"Stumbling Around in My Head" - The Feeling of Dissociation as a Player

[mmadsen]

Dunno about that - I think I'm pretty simulationist, but I generally prefer Free Kriegspiel ("3 in 6 the Germans win, high roll favours the Russians") - it usually gives better results.

I thought I'd repeat what I cited in another thread, about free kriegspiel (free-form wargaming), since it illustrates the difference between abstract (lacking detail) and disassociated (lacking connection to the modeled reality):

The system for finding the results of combat in a free kriegspiel is classically simple. First of all the umpire looks at the position of each side: how many and what type of troops are involved; how their morale is bearing up; and what orders they have been given. He next considers the ground on which the action will be fought, and any special tactical problems which either side might encounter; whether there are any obstacles in the way of an attacker; whether a flank attack might be possible, and so on.

When the umpire has all relevant information at his disposal, he ought to be able to give an informed opinion on the probabilities of the result. He will not simply say something like 'The French infantry hassuccessfully stormed the hill', but will quote possibilities, such as: 'The French have a 50% chance of storming the hill successfully; a 30% chance of capturing half of it, while disputing the rest; and a 20% chance of being totally repulsed. High scores favour the French'. It is important that the umpire is as specific as possible with these figures, as this forces him to consider all the factors involved in the combat and to think through the full implications of his decision. He must also be clear whether a high dice roll will be good or bad for the attacker, i.e., whether the top 50% (a die roll of 5-9) or the bottom 50% (a roll of 0-4) will mean the hill has been carried. In this case he has stated that the high score will be good for the attacker.​

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let's go with both...

1. Because it creates an inconsistent world (unless there are conditions affecting the fire as I stated earlier).

2. Because if that's not possible it excludes a style of play that has been possible throughout all editions of D&D... the sandbox world... or do you disagree?

1: There are never no conditions affecting the fire. Fires vary in heat from fire to fire. You might as well talk about generic humans as about generic fires or even generic building fires.

2: See 1. It doesn't exclude sandbox play in the slightest. Even the real world is much more varied than you seem to believe.

No this isn't level scaling. This in no way sets the default of a difficulty level on the fly... using a PC's level... instead it sets a level of difficulty consistent with the difficulty of the environment the PC's are in, whatever that may be.

You are talking about 4e rather than 3e here I assume? Because on the one hand you are trumpeting the idea that all fires are the same and on the otehr you are saying that you set the difficulty by the difficulty of the environment.

There are three basic ways of setting difficulty and damage.

1: By level (PC). This is for Adventure Path play because you deliberately trek from place to place that goes up in level.

2: By level (Environment). The rules here are exactly the same as those for level (PC) with the single exception that PCs neeed to look round to work out what area they are in and make sure you aren't too far out of your level's areas.

3: By attempted simulation. And if a burning building turns out to be non-threatening, so be it.

Gygaxian D&D was straight down the line type 2 with dungeon levels and the like. 3e drifts betweeen all three. And 4e is a mix of type 1 and type 2 with the DMG 1 veering more to type 1 and the DMG 2 more to type 2.

Huh? So Arneson and Gygax scaled the diffculty for their PC's according to the PC's... even when they were different class levels and/or when they found a way to explore a higher or lower level of the dungeon they were exploring... I was never under the impression they played this way, intersting...

I have not once anywhere ever found the advice that you should lower the level of a 4e dragon to match that of the PCs - for one thing that would mean changing its size. An adult dragon is always an adult dragon. Or if you gratuitously challenge an entire company of veteran soldiers to single combat they don't mysteriously and miraculously all become minions. It is merely that in adventure path play you are expected to have beatable enemies unless you do something spectacularly stupid. Which is precisely the way it worked for Gygax/Arneson.

The world exists, contrary to your misunderstandings. And about half the skill challenges in the DMG 2 are fixed level. Most of the monsters have a set level. But it is indicated what you are expected to do at certain levels whether through the adventure path model or through the dungeon levels.

 

[Imaro]

1: There are never no conditions affecting the fire. Fires vary in heat from fire to fire. You might as well talk about generic humans as about generic fires or even generic building fires.

Yet there are limits to how hot a fire can get. So there should still be some limitation on just how much damage a fire can do to a person.

