons and shields is something I have no experience of; add to that the fact that the game-world physics that entail dragons and manticores flying, for instance, must be quite different to real world physics and I can only conclude that I have no real points of reference from the real world model that I carry in my head to the game-world model that we imagine the characters carrying in theirs. So the mechanical system acts as a proxy. I make judgements of likely outcomes or the advisability of a course of action by the character based on my knowledge of the game system. I imagine the character to be making their judgements based on a model of their world similar to the one I carry in my head of my world, but that model, like the character, is imaginary, so I can't use it directly.

If the mechanical system of resolution is actually a model held primarily in another (real) person's head, I have a problem. Now I have access to no useful model at all of the likely outcomes or validity of any plan I make for my character.

As a GM, placing my players in this position is not something I wish to do. The easiest (though not the only) way to avoid it is to tell them up-front what the system of resolution is. If a published work can do that for me, it's useful.

 

[pemerton]

Call me old fashioned, but where I come from Metagame is a BAD thing.

I don't know if you're old fashioned or not. But I have no objection to metagame. My personal opinion is that mainstream D&D can't work without it - it is metagame pressures, not ingame ones, that keep the average party together (truly Gygaxian play is immune to this, though, because it has no such thing as "the party", just "this session's expedition members").

But anyway, besides the metagame covention of the party, there's a lot of other stuff I like the metagame to do. For instance, at the start of my campaign, I told each player that his/her PC (1) had to have one object of loyalty, and (2) have a reason to be ready to fight goblins. That metagame requirement kicked my game off, and sowed the seeds of thematic elements that have kept the game going for 4 years and 20 levels.

Metagame is the opposite of verisimilitude

That may be true for you, but not for me. Things can be verisimilitudinous, to me at least, although known to be authored deliberately for effect. I will nominate Minas Tirith in Peter Jackson's Return of the King as an example.

I also don't find that metagame is an obstacle to immersion.

as one requires you to think about the action on stage and the other the wires that control the puppets.

I find it possible to think those two things at once.

The PCs control the grand narrative (its their story). They often control the driving narrative (their choices influence the direction of the story) and increasingly they want to control the minutiae of the refereeing as well.

My players don't want to control the minutiae of the refereeing. They want to have levers they can pull that will make changes in the fiction, without needing my permission first.

The latter is illustrated in the concept that the player doesn't want to bull rush the giant; he has a high degree of failure because of size and strength. He wants the power that lets him do it regardless of size, strength, shape, or any other logical factors of resistance AND do his regular damage to boot.

Huh? The giant's AC, which will among other things reflect its size and strength, is a consideration here. If the player had his/her PC Bull Rush instead, the chance of success may be a little lower (Fort for many, but not all, giants is better than AC).

As for dealing damage too - what's wrong with that? An AD&D fighter can make 3 attack rolls ever two rounds. The rate at which weapon damage is dealt has no connection to verisimilitude - it only arises within the framework of the game's action economy, which is pure metagame.

So by artificially limiting a PCs actions in hand to what is on his power sheet vs. giving them usable combat actions at will, you automatically doomed said group rather than give that fighter the 1 in 20 shot of saving them?

I don't see how it's in any special sense artificial. The whole game is artifice. The action economy is artifice - why can't a 1st level fighter in AD&D attack twice per round no matter how hard s/he tries? Whatever you think the answer is to that - s/he's not good enough, she needs more training, the enemies are too quick, she is trying but misses automatically without getting a roll to hit, whatever - the same explanation will do for why the 4e fighter can't trip twice per round unless the player invests in a second tripping power.

As to "automatically doomed said group", why would the PCs be doomed because they can't trip someone? The players will just have to think of something else!

But my players assume that since I am the GM, my ruling is law at my table and I could (in theory) throw the PHB in the trash and the game could keep running. Your DM is bound by the letter and spirit of the rules, mine IS the rules.

