D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[D'karr]

For example, under intense scrutiny, hit points don't make sense because the PC is still fully capable at 1 hp as much as 100hp, according to D'karr.

Actually, that's not according to me. That's according to the DnD ruleset for every edition, and many other similar games also.

If I had invented HP, then it might be according to me. Unfortunately other giants that lived, played, and designed games long before me came up with that particularly abstract mechanic. So I don't get that honorable distinction. As long as the user looks at it as the abstract that it is designed to be, HP can "make sense" in an abstract way. As soon as you start trying to do Process Sim with HP, it starts to fall apart rather quickly.

On the other hand, there are games out there that use different types of trackers for combat effectiveness. Shadowrun, for example, has a condition monitor that decreases your combat effectiveness as you become, fatigued, stunned, or physically injured. DnD has never, in its default rules, had that type of ruleset.

It doesn't mean that groups out there have not been adding that type of stuff to their particular DnD table for decades. Dragon magazine used to have all sort of "house rule" articles. Which incidentally is how the first Unearthed Arcana was published. However, that is all those were, optional house rules/guidelines.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do you or do you not apply the same scrutiny to whenever a player uses a non-process-sim mechanic and narrates something equally ludicrous that falls apart badly under scrutiny?

Short answer please.

No I don't. Because the whole point of a process sim is that it is supposed to map directly to the fiction in a manner that stands up to the outcomes. If a process sim falls apart when you try scrutinising it it fails as a process sim.

I apply equivalent standards for other games. Feng Shui is meant to be a game centred around the Hong Kong Martial Arts genre. And to me it fails - it's too much of a process sim and not liberating enough. If I want to run high action martial arts, I'm going with Wushu - which is almost the opposite of a process-sim (you actually gain bonusses for specifying you're dodging through a hail of bullets).

I judge games for two things. Do they do what they are trying to? And is what they are trying to do any good?

Maybe, but I'll understand as much as people are telling me, in a concise helpful way. Do you promise to talk nicely about the difference in playstyles (unlike on that other thread about that 3rd playstyle)

As long as no serious lines are crossed, yes. And I can't imagine we're going to come close to declaring 4e not D&D here.

So you solve the problem of process-sim by not talking about it?

I solve the problem of process-sim by playing process-sim games if I want process-sim and genre sim if that's what I want at the time. And I absolutely will apply this sort of scrutiny to GURPS (it being my process-sim of choice). Generally it passes a lot better than D&D.

For example, under intense scrutiny, hit points don't make sense because the PC is still fully capable at 1 hp as much as 100hp, according to D'karr. In your own mind, when you come up with some sort of hit point related narration, do you apply a similarly stringent standard of verisimilitudinous scrutiny, assessment and critique?

No I don't. Because hit points aren't designed for process-sim. They are designed for genre emulation. They are designed for Eroll Flynn style swashbuckling fights - the question is whether they do that job well. They aren't about process sim, they are about genre emulation. It's only when people try to force them into a process-sim mould that really doesn't fit them that they become as fit for purpose as a claw hammer is fit to be used as a screwdriver.

To give a modern example of a fight with hit points (and hit points going down despite no physical wounds) see the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygRholyh5g"]fight between Achiles and Hector in Troy[/ame]. The question is not whether hit points are realistic, it's whether they do what they were intended to.

 

[Balesir]

My assumption is that nobody can prove that the average D&D player across all the lands plays pure sim systems. IME, my group has never played a bunch of those aforementioned systems. "Armchair academic" refers to theoreotical assumptions about the average D&D player should be doing. "Oh the people of D&D are hungry for sim? Let them eat pure sim cake" -- that kind of thing.

Well, no, I don't think anyone should be "purely" focussed on any one thing at all. But playing different systems is a good thing in and of itself, in that it helps you understand what sorts of play particular systems are good at, and when there are better alternatives for what you are trying to do in a particular campaign. When I play any system, I don't play it in a vacuum - the way I play is informed by all the other systems (and styles) that I have played. I think experience of a range of systems is a very helpful thing for any roleplayer, even if, after having the varied experience, they decide to return to playing just one system. At least they will know what is "beyond" that system, and how it might do things differently from the way it does.