2: See 1. It doesn't exclude sandbox play in the slightest. Even the real world is much more varied than you seem to believe.

It has nothing to do with being varied... a building fire has a peak temperature... if I run a game where the damage of fire steadily increases with PC level or I randomly create values of damage to create "narrative" tension at different levels it does tend to exclude sandbox (or at least make it more difficult to implement) play since much of sandbox play is based around learning from one's experiences and using that to inform future decisions.

Fire from a burning building that does 1d6 damage per round in one scene and 8d6 in another and 12d6 in another greatly reduces and/or eliminates my ability to judge whether my character should take certain risks... it also means there is no upper limit to the damage a regular fire can do since the numbers are whatever the DM wants them to beand/or scale with character level. The world isn't that varied

You are talking about 4e rather than 3e here I assume? Because on the one hand you are trumpeting the idea that all fires are the same and on the otehr you are saying that you set the difficulty by the difficulty of the environment.

I am saying there should be an upper limit to the damage a fire can inflict... the 4e way of scaling with level doesn't do this... the 3.x way of setting damage for fire does. If 4e matched damage to environment it would also.

There are three basic ways of setting difficulty and damage.

1: By level (PC). This is for Adventure Path play because you deliberately trek from place to place that goes up in level.

2: By level (Environment). The rules here are exactly the same as those for level (PC) with the single exception that PCs neeed to look round to work out what area they are in and make sure you aren't too far out of your level's areas.

3: By attempted simulation. And if a burning building turns out to be non-threatening, so be it.

Your assumption on number 2 is wrong... not everyone plays games where PC's have no choice but to interact with level appropriate things. Thus an environment can be set at a level but it has nothing to do with PC level at that point. I think this is where your logic falls down, you keep assuming a particular playstyle is the only playstyle. If you don't assume this then in no way are 1 and 2 the same.

I have not once anywhere ever found the advice that you should lower the level of a 4e dragon to match that of the PCs - for one thing that would mean changing its size. An adult dragon is always an adult dragon. Or if you gratuitously challenge an entire company of veteran soldiers to single combat they don't mysteriously and miraculously all become minions. It is merely that in adventure path play you are expected to have beatable enemies unless you do something spectacularly stupid. Which is precisely the way it worked for Gygax/Arneson.

Ok, I'm not sure what you're adult dragon and size spiel is about since a level 1 (young) dragon in 4e is large... and an adult dragon in 4e is also large. But at least now you're admitting that scaling is only used in particular playstyles (like adventure path play).. However I contend you are wrong that Gygax and Arneson played in this style... the PC's were not confined to a dungeon level or challenges that matched their PC's levels and lower level PC's often adventured with PC's of higher level in their games and used henchman to beat higher level challenges.

The world exists, contrary to your misunderstandings. And about half the skill challenges in the DMG 2 are fixed level. Most of the monsters have a set level. But it is indicated what you are expected to do at certain levels whether through the adventure path model or through the dungeon levels.

Again, stating it indicates what you are expected to do is a playstyle assumption, one that is not universal of D&D. For others having a set level doesn't indicate what you should do... it indicates how hard what you are trying to do is.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Neonchameleon!

Orient. This is where 4e and the Bo9S blows the competition out of the water and why I really dislike [MENTION=326]Upper_Krust[/MENTION]'s attempts to generalise powers in play (rather than as a dev tool).

Can you give me an example of what you mean...I'm a tad lost here. Thanks.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What does pulling out all the stops mean?

You're saying you don't know how to try and keep little back for later?

In a real fight, I don't simply choose to pull out all the stops and land my roundhouse kick to the head, or high-amplitude throw, or arm-bar -- and if I do land any of those moves, I'm no less likely to land them again on a different opponent.

In a real fight a roundhouse kick doesn't take six seconds. This 1:1 mapping does not work.

The player and the character are making very different tactical choices. The results can be perfectly plausible and seemingly realistic while the mechanics remain disassociative.

There are several axes to the choices. Opportunity (for which I've said 4e is the most associated bar the Bo9S). Stamina and pacing (for which 4e is decently associated - and a lot better than earlier editions). Positioning (4e again wins). What I'm not deciding is the exact moves used, merely something that maps to a group of them. Only in GURPS do I zoom in to anything like that level.