I'm the GM in my group. But you are correct that I am bound by the rules. That's part of the point of having rules, for me at least! That is, I don't see the rules simply as rought heuristics for working out how things happen within the fiction ("rules as physics of the gameworld"). I see the rules primarily as allocating narrative power across the participants. They let me do a lot of stuff - for instance, declare that some particular NPC or monster enters the fictional action. But they let the players do some stuff, too - such as (if the fictional circumstances are right) roll a die, and if it comes up a certain value or higher tell me to roll my die, and if it comes up below 10 then while its true-in-the-fiction that this NPC or monster is there, it's also true that said NPC/monster is plunging down a cliff.

You call it narrative control, I call it player entitlement.

My players are entitiled to have a share of the authorship of the fiction, given that that's what they're turning up every fortnight to do.

 

[Remathilis]

You leave my Tomb of Horrors and Acererak will continue plotting. Maybe send trouble the party's way. Maybe attack the nearest innocent village in retaliation. Act according to his goals even if the party takes a coffee break.

Not really what I meant. The ACTION follows the PCs, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is motionless. If the PCs want to ignore Acerack to go focus on Lloth, that's fine. Both will remain a menace for other adventurers to handle and do dastardly things in their downtime off camera.

These are good examples, but I would like to point out that rather than different editions these corresponds better to different gamestyles.

If there is a problem, is that anyone who takes the role of a DM often has one gamestyle in mind but (a) fails to check if the edition/system being used supports that gamestyle well enough, and (b) fails to communicate the choice of gamestyle to the players before playing.

This is when you get arguments at the gaming table, because if the group has not agreed beforehand, each player will have different expectations, most likely each of them will expect that their favourite gamestyle will be used, because some gamers haven't even ever tried to consider that their favourite gamestyle isn't THE gamestyle or the best of them but simply just their favourite.

Oh absolutely. My reason for using editions was that the expectation of the feel the rule-sets attempt to give in the game. 1e was based around a permissive DM, 2e emphasized the "yes, and..." notion (the example is right of the Complete Fighter's Handbook, btw), 3e gave solid and detailed rules for everything, and 4e demands plot cards to do cool things*.

* Yeah, yeah, page 42. Page 42 is suggestions for DM fiat and really no different than our 2e DM pulling rules out of his backside, except the page has a chart to determine what a "fair" rule would be. Page 42 actually defeats attempts to define "player narrativism" since, by definition, its the rules for DM rules adjudication and essentially defines the "mother may I" play style that narrativists rail against.

I don't know if you're old fashioned or not. But I have no objection to metagame. My personal opinion is that mainstream D&D can't work without it - it is metagame pressures, not ingame ones, that keep the average party together (truly Gygaxian play is immune to this, though, because it has no such thing as "the party", just "this session's expedition members").

Wait, a gathering of adventurers is a metagame concept now? Um... No. Groups of people have worked together for a common goal since man discovered how to talk with one another. It might be a bit metagamey to get the party together (you are all in a bar and decide to work together) but after that, bonds of loyalty, friendship, shared goals, and common interests keep the party together.

But anyway, besides the metagame covention of the party, there's a lot of other stuff I like the metagame to do. For instance, at the start of my campaign, I told each player that his/her PC (1) had to have one object of loyalty, and (2) have a reason to be ready to fight goblins. That metagame requirement kicked my game off, and sowed the seeds of thematic elements that have kept the game going for 4 years and 20 levels.

I'm seeing our problem. What you call "metagame" I call "role-playing."

Think of it like this: There are two elements of the game: the action as the characters perceive it (the narrative, or game) and the action as the player's perceive it (the metagame or rules). When a character makes a decision, he be limited to (as much as possible) what the character can perceive. Thus, a fighter sees a troll, he knows he's outmatched because trolls rend flesh in seconds and recover grievous wounds, not because a troll is CR 7 and has regeneration 5.