Maybe, but I'll understand as much as people are telling me, in a concise helpful way. Do you promise to talk nicely about the difference in playstyles (unlike on that other thread about that 3rd playstyle)

As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] says, as long as no silly assertions are made, sure.

So you solve the problem of process-sim by not talking about it?

Sort of, except that it goes a bit further than that. The entire process of how the outcome comes about is not fixed or shared between the players - just the outcome is shared.

Specifically, not only is the process part not described verbally, but the system is not taken to be a model or description of the process, either. Since you give hit points as an example, later, I'll try to clarify based on that below.

Do you think then that there is a sort of double standard, if you will? That any intense scrutiny applied to a process sim mechanic on paper is not equally applied in your own mind? That you kinda give yourself a free pass, you don't really dig deeply into your own assumptions about the process so much?

No, there's no real double standard - I expect my own imagined process to be totally believable to me (given the genre and so on that I think of the game as being in). But I no longer have to synch my conception of how the process works with either other players or the game's designers. Since the system does not model the process by which the outcome happens, the requirements I have of the system are diminished. All the system has to do is produce a believable range of outcomes through the game; this is, in practice, a much easier goal than trying to plausibly model the process by which the outcome is generated while simultaneously generating a believable spread of outcomes.

For example, under intense scrutiny, hit points don't make sense because the PC is still fully capable at 1 hp as much as 100hp, according to D'karr. In your own mind, when you come up with some sort of hit point related narration, do you apply a similarly stringent standard of verisimilitudinous scrutiny, assessment and critique?

I apply a stringent criterion of plausibility to what I envision my character's and other creatures' physical condition to be, yes. To guide me in this, I use several facts as guidelines to ensure I don't err:

- I know that any creature that reaches zero hit points is down and disabled; not necessarily dead, but incapable of offensive action and likely unconscious.

- I know that any creature with more than zero hit points is not hindered from taking actions by physical injury or damage.

- I know that magic and possibly other effects can return hit points to creatures that have lost them.

- I know that "hits" in combat reduce the target's hit points, possibly (but not necessarily) below zero.

Based on these "facts" - that I know from a reading of the rules - I can decide how I envision the game-world working whenever a creature gains or loses hit points. I can decide how I envision losing hit points either generically (the same every time) or on a case-by-case basis, as best fits what I am comfortable to accept as the game world's "reality". My envisioning of these processes does not need to be the same as that used by any other player - as long as we both have a "picture" that satisfies us about what "losing hit points from a <such-and-such> attack" looks like, all we need to know as shared "reality" is that a <such-and-such> attack has been made, and that it caused the target to lose hit points.

To an observer, it might look less "alive and evocative" than it would if the players are busy describing vividly the way their characters are getting the results they are getting all the time, but to us, as we play, it's just as vivid because the action is happening inside our own imaginations, informed by the shared essential facts that the system and inter-player communication of character action gives us.

Is that any clearer?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not sure I get it, but I'm trying very hard. You're saying you gave up trying to suspend disbelief in D&D.

So if a player narrates CaGI or whatever in some way that "falls apart badly under scrutiny" (as the going phrase is now), it doesn't suspend your disbelief, because you don't have any expectations for verisimilitude?

For example, Bob uses CaGI and says "My fighter is taunting the mindless skeleton." Bob thinks its thematically interesting or whatever to narrate it that way. You're cool with that, because you've lowered your expectations.

Did I get that right, kind of?

BIU is mine for clarity. What I wrote:

"When I demanded Process-Sim while playing DnD, unfortunately my suspension of disbelief was impossible, given time and intense scrutiny, due to the unphysical nature of the implied setting and the abstractions that the system has historically been premised upon. In order for me to forgive those things (while demanding proper Process-Sim and overarching Simulation), I would have had to either mind-wipe the results of my scrutiny away or not scrutinize and ignore the elephants in room poking me with their tusks or play a different system. Alternatively, I could change my expectations and playstyle. I did the latter.

The expectations are not lowered. They are different. Different due to the vast swath of differences between "Simulation" vs "Emulation" and "Process-Sim" vs "Outcome-Based Sim".


