D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Retros_x]

I'm not sure if this is again some semantic hang-up, or do you genuinely think that empathy and method acting are not real.

Empathy towards your own fictional character is completely different than empathy towards an actual human being. Method acting draws from your own ACTUAL emotional experiences, like completely simplified: If a method actor plays a sad scene, they remember them being real sad the last time. Method actors are not "becoming the character". They basically play themselves (this is a little jab not meant seriously, because I come from a different acting school).

Roleplaying a character is always mostly the own imagination. Thats why I would play the same charactersheet with same traits etc. completely different than you. Because we have different perception and imagination of "how Aragorn the ranger" would act.

 

[pemerton]

I'd suggest we have to be precise on what we mean, because I think we are after 2 different types of immersion. For your type that disassociation may not matter. For our type, it certainly does.

Well, this is what I get from Oxford Languages, via Google:

noun: immersion

1. 1.
   the action of immersing someone or something in a liquid.
   "his back was still raw from immersion in the icy Atlantic sea"
   • baptism[/URL] by immersing a person bodily (but not necessarily completely) in water.
2. 2.
   deep mental involvement in something.
   "a week's immersion in the culinary heritage of Puglia"
   • a method of teaching a foreign language by the exclusive use of that language.
     "as a teacher she advocates learning by immersion"

So we're talking about being deeply mentally involved with the fiction - imagining it with a certain intensity, and making decisions about the game by reference to the fiction.

I don't know what the "two types" are supposed to be.

And the idea that, by deciding to go harder - say, by throwing in an extra die from a pool - there must be a reduction in immersion is simply a false empirical conjecture. I mean, I can't speak for people I don't know, but for the people I do know this does not prevent being deeply mentally involved with the fiction, and making decisions about it by reference to the fiction.

Thinking about how badly you (as the PC) want something, what's at stake, what price is worth paying - those are decisions that bring you into the fiction. They don't take one's thinking away from it.

So you agree some methods of authoring a character make for different experiences. Then why stop short of saying some methods of authoring a character make for greater immersion (immersion is an experience after all)?

Well, first, from the fact that changing something - in this case, method - affects the resulting experience, it wouldn't follow that changing that thing alters everything, or that any aspect of the resulting experience can be affected in this way. That's an empirical matter, not an a priori one.

Second, the methods I'm distinguishing are not mechanical techniques - which I think, in general and in themselves, make little difference to the experience of the fiction - but rather degrees of "seriousness" or depth or intensity.

I've experienced this sort of intensity arising from GM narration, but I don't think GM narration of GM-conceived ideas is the most reliable way to generate it. I think creative equality is more reliable.

isn't one of the goals of narrativism to create methods for narrating the character that centers the fiction around the character and what matters to them and thus can lead the player to a more immersive experience in regards of the character and those issues that matter to the character?

I'm not sure what you're meaning by "narrativism".

If you're meaning "narrativism" as per The Forge "story now"then narrativism is a "creative agenda" - of addressing "premise" and thereby creating "theme", using the particular approach to the shared creation of a fiction that RPGing permits, namely, one participant framing the situation while another says what the protagonist in that situation does.

Premise is, to quote, a "problematic human issue". It can come from character or setting or situation. And (to quote), "Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events."

Narrativist play doesn't depend in any special way upon "methods for narrating the character". As I've often posted, the keys to narrativist play lie mostly on the GM side, and pertain to (i) how situations are established (particularly how they relate to, or express, premise), and (ii) how consequences are established (particularly how this allows place for players to give voice to theme).

Is it fair to say that the only real difference of opinion here is which methods of authoring lead to the more immersive experience? And if so, is it possible that this difference of opinion is because we mean different things by immersive experience?

I don't know. I think the way I'm using "immersion" is fairly clear, and fairly intuitive.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think immersing in the story and immersing in the character are different things. I can be immersed in story just read or watch, I can be immersed in a story I create. But immersing in character is about feeling like you are that character. When I speak of immersion regarding RPGs, the latter is what I mean.

 

[pemerton]

For what it's worth, I think this is a good illustration that it's mostly about the people and not the system. People have different experiences with different systems, and this is clearly seen through our different views on which system best allows for immersion.

Well, as I've said, I don't think system is very closely correlated with immersion. Cthulhu Dark and Classic Traveller are pretty different, as far as mechanical procedures go. I think both can support immersive play.