There is some metagame thinking that can't be avoided (I'm low on hp, I'm gonna retreat) but PCs should be able to justify (in character) what happens (I'm wounded badly). However, I tend to think actions in combat as something the PCs can control, and they must try to make their decisions based on what the character sees and create rational, in game, explanations. (I tripped the goblin and he fell. I'm going to try it again and see if he falls again. vs. I tripped the goblin, now I can't try it again until the next fight).

My players don't want to control the minutiae of the refereeing. They want to have levers they can pull that will make changes in the fiction, without needing my permission first.

And THERE'S the entitlement. Why? Are they afraid you'll say no? Are they afraid you'll set some difficult DC and won't succeed? Are they afraid a wasted attempt is as bad as doing nothing? Are they afraid their halfling fighter with a 16 strength can't push the ogre into the campfire because the rules are stacked against small creatures pushing large ogre's in fires?

I don't think there's a DM in the world that wouldn't let you /try/ to push the giant around with your shield. I don't know a DM who wouldn't. They can try, and lucky dice rolls later might succeed. Or they might fail. And that's what the Tide of Iron power shields you from: failure. It just happens. It doesn't matter if its a pixie or the Tarrasque, it just happens.

Huh? The giant's AC, which will among other things reflect its size and strength, is a consideration here. If the player had his/her PC Bull Rush instead, the chance of success may be a little lower (Fort for many, but not all, giants is better than AC).

Oh please. A giant's AC is reflective on its level in 4e and you know it. Size and strength play nothing into a monster's AC. Two level 8 monsters have roughly the same AC (within a few points) and it doesn't matter if they're nymphs using magical power, drow in chain armor, or giants with clubs. Level alone determines the bulk of AC in 4e, justify to yourself how you like.

Now, in 3e with its pain-in-the-butt-realism, bull rushin was hard. You made a touch AC roll, then an opposed strength check, which DID take into account that giant's 25 strength a +8 size mod. Tell me 4e's atk vs. AC is anywhere near as complicated, or as realistic, as that?

As for dealing damage too - what's wrong with that? An AD&D fighter can make 3 attack rolls ever two rounds. The rate at which weapon damage is dealt has no connection to verisimilitude - it only arises within the framework of the game's action economy, which is pure metagame.

In 3e, he moves his foe OR he deals damage. In 4e, player gets cake and eats it too.

I'm the GM in my group. But you are correct that I am bound by the rules. That's part of the point of having rules, for me at least! That is, I don't see the rules simply as rought heuristics for working out how things happen within the fiction ("rules as physics of the gameworld"). I see the rules primarily as allocating narrative power across the participants. They let me do a lot of stuff - for instance, declare that some particular NPC or monster enters the fictional action. But they let the players do some stuff, too - such as (if the fictional circumstances are right) roll a die, and if it comes up a certain value or higher tell me to roll my die, and if it comes up below 10 then while its true-in-the-fiction that this NPC or monster is there, it's also true that said NPC/monster is plunging down a cliff.

My players are entitiled to have a share of the authorship of the fiction, given that that's what they're turning up every fortnight to do.

See, my players come to the game with the consent to be ruled. I, in turn, do not abuse their trust and give them a game they will enjoy. If I don't, they don't come and I am a DM of nothing.

I use the rules since they are the agreed upon parameter's for the night. However, when the rules come between fun and not fun, I chuck the rules and opt for fun. However, the payoff is that this sometimes screws the players as often as it helps them. Sometimes the ogre has 15 extra hp because the critical hit would have felled it in the first attack and everyone else wanted a shot at it. Sometimes the ogre's critical hit against the wounded cleric comes up a natural 1. Player doesn't know, he just knows that the ogre battle was exciting. He's willing to trust I'll make just and fair calls in the best interest of all.