How I changed my expectations and playstyle:


1) What happened?

Expectations = changed.


2) How did it happen?

Playstyle changed from:

(A) (i) Attempt to capture the feel, excitement, and fun of our favorite "genre-relevant" High Fantasy stories while (ii) immersing as much as possible through (iii) "Simulation of High Fantasy World Married to Real World Physics By Bay of Strict, Rigid, Linear Process-Sim."

to

(B) (i) Attempt to capture the feel, excitement, and fun of our favorite "genre-relevant" High Fantasy stories while (ii) immersing as much as possible through (iv) "Emulation of High Fantasy Heroic Adventure By Way of Gamist Conceits, Narrative Conventions, and Outcome-Based Simulation."


3) Why did it change?

- The primary aim was always to (i) "Attempt to capture the feel, excitement, and fun of my favorite "genre-relevant" High Fantasy stories." Secondary to that is immersing as much as possible (ii).

- Given time within the various iterations of the system, it was clear that due to the unphysical nature of the implied setting and the abstractions that the system was premised upon, strict adherence to "Simulation of High Fantasy World Married to Real World Physics By Bay of Strict, Rigid, Linear Process-Sim" by way of DnD mechanics, was not cutting it. In other words, it became clear that using DnD mechanics and its implied setting that (i), (ii) and (iii) were at odds with one another. We couldn't emulate emergent "genre relevant stories". We couldn't immerse because (ii) and (iii) seemed to be passive-aggressively at tension with one another all the time. Something had to give as (i), (ii) and (iii), by way of DnD mechanics, were clearly at odds with one another. So the question became, how to attain (i), top priority, while maintaining a "best case where possible" nod to (ii)?

- The answer: Change playstyle from (A) to (B) because that not only gave us the best ability to capture (i) through emergence in play but also allowed us to philosophically ease up the angst over the imperfect DnD sim/process-sim and thus relax and have more of (ii).


So lets get to your CaGI question specifically:

- First, if I was attempting to play 4e as strict "Simulation of High Fantasy World Married to Real World Physics By Bay of Strict, Rigid, Linear Process-Sim", I would avoid Director Stance Powers such as CaGI.

- Now for my game, CaGI would not be a problem as Director Stance and Outcome-Based (glossing over process) Sim is "within playstyle" as they both help towards attaining (i).

1) The player thinks:

- "I've got many bad guys scattered in front of me and I want them close to me for a follow up attack." (Gamist Conceit + Outcome-Based Simulation thought process)

- "I've seen Adventure movies/read books where protagonists juke the bad guys into thinking I'm running away only to quickly spin and engage them as the recklessly follow. I've also seen protagonists enrage enemies by way of roars, challenges, bluffs, barbs and the bad guys wade right in." (Outcome-Based Simulation thought process by way of consideration of Genre Relevance and Narrative Convention)

- Subconsciously: "I'm going to enter Director Stance" (Narrative convention). Consciously: "I use Come and Get It and THIS HAPPENS." (Gamist Conceit + Outcome-Based Simulation + Narrative Convention).

 

[Balesir]

Yep - Come and Get It is a good one for an example, too.

If I'm actually having a character do the move, first of all, I am focussed on the options I have not used, to start with. I.e. I deliberately don't even think about the powers I have used this encounter/day at all, just the ones I still have available - including the "improvise something" option that is always there.

Next, I announce only that I am using the power, and the enemies that move as a result (there is, as is often the case, some business required with rolling dice and so on).

I (deliberately) don't announce what threats, goads, faked retreats, drawing feints or faux-openings that I am using to make the move work - just the fact of the move, and the resulting actions of enemies and any damage to them.

At the same time, I have a picture in my own head of how the character is achieving that result - of how that outcome comes to pass. I don't announce it, because it might well conflict with what another player could believe; it's up to them to take the bald facts of the outcome (generated by my decision to use CaGI and the system-generated outcome) and make their own movie, inside their own heads, of what that actually looks like in process terms.

Their "process movie" may very well be different to mine; it doesn't matter if this is so, provided that we both know what the outcome is as described by a game system that we both understand.