I believe that many of the same people who dislike 4E's daily and encounter powers would not mind the crusader's random powers and would not find them as disassociative.

I KNOW! Why do you think I've been bringing the Crusader up regularly? Other than to show that there are ways of doing things that D&D has found that work and scratch multiple itches. To me the 3.X fighter is both disassociated because the decisions I'm making do not match the ones I should, and just plain boring. The crusader is neither and that's why I'm mentioning it. Giving credit for when things have been done right.

Yet there are limits to how hot a fire can get. So there should still be some limitation on just how much damage a fire can do to a person.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? How much damage can a fire do to a person? Stand underneath the space shuttle at launch and find out.

It has nothing to do with being varied... a building fire has a peak temperature... if I run a game where the damage of fire steadily increases with PC level or I randomly create values of damage to create "narrative" tension at different levels it does tend to exclude sandbox (or at least make it more difficult to implement) play since much of sandbox play is based around learning from one's experiences and using that to inform future decisions.

You can get a coal fire hot enough to melt iron with sufficient air and enclosure. Would you agree that a human can not survive in an environment that will melt iron?

Yes, there might be a theoretical cap on the heat involved. But unless you're playing magic against magic your PCs will be long dead. I therefore find your argument about a theoretical maximum temperature with respect to sandbox play irrelevant.

Fire from a burning building that does 1d6 damage per round in one scene and 8d6 in another and 12d6 in another greatly reduces and/or eliminates my ability to judge whether my character should take certain risks...

No. Damage you can not judge does that. It doesn't matter what is used to calculate damage just as long as it is consistent.

And as for your example, it is as if you don't know how the 4e rules work at all. The damage expressions GreyICE was praising are on a specific table, setting low, medium, high, and limited damage expressions. The damage by level at level 30 is approximately 4.5 times that at level 1. (Low ranges from 1d6+3 to 4d6+15). Even 8d6 to 12d6 is a jump of 14 levels on the medium damage table (and you're going to be using low or medium for the fire because it's an area effect thing), taking you from level 20 to level 34. That's right. A 12d6 fire is a higher than epic level fire.

If you don't know whether the fire's doing 1d6 or 8d6 damage you aren't playing using the tools of 4e. Period. If you can't tell whether the fire's going to use a low or a high damage expression, your DM is falling down on the job. Badly.

Now can you take your strawmen away and actually learn the rules and use examples in line with the rules please?

Your assumption on number 2 is wrong... not everyone plays games where PC's have no choice but to interact with level appropriate things. Thus an environment can be set at a level but it has nothing to do with PC level at that point.

Which is the entire reason 2 is different from 1. But what you do when you have set that level is exactly the same. Which is why almost all the rules are the same. 4e explicitely supports methods 1 and 2.

However I contend you are wrong that Gygax and Arneson played in this style... the PC's were not confined to a dungeon level or challenges that matched their PC's levels

Which is exactly the definition of style 2. The dungeon level had a level and was set pretty much to that level. (With some margin of error, but 4e also recommends margin of error). And this is independent of the PCs but you expect the PCs to try to be within the area so chosen.

Again, stating it indicates what you are expected to do is a playstyle assumption, one that is not universal of D&D. For others having a set level doesn't indicate what you should do... it indicates how hard what you are trying to do is.

Finally! You're getting what challenge level means in 4e. It means exactly what you have just written right in that paragraph. And this interpretation is the one the DMG 2 supports most of the time. See the fixed level skill challenges.

How you decide what to set the challenge level at is the difference here. And 4e doesn't say you must set it at the level of the party. It says that if you don't have anything else to go on, setting it based on the level of the party is a good place to start.

 

[Iosue]

Hmmm, this isn't exactly what I am speaking of... I am asking for proof that Gary and Arneson actually ran games where they scaled the challenges for their players.

Well, I think you're misinterpreting Neonchameleon's statement, which I read as saying "From the days of OD&D", not "In Gygax and Arneson's personal games.