However, what I am being told again and again (and this round did nothing to correct me) is that players feel the DM won't always make the "right" call when it comes to when to screw the rules (usually when it benefits them) and they want the ability to make those calls for him. I guess for conventions and RPGA games where you don't have camaraderie with your fellow players/DM that's fine. But in a home game it strikes me as players wanting DM privileges for themselves without the responsibilities of actually DMing (creating scenarios, game prep, etc). That is the entitlement I dislike and every time a decides that my fleeing monsters would turn around, run back, and receive their one good whacking (perhaps killing them in the process) I feel the trust is broken and antagonism, not cooperation, has sunk into the rules.

 

[Iosue]

But in a home game it strikes me as players wanting DM privileges for themselves without the responsibilities of actually DMing (creating scenarios, game prep, etc). That is the entitlement I dislike and every time a decides that my fleeing monsters would turn around, run back, and receive their one good whacking (perhaps killing them in the process) I feel the trust is broken and antagonism, not cooperation, has sunk into the rules.

If pemerton's style is not for you, great. I suspect it's not for me, either. But point you seem to be missing is that in his game pemerton wants to share DM privileges. He wants to adjudicate and arbitrate as little as possible, and spend his energy creating a structure on which he and his players can build on. It's not entitlement, it's shared responsibility. And as far as 5e goes, he doesn't demand that everyone play like that; he just wants 5e to not make that kind of play difficult.

 

[jhunton]

I personly think there shoued be a basice or starter rule set that takes you to higher leveles of play that do,s not have any add ons at all.simler to basic D&D so if they don,t wount to play any thing more complexed they don,t have to . then add on more things as you go. now I know there will be a set of core rules but ther not simpele anuff for a new be.MIKE M sead you don,t get the add on till 3L.ok but why not make them a option to add on rether then tell me ther to be add at 3L.some players like a basic simmple set of rules that can be tought in about 30 mins .

 

[stoloc]

And THERE'S the entitlement. Why? Are they afraid you'll say no? Are they afraid you'll set some difficult DC and won't succeed? Are they afraid a wasted attempt is as bad as doing nothing? Are they afraid their halfling fighter with a 16 strength can't push the ogre into the campfire because the rules are stacked against small creatures pushing large ogre's in fires?

I don't think there's a DM in the world that wouldn't let you /try/ to push the giant around with your shield. I don't know a DM who wouldn't. They can try, and lucky dice rolls later might succeed. Or they might fail. And that's what the Tide of Iron power shields you from: failure. It just happens. It doesn't matter if its a pixie or the Tarrasque, it just happens.



Oh please. A giant's AC is reflective on its level in 4e and you know it. Size and strength play nothing into a monster's AC. Two level 8 monsters have roughly the same AC (within a few points) and it doesn't matter if they're nymphs using magical power, drow in chain armor, or giants with clubs. Level alone determines the bulk of AC in 4e, justify to yourself how you like.

Now, in 3e with its pain-in-the-butt-realism, bull rushin was hard. You made a touch AC roll, then an opposed strength check, which DID take into account that giant's 25 strength a +8 size mod. Tell me 4e's atk vs. AC is anywhere near as complicated, or as realistic, as that?



In 3e, he moves his foe OR he deals damage. In 4e, player gets cake and eats it too.




See, my players come to the game with the consent to be ruled. I, in turn, do not abuse their trust and give them a game they will enjoy. If I don't, they don't come and I am a DM of nothing.

I use the rules since they are the agreed upon parameter's for the night. However, when the rules come between fun and not fun, I chuck the rules and opt for fun. However, the payoff is that this sometimes screws the players as often as it helps them. Sometimes the ogre has 15 extra hp because the critical hit would have felled it in the first attack and everyone else wanted a shot at it. Sometimes the ogre's critical hit against the wounded cleric comes up a natural 1. Player doesn't know, he just knows that the ogre battle was exciting. He's willing to trust I'll make just and fair calls in the best interest of all.