The game system is acting almost like a language. The words themselves are just abstract sounds, but as long as all the players have their own, compatible understanding of what those words mean, we can converse without having to draw pictures and make sound effects to try to recreate what we want to say.

 

[D'karr]

The game system is acting almost like a language. The words themselves are just abstract sounds, but as long as all the players have their own, compatible understanding of what those words mean, we can converse without having to draw pictures and make sound effects to try to recreate what we want to say.

The narration obviously varies from table to table. There are times when my players simply state what power they're using. Some times they describe what their doing. It depends on the mood.

It's somewhat like reading a movie script. When the hero and the villain fight, the movie script might easily just say, "They fight." Or it can be more complicated and add some details. When someone actually storyboards the fight then you are "seeing" someones POV of, "They fight."

During some of our games the Warlord actually has specific things that he says when using inspiring word.

One of the players once described CaGI as dropping his guard and winking to the enemies to goad them, then shifting his weight to a position that would seem to grant advantage to them. Some enemies fell for it and some didn't.

And my players love to improvise. So they will definitely come up with some "interesting" plans for how to use their powers.

 

[Underman]

Actually, that's not according to me. That's according to the DnD ruleset for every edition, and many other similar games also.

Yes I know, except there's no need to have responded with "Actually, that's not..."

You restated: According to the D&D ruleset, PC is still fully capable at 1 hp as much as 100hp.

However, I attributed it like so: According to D'karr, hit points don't make sense under intense scrutiny at least because the PC is still fully capable at 1 hp as much as 100hp.

At least they will know what is "beyond" that system, and how it might do things differently from the way it does.

That's all fine and dandy, but the point remains that anything like "Oh the people of D&D are hungry for sim? Let them eat pure sim cake" is still ivory tower thinking IMO. Sim-oriented D&D players who have co-opted D&D with their sim agenda will not abandon D&D en masse to try pure sim games.

Plus, in the playtest, there's no sign of that happening for the core rules.

So it's not a practical solution to Manbearcat's problem. I was arguing about the lack of pragmatism, to which you wrote "huh?".

As @Neonchameleon says, as long as no silly assertions are made, sure.

Neonchameleon is referring to an assertion that was never made by me but he doesn't seem to want to let go of that misconception. I was referring to the fact that mutual understanding is best accomplished by avoiding contemptuous language like "flak", "crud", "some value of 'enjoy'", "dysfunctional", "inevitable, miserable fate", "arbitrary crap", and "ignorance", which makes me hesitant to engage with someone.

Is that any clearer?

I think so, but I'm not sure.

I understand that you've changed your expectations. With that, I also believe that your blindspot (ie., willing suspension of disbelief) was moved from there to here.

What I don't understand is why are you (the general you) accusing people (like me) of "ignoring the problem", "ignoring the contradictions", "not scratching the surface", "not scrutinizing" and having "lowered expectations"?

Certainly, D'karr is happy to pounce on the unreasonableness of D&D process sim rules. Yet he's happy to accept or gloss over any "reasonable" narrative his players come up with without the same level of scrutiny.

It seems to me that your style does the same thing (in your own mind and in regard to your fellow players) but rephrased as "different expectations".

ie., your "blindspot" is couched in neutral terms, but the other "blindspot" is couched in negative terms. Why is that?

It seems to be the worst form of snobbery: the double standard couched in semantics.

Unlike certain other people, I want to be open-minded and be disabused of inaccurate assumptions, but I still have these hang-ups about people's choice of words.

 

[Manbearcat]

So it's not a practical solution to Manbearcat's problem. I was arguing about the lack of pragmatism, to which you wrote "huh?".

I'm just talking hobby shop here. We're just all ruminating upon the game's mechanical history here...and our own histories within that greater history. I don't have a problem.

- I fully expect 5e's core to be a DnD standard-fair, incoherent, unfocused collage of DnDisms and abstract mechanics that are driftable toward preferred playstyle.

- I hope there is as much support for Process-Sim Modular play so Process-Sim(mers) can plug in their modules for a real, hardcore, granular Process-Sim version of DnD the likes that they have never seen before.

- I hope we have Gamist Modules that add Tactical Depth, promotes Outcome-Based Simulation, and lets people play raw 1e or even just Wargame.