Alternatively if you agree it's a metaphor then that metaphor has meaning that we just can't push to the side. In case it's not clear to you - this is the kind of statement that makes it seem you believe there is only one kind of third person authoring the character, even though we've already agreed the metaphor of 'first person immersion in character' is a different way to author the character than the other methods.

I am asking, What does "third person authoring of the character" mean? Who do you think is doing that? Whose play are you describing? It seems clear enough you don't think you're describing your own. So whose?

The reason I no longer talk about other games with you unless I'm intimately familiar is because of exactly this kind of thing. You just denied a mechanic is meta, to the point of getting @Crimson Longinus to agree with you, only to then share a scenario in which it absolutely is meta. Do you realize how frustrating that makes a conversation?

I described the mechanic. @Crimson Longinus labelled it "meta". I said that it might be the player giving it their all. Crimson Longinus then said it's not meta. I then described the same mechanic, the same way, and you decide that it's "meta". But how do you know it's not just the player giving it their all?

I mean, in D&D a wizard can memorise a spell without having to make a roll. The player just declares that "it is done". Likewise for casting many spells - eg to cast a fly spell that has been memorised, the player of the wizard just declares "I cast it!"

So why does a player spending a Plot Point to have their PC climb a wall count as "meta"? What is your criterion? I mean, "meta" is the description that you and @Crimson Longinus are applying, not me.

I think the concept of a 1 to 1 relationship between the fiction as we intend to imagine it and the fiction as the mechanics dictate isn't that hard of a concept. If the problem is the word "disassociated" then call the absence of this 1 to 1 relationship whatever you want. The point is the existence vs absence of this 1 to 1 relationship.

What does adding the Athletics bonus to the roll of a d20 correspond to in the fiction? What does rolling the d20 correspond to in the fiction? Suppose that it represents trying to climb, then what does the declaration "I climb the wall" correspond to?

What does writing down a new hp number on a PC sheet, after the GM says how much damage you take, correspond to?

I mean, these are the actual things that happen when mechanics are used.

And why does a character spending a "Plot Point" to have their PC climb a cliff not count as 1:1. I mean, in the fiction the character sees the wall, and climbs it. At the table, the GM describes the situation, including Sheer Cliff d10; and the player notes their PC has Climbing d10 on their PC sheet, and spends a PP. Where is the absence of a 1:1 correspondence?

 

[pemerton]

immersing in character is about feeling like you are that character. When I speak of immersion regarding RPGs, the latter is what I mean.

Yes. So do I.

There's no tension between "feeling like I'm a character" and deciding to push as hard as I can (say, by spending a limited resource to boost a roll). Quite the opposite.

 

[Emerikol]

So why does a player spending a Plot Point to have their PC climb a wall count as "meta"? What is your criterion? I mean, "meta" is the description that you and @Crimson Longinus are applying, not me.

What they are calling meta, I have called plot coupon or dissociative mechanics. It is a real thing for some of us at least.

We want the abilities of the characters to be known to the characters and activated by player using the characters will and not just the players will. For example, if I have a luck point that I can use whenever I really need a good role, who is thinking about that luck point. Not the character. When the player alone makes choices that are not in world real to the character that is a plot coupon. For some people like myself it is very much a game ender.

Examples of plot coupons: martial encounter & daily powers, luck points, fate points, hero points, inspiration, are all things that turn your PC into a pawn. Mechanics that are not plot coupons are things the character knows about in game or are methods of communicating truths he character knows to the player.

Now it is true that many people who don't mind plot coupons don't see a lot of things as in world like we do. We played the first three editions of D&D without plot coupons. There have been plot coupons ever since in D&D. That doesn't mean if you don't care about plot coupons that you didn't think of something as a plot coupon that we did not think of that way. The key is whether we could find a way to relate it to in world character decision making or not.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. So do I.

There's no tension between "feeling like I'm a character" and deciding to push as hard as I can (say, by spending a limited resource to boost a roll). Quite the opposite.

In your latest description of the mechanic there was a scenario where the player could just succeed by spending a resource. The character trying really hard cannot fictionally guarantee success. That’s the disconnect.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I described the mechanic. @Crimson Longinus labelled it "meta". I said that it might be the player giving it their all. Crimson Longinus then said it's not meta. I then described the same mechanic, the same way, and you decide that it's "meta". But how do you know it's not just the player giving it their all?

I mean, in D&D a wizard can memorise a spell without having to make a roll. The player just declares that "it is done". Likewise for casting many spells - eg to cast a fly spell that has been memorised, the player of the wizard just declares "I cast it!"