However, what I am being told again and again (and this round did nothing to correct me) is that players feel the DM won't always make the "right" call when it comes to when to screw the rules (usually when it benefits them) and they want the ability to make those calls for him. I guess for conventions and RPGA games where you don't have camaraderie with your fellow players/DM that's fine. But in a home game it strikes me as players wanting DM privileges for themselves without the responsibilities of actually DMing (creating scenarios, game prep, etc). That is the entitlement I dislike and every time a decides that my fleeing monsters would turn around, run back, and receive their one good whacking (perhaps killing them in the process) I feel the trust is broken and antagonism, not cooperation, has sunk into the rules.

A) If I'm looking for realism I'm not looking to dnd as it is inherently unrealistic.

B) Rule of cool usually outweighs petty and poorly done physics simulations.

C) Complicated is not inherently better.

D) I see nothing wrong with trading some damage for some effects as you do in 4e.

E) GM's are going to make decisions in ANY edition that players are going to disagree with. It's happened in every game I've played in (since Red Box). No clue why you think this means 4e players suffer from some sort of entitlement syndrome.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Not really what I meant. The ACTION follows the PCs, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is motionless. If the PCs want to ignore Acerack to go focus on Lloth, that's fine. Both will remain a menace for other adventurers to handle and do dastardly things in their downtime off camera.

You're saying exactly what I reacted to. Acererak in my example does not remain a menace just for other adventurers to handle. He is a menace that affects the world that the PCs are a part of. They could continue to ignore the menace but face in-game consequences. And saying that ACTION only occurs around the PCs is the break in verisimilitude I'm speaking to. That break is OK in some people's minds, but others aren't. I don't get that attitude.

And THERE'S the entitlement. Why? Are they afraid you'll say no? Are they afraid you'll set some difficult DC and won't succeed? Are they afraid a wasted attempt is as bad as doing nothing? Are they afraid their halfling fighter with a 16 strength can't push the ogre into the campfire because the rules are stacked against small creatures pushing large ogre's in fires?

I don't think there's a DM in the world that wouldn't let you /try/ to push the giant around with your shield. I don't know a DM who wouldn't. They can try, and lucky dice rolls later might succeed. Or they might fail. And that's what the Tide of Iron power shields you from: failure. It just happens. It doesn't matter if its a pixie or the Tarrasque, it just happens.

It's this pass/fail mentality of D&D to date that stifles cinematic-style play. When recently explaining to a friend how Marvel Heroic Roleplaying worked, he was concerned that cinematic style was called for, but would be squashed by pass/fail rules. His example, sliding down the staircase on a shield while firing a bow in the LotR movie, in D&D terms under most DMs would probably invovle a difficult Acrobatics (or whatever) DC for some small bonus. While failure would leave you injured and prone, success might get you +2 to hit! Joy.

In MHRP the Grand Staircase would be a Scene Distiction. You could model that slide down the staircase two ways. You could add the distiction as a bonus for your bewildering slide down the stairs. No downside, just using a cinematic trope instead of just firing your bow again. Next the dwarf could add the disctinction as a downside, stating that his stubby legs make it difficult to charge down the steep staircase. He takes a risk by adding a negative, but gets a plot point for imposing the downside on himself.

The game can be built as such that players have choices.

And THERE'S the DM entitlement. Why? Are you afraid they'll always take advantage? Are you afraid they'll get a bonus die that helps them succeed? Are you afraid that by having no wasted attempts is going to ruin your monsters plans? Are you afraid their halfling fighter with a 16 strength wants to use the push rules to run between the ogre's legs to trip him up and have him stumble into the campfire?

Now, in 3e with its pain-in-the-butt-realism, bull rushin was hard. You made a touch AC roll, then an opposed strength check, which DID take into account that giant's 25 strength a +8 size mod. Tell me 4e's atk vs. AC is anywhere near as complicated, or as realistic, as that?