- I hope we have Narrative Modules that promote Fiction First/Story Now, Collective Storytelling, and Genre Emulation.

My hope is that all of these things are labeled VERY VERY CLEARLY. I hope that WotC is transparent about the design of these modules on intended playstyle. If that happens, and I've got 2 years of good-will and benefit of the doubt in me, then good enough...I think we'll be happy hobbyists.

 

[Underman]

@Manbearcat, yes, that I definitely agree with.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION],

My view is that on some of these questions being explored here, there is no substitute for experience. And in my case (and a at least a couple or more of the others here), our experience has taught us that the process-sim mindset is often (though not always) the default mindset. Moreover, this experience has been replicated outside of games.

As a software developer that has frequently met with customers to develop specifications and requirements--or even in some cases was specifically brought in to solve a problem with a business process that wasn't working--I've seen it over and over. It's practically endemic that some people will insist on fidelity to process even as it consistently produces results that cause them all kinds of trouble. And I've also seen people do this in their personal lives with mowing their yards, washing their clothes, etc. So no, the blind spots aren't created equal here. There is something special about the "process sim solves all ills" blindspot that, practically speaking, isn't replicated across other techniques so forcefully.

I don't really know why this is so. I can only say that in over 30 years of paying attention to it in a variety of activities, I've found it replicated. I don't know how widespread or pervasive my experience is across all of humanity, but the characteristic has certainly been commented on by many people that I've met--and nearly all with a professional experience with the matter.

One of the lessons that my first employer used to pound into its people was that you must always remember that the customer may demand a computer process for an activity that shouldn't be automated and is not a process. The desire to "push process sim far enough and it will solve our problems" is so strong that some people will pay you good money to complicate their lives instead of solving their problems, and that you'll have to gently fight them so that they get something better for their expenses.

That said, my guess is two-fold on why this might occur, and is based on these observations and my own early experience being a hard-core process-sim all the time guy. (Or maybe I'm just a "reformed smoker" now. You make the call. ):

• It's natural for an ordered mind to adapt process-sim first, use it well in a lot of activities, and grow accustomed to it before there is much need of anything else. So the other options are learned skills that some people simply don't need for awhile.
• No matter what else you do, you always need some process-sim, if only at a very micro level or for an odd bit. So it's not like you ever really abandon the technique entirely.

But in my particular case, I know process sim has fatal flaws as a universal solution for the simple reason that I tried to make it one for several years, in enough activities, that I finally proved to myself some ways in which it could not work--i.e. something like a geometrical proof for the problems I was trying to solve. This didn't cause me to reject process sim as a technique. That would be nuts! It did cause me to reject process sim as an automatic answer to any given problem. Now it's merely another tool in the box.

Since then, I've also observed that almost all people whom I come into personal contact with that are completey happy with some complex process sim--upon investigation do not follow the process. This is also way beyond games. For every DM making it "good enough" with fiat, there are hundreds of clerks in an office keeping the business running because their bosses looks the other way when the clerk evades the process to get the job done. So for me this is empirical evidence to back up the conclusion of my personal proofs.

Ergo, my conclusion when confronted with a D&D fan sure that the way to D&D Nirvana is more process sim and more fidelity to it--is that said fan doesn't really understand the limits of process sim (probably due to lack of broad experience, but could be something else) or isn't being objective in evalution of the processes as actually practiced at his table (i.e. they are evaded in order to work). Nothing anyone has said on this board in the last 4+ years has changed this opinion one whit.

Now more "simulation" in general in D&D? Sure, you can get that a bunch of ways, especially with modules, and there will certainly be places where process-sim is not only useful but absolutely necessary. That's because other techniques are not perfect either. It's just that their limitations are not the same limitations as process sim, and thus where they work or fail is different. And a good thing, too, as it means we have not only multiple good tools, but tools that thus cover a wider range of needs.

You might say that my objection is not process-sim, per se, but rather an objection to the failure inherent in the solutions of the process-sim purist. If I stopped a six year old from trying to cut cheese with a chainsaw, no one would object that I therefore disliked kids or dairy products or dangerous power tools. But I most certainly object to tools used badly.