From the accounts I've been able to read of their actual games they didn't scale by character level and they didn't ensure that character's of a certain level only encountered challenges of a particular level. From what I've read, there was a dungeon with levels and the PC's were basically allowed to explore whatever levels of the dungeon they could reach. That's not scaling by party level, that's having a system to determine the difficulty of different levels in the dungeon(which is a different thing entirely since it is mostly for proper XP but it in no way ensures that the PC's meet appropriate challenges for their level.

What is "for proper XP" if not to encourage PC's meeting appropriate challenges for their level? Why do PC's get more than standard XP for defeating above level monsters and less for defeating below level monsters?

You say that they didn't scale by character level or ensure encounters of a certain level, but that is exactly what the dungeon level system does (and which both Gygax and Arneson used). Just because they didn't feel absolutely bound to it, and were happy to let characters explore "above their pay grade", as it were, doesn't mean that creating level appropriate encounters wasn't part of their game. If it isn't, there's no need to have "dungeon levels" or "monster levels" at all, as Wesely's "Braunstein" games showed. As soon as they introduced the idea of character's leveling up, they introduced the idea of appropriate challenges.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Howdy Neonchameleon!

Can you give me an example of what you mean...I'm a tad lost here. Thanks.

Your revised 4e fighter with freeform powers. It's a nice piece of work - but building the powers as you go to me conflicts with the "See opportunity. Take opportunity" approach that does well in combat. It also means that if you can find an excessively good combo (Aggressive Stance/Overwhelming Attack springs to mind due to the charge hole) you are encouraged to spam the thing.

 

[mmadsen]

You're saying you don't know how to try and keep little back for later?

No, I'm asking you to be far more specific about what pulling out all the stops means, because making an extra effort when you see your chance in real life is nothing like using up a daily power in the game -- although both may appear the same from the outside.

In a real fight a roundhouse kick doesn't take six seconds. This 1:1 mapping does not work.

I am not arguing for a game where you choose a very specific move every six seconds and see whether it worked or not. I am arguing against a game where you choose a move every six seconds from your remaining daily and per-encounter powers.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Scaling in OD&D, Classic D&D and AD&D was based on the interaction of character level, monster level and dungeon level. It's one reason why they all use the word "level". In general, characters were expected to be exploring dungeon levels at their character level, or up to two levels higher or lower.

Old Geezer on RPGnet who played with Gary, Dave and MAR Barker always talks about the world/dungeon being laid out before, and not changing in relation to the player at all - that was the only way a GM could cheat.

So if a part of 1st level characters took a wrong turn on a mountain path and ran into a lich it wasn't scaled and the party would die (or run). If a group of 10th level characters took the other path and ran into a bunch of 1st level orcs, the same. They have a cakewalk.

The guidelines to building the adventure and encounter were guidelines - but once the situation was set up, then it never changed. So really there were no level dependent encounters. The GM set up the world that there would be easier areas (A level 1 dungeon) and harder ones. But whatever level the PCs were, if they decided to go to an easier or harder place they never changed.

The GM doesn't run a 1st level adventure for 10th level characters - the character (in an open sandbox type world) would choose to go to the 1st level area - and wipe everything out. No level challenges. But no real reward for their actions either.

A fire in a first level dungeon would do X damage, and have Y save.
A fire in a 10th level dungeon would do A damage, and have B save.

But those damages and saves had no relation to the party, other than the party (whatever level) went into said fire at whatever level they were.

 

[Viking Bastard]

That is exactly the directness I'm saying doesn't happen.

[...]

In short, when a fighter commences a swing (or stab, or lunge, etc.), he or she is not waiting with bated breath to see if it connects or not - that is something that is already clear to them. The supposed parallel between the anticipation of waiting to see the result of the die roll and getting to know whether or not the blow strikes home does not exist; it's more a question of "has my move created an opening?" - followed by "the swing".

And I don't think any of this has any bearing on that feel of [roll = swing]. I guess, maybe if you're someone who knows a lot about melee combat, but it's all about that feeling that when you're rolling the dice, you're actually swinging the sword. Whether this is realistic doesn't matter.

I'm very much of the narrativist, top-down, school of play. I identify very much with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s examples of play, even though he takes the style further than me. And I have a hard time grasping people's gripes with Healing Surges and a lot of other arguably "disassociated" gaming mechanics.

But this I get: Roll = swing. Yeah. I feel like that too when I roll those dice.