It's ONLY realistic if you narrowly define Bull Rush as literally pushing an enemy with brute force. If you allow more narritive freedom you can use Bull Rush as a general rule without having to tack on psuedo-realism. And let's be honest, no one really know how tough it is to push a giant, so who can say +8 is any more realistic than +0?

See, my players come to the game with the consent to be ruled.

Mine come for rulings.

But in a home game it strikes me as players wanting DM privileges for themselves without the responsibilities of actually DMing (creating scenarios, game prep, etc). That is the entitlement I dislike and every time a decides that my fleeing monsters would turn around, run back, and receive their one good whacking (perhaps killing them in the process) I feel the trust is broken and antagonism, not cooperation, has sunk into the rules.

This strikes me a DM afraid to share control. I don't think anyone here is advocating "anything goes" style play, no matter how many people accuse others of wanting that. Sharing control allows for an expansion of ideas. It doesn't take a DM that abuses a players' trust to create unsatisfactory results. Different people have different expectations. Back in 1E I certainly was dissapointed that my attempt to cross body block the wolfwere after all but the wizard's magic quarterstaff bounced off its hide was met with a roll to hit that even with success did virtually nothing to stop the wolfwere from attacking the wizard instead of being occupied by the ranger laying on his chest. That DM and I had different expectations of how that would pan out, I was disappointed, but I don't think he was being a jerk.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For your specific example, the easiest solution is not to rely on the rules to dictate what you can and cannot affect. This works for "tripping oozes" and "sneak attacking undead" the like, too, BTW. The effects that generate a "push" don't specify anywhere what types of creature they can and cannot effect, and the DM is given explicit permission and encouragement to make that decision for themselves. So in Game A, you can't push a giant, but in Game B maybe you can, and in Game C you can if you "describe it well enough." It is up to the judgement of the judge to determine if a given ability works, and the judge can always say "no." All the rules say is "This damages the enemy and pushes them."

One onion layer that might have some benefits (especially for newbies and casual players) is to have a generalized default that is easy to override. IE: Generally, you can't push a creature bigger than Large. Maybe in Game D you can, because they ignore that rule, because it's more fun for them that way. That has the benefit of easy judgment calls for newbies, but is also flexible without wrecking anything for folks who want other stuff.

To achieve this, we're going to have to tolerate that each table is going to be different, and that at the table where the DM doesn't let it work against giants and the adventure is all about giants, the ability won't be very useful, and that's fine. You shouldn't pick that ability in that DM's game. Pick something else. Player are not entitled to have their abilities work the same at every DM's table worldwide (but a given DM may very well grant players that).



I can't find the blurb right now, but I think it was in 2e, where specifically, the idea of magic missiles as screaming skulls came from. I think it was 2e because I remember the advice being kind of long-winded and unfocused, generally talking about how this is fine as long as there's no advantage to be gained. And there were examples of this as early as OD&D, where every monster was rather explicitly just a skin on some table stats, and the game talked about adding whatever the hell you wanted, as long as you gave it some numbers from that table. Re-fluffing wasn't invented in 2008.

I pointed out that 4e embraced this more fully than most other editions, but also that there was a cost for this: the wall that was built between gameplay and story was an intolerable thing for a big chunk of the player base. I'd prefer it to be more of a semi-permeable membrane at the level of the game rules, so that I can let them be basically the same thing, and a fan of 4e's iron-clad division could make them not overlap at all and we could all be playing the same thing.



I think the rules can be silent on pushing a giant centipede, because the DM can make the decision that is right for her table about that, and it can be different at different tables. It doesn't need to be a rule. It can be something decided in the moment. Alternately, the rules can have a default mode that is easy to override, without tremendously affecting balance or spiraling into complex rules interactions. Either way, you don't need to quantify exceptions in the rules text, you just need to give DMs permission and guidance about making their own exceptions.

That may mean that people whose fun relies on always being able to use their given abilities won't play under certain DM's, but that's fine. They can all still be playing D&D5e, because it's a big-tent kind of game, that abides the presence of people who are too strong about their magical elf preferences to have fun making funny voices and rolling dice together.