So why does a player spending a Plot Point to have their PC climb a wall count as "meta"? What is your criterion? I mean, "meta" is the description that you and @Crimson Longinus are applying, not me.

Well, at least how I play it, the wizards spells are diegetic. The wizard knows what spells they have memorised, they know how many they can cast, they intentionally memorise and cast them and this is information they can share with others in-character. To me it would seem that this would be hard to do with plot points in a serious game, though you could try to fluff it as some sort of willpower or something like it to make it at least somewhat diegetic, but it still would be pretty borderline. Like if the character is out of plot point, do they know it? How does it feel? How do they communicate it to the others? Also, if plot points allow them to succeed without a chance of failure in tasks, is this something the character knows and can plan around? "Ok guys, I can exert myself to guaranteed success three times, but no more. Let's take this into account in our plan to break into Doctor Terrible's bunker of Doom." Like that's kinda silly, right?

What does adding the Athletics bonus to the roll of a d20 correspond to in the fiction?

A better climber having greater chance of success whilst climbing.

What does rolling the d20 correspond to in the fiction?

All the little variable we cannot otherwise account for.

Suppose that it represents trying to climb, then what does the declaration "I climb the wall" correspond to?

I think you break this down into steps in a weird way. You all these steps technically happen, but in actual game the whole rolling process is just one smooth and quick thing that represents the climbing attempt.

What does writing down a new hp number on a PC sheet, after the GM says how much damage you take, correspond to?

Well, that certainly is not controversial matter at all! But in my game it means you were injured in some manner.

And why does a character spending a "Plot Point" to have their PC climb a cliff not count as 1:1. I mean, in the fiction the character sees the wall, and climbs it. At the table, the GM describes the situation, including Sheer Cliff d10; and the player notes their PC has Climbing d10 on their PC sheet, and spends a PP. Where is the absence of a 1:1 correspondence?

In the decision to use a resource the character is not aware of and potentially in it guaranteeing a success in a thing in a manner the character cannot know, though the latter is a lesser issue.

Like I don't even hate these sort of mechanics that much if they're used in moderation, and I get why they exists. But they are disassociated, and that is trade-off not everyone is willing to make.

 

[Emerikol]

A better climber having greater chance of success whilst climbing.

One thing I've noticed is that the people who aren't bothered by it generally can't even grasp what is being talked about. They make oddball inapplicable responses like they fit what was being said. If I could figure out a way to get them to really understand what is being explained, I might retire on that alone. I think understanding it makes it objectionable. Those who don't find it objectionable generally don't understand it.

Is there someone who understands and doesn't object? Maybe but they don't tend to get into these debates as much if they do exist.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, at least how I play it, the wizards spells are diegetic. The wizard knows what spells they have memorised, they know how many they can cast, they intentionally memorise and cast them and this is information they can share with others in-character. To me it would seem that this would be hard to do with plot points in a serious game, though you could try to fluff it as some sort of willpower or something like it to make it at least somewhat diegetic, but it still would be pretty borderline. Like if the character is out of plot point, do they know it? How does it feel? How do they communicate it to the others? Also, if plot points allow them to succeed without a chance of failure in tasks, is this something the character knows and can plan around? "Ok guys, I can exert myself to guaranteed success three times, but no more. Let's take this into account in our plan to break into Doctor Terrible's bunker of Doom." Like that's kinda silly, right?


A better climber having greater chance of success whilst climbing.


All the little variable we cannot otherwise account for.


I think you break this down into steps in a weird way. You all these steps technically happen, but in actual game the whole rolling process is just one smooth and quick thing that represents the climbing attempt.


Well, that certainly is not controversial matter at all! But in my game it means you were injured in some manner.


In the decision to use a resource the character is not aware of and potentially in it guaranteeing a success in a thing in a manner the character cannot know, though the latter is a lesser issue.

Like I don't even hate these sort of mechanics that much if they're used in moderation, and I get why they exists. But they are disassociated, and that is trade-off not everyone is willing to make.

To be fair, 2014 and 2024 d&d both have a ton of mechanics that are meta. They have non-magical influence over PCs like 2024 lion roar applying fear. Or like inspiring leader always meaning whatever the other players has their character do or say you end up inspired by them, every short and long rest. They have tons of limited use abilities that aren’t easy to dietetically explain in full. Ki, Battlemaster manuevers, 2nd wind, rage. Heck, even sneak attack being rogue only, as in why can’t my fighter sneak attack while the Barbarian is next to the enemy is meta just without the decision point.

I think we often overlook just how much of this kind of stuff modern d&d has in it.