I'm a little puzzled. I've never been able to find where it was in the 4e rules that it said "the DM shall not take into account the size of a creature or make any narrative based changes to the resolution of actions or other effects". It isn't even SUGGESTED. At least IMHO and in my play the divorce between mechanics and narrative wasn't there to create some sort of soulless wargame where the story is just window dressing. Quite the opposite, it was intended to remove BARRIERS to creating an interesting story. The player of the fighter gets to tell us how his character forces the giant back 5' instead of "Section 3.4.2.1 - Size Modifiers to Forced Movement: You shall reduce the size of the forced move up or down by one square per size category difference between the character being pushed and the character doing the pushing as follows...." (OK, D&D has never been THAT dry, but certain versions felt like that after a certain point).

I'm fine with the players and the DM working out the impact of the narrative. In this case generalized rules like 4e's page 42 are really handy. If the fighter wants to not just push the giant back, but there are going to be additional implications based on the narrative (maybe there's a fence behind the giant it might trip over) then that can be worked in via these general 'cover anything' type of rules.

So in this vein I'd want to see decoupling, and general catch-all rules, and an explanation of how all that fits together (which seems to have been missing in 4e). From there its easy for one group to just play 'wargame mode' if they want, another group to follow standard 'this works, and this doesn't' but allow for some narrative modifications to that (IE describe how it does work and it will), and some other group might just make up all sorts of crazy things for their own game. There can then be options like "all undead can't be backstabbed" if you want to play that way.

 

[Ainamacar]

This was in general a fine post, but I would add just one detail that I find important just here.

First off, thank you. I wrote it in a spirit of good faith, and I'm gratified it has been received that way. I hope we can keep that tone.

With a little practice, I find it quite possible to think in (quasi-)game-world terms at this stage. I say "quasi" because there is an important difference that I think is inevitable; my own knowledge and understanding of the game system substitutes for the character's knowledge and understanding of the game world. The realities of fighting even human-sized enemies with edged weapons and shields is something I have no experience of; add to that the fact that the game-world physics that entail dragons and manticores flying, for instance, must be quite different to real world physics and I can only conclude that I have no real points of reference from the real world model that I carry in my head to the game-world model that we imagine the characters carrying in theirs. So the mechanical system acts as a proxy. I make judgements of likely outcomes or the advisability of a course of action by the character based on my knowledge of the game system. I imagine the character to be making their judgements based on a model of their world similar to the one I carry in my head of my world, but that model, like the character, is imaginary, so I can't use it directly.

By no means do I think you have to completely divorce yourself from the fiction until the very end, just as I would not ignore mechanics in determining what means are available. (I did try to keep that nuance intact in my post.) Still the reliability and purpose accorded the rules as a proxy does vary. In one view the world tends to precede the rules, and the rules attempt to model it well (but fall short). In another, the rules in some sense precede the world, and the world attempts to reflect it well (but falls short). Design tends to be iterative so that neither is strictly true. (It can even vary depending on how one is designing a game. When I create a D&D campaign I tend to build a world that reflects the existing rules well, so that at the table I'm not constantly fighting them while running in a means-primacy fashion. If I'm adapting an existing world to non-native rules I'm more likely to change the rules to preserve the world once we finally sit down at the table.) At the table both are largely fixed. The means-primacy view will tend to make the rules bend to reflect the world, but how much it bends is constrained by the existing rules. The effect-primacy view will tend to make the world bend to reflect the rules, but how much it bends is constrained by what makes sense given what the rules do. In neither case do we have a free-for-all.

If the mechanical system of resolution is actually a model held primarily in another (real) person's head, I have a problem. Now I have access to no useful model at all of the likely outcomes or validity of any plan I make for my character.

Therefore I find that statement to be a significant exaggeration. "Every model is wrong, but some are useful" as the saying goes. Both means-primacy and effect-primacy give models that are wrong, and both provide the player and DM a model that is useful. (I believe this theoretically, but also empirically because everyone in this discussion says their preference works for them, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.) They are making different tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs are not unbounded: unless your DM is a slaad the mechanical system of resolution in his or her head is still constrained by what the rules say, even if the fiction has logical primacy. The means-primacy DM *wants* the rules for that very purpose! Another method may work better for you, but in both sorts of games if a character falls in lava you can reasonably expect it to be burning or dead. The rules are probably silent about whether the character sinks or not, but you can reasonably suppose that the character will not grow wings due to falling in lava -- the model is less constrained than normal due to rules silence, but still not gonzo. The actual ruling may depend on whether the DM identifies with movie physics (sinks) or real-world physics (buoyant for a typical organic creature in typical molten rock), and perhaps that will lead to an argument since the consequences in either case could be drastically different. My point is that if even when there are no written rules it is possible, even likely, to generate a model with some usefulness. In most cases usefulness will fail gracefully. I will not dispute that enjoyment depends on usefulness of some sufficient degree or that you are wrong to dislike how that usefulness degrades in some DMing styles.

 

[pemerton]

A giant's AC is reflective on its level in 4e and you know it. Size and strength play nothing into a monster's AC. Two level 8 monsters have roughly the same AC (within a few points) and it doesn't matter if they're nymphs using magical power, drow in chain armor, or giants with clubs. Level alone determines the bulk of AC in 4e

Of course. But why is a giant or drow or nymph that level? Because of its size and strength, or its underdarkness or its feyness.

In that 4e is a bit more like AD&D - it hangs a lot more on hit dice (or level) than 3E does. (AD&D makes AC independent of hit dice; 4e doesn't; but on the other hand 4e has more hp variation by hit dice/level than does AD&D, where they're all d8s.)

And THERE'S the entitlement. Why? Are they afraid you'll say no?

It's not about fear. It's about autonomy.

Why don't you want your entitlement to post on this board to be subject to my permission? Are you afraid I'll say no? Well, maybe you are! - but even if you weren't, why should I have authority over your posting? That would defeat the whole purpose of a discussion board.

So, in a game of joint authorship, why should one author have all the power? That sounds self-defeating to me.

Are they afraid you'll set some difficult DC and won't succeed? Are they afraid a wasted attempt is as bad as doing nothing? Are they afraid their halfling fighter with a 16 strength can't push the ogre into the campfire because the rules are stacked against small creatures pushing large ogre's in fires?

For me, at least, that's a slightly different point.

If the player builds a brawler halfing fighter, the player is (among other things) presenting a certain conception of the PC s/he wants to play. If I don't want that sort of PC in the game, I'll talk about it upfront pre-play ("Given we're going for semi-gritty Heroic tier rather than default all out gonzo, maybe a halfling brawler doesn't fit in."). But once the PC has been built, I don't see it as my job to thwart the players' conception of his/her PC. There are plenty of challenges I can set up that don't involve doing that.

Tell me 4e's atk vs. AC is anywhere near as complicated, or as realistic, as that?

I think it's less complicated, and that that's a virtue. (I've got nothing against complicated simulationist systems, but the only ones I would run myself are RM or HARP, or perhaps RQ.)

On "realism" - who's to say? For instance, if a PC is a Hercules-like superheroic figure, then 4e - which lets that PC do superheroic things - is truer to the fiction than 3E.

If pemerton's style is not for you, great. I suspect it's not for me, either. But point you seem to be missing is that in his game pemerton wants to share DM privileges. He wants to adjudicate and arbitrate as little as possible, and spend his energy creating a structure on which he and his players can build on. It's not entitlement, it's shared responsibility. And as far as 5e goes, he doesn't demand that everyone play like that; he just wants 5e to not make that kind of play difficult.

Thanks. That's exactly right.