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

[Nagol]

Ok, I'm going to take a stab at the whole dissociation thing, once again, just to see if I, like Lost Soul, have made some headway into understanding the underlying issues. I'm honestly not trying to be a prat here, so, if I rub someone the wrong way, presume that I'm just a bit abrasive, rather than actively trying to be a jerk.

PC Bob has the skill of metalworking. Could be a 3e style skill, could be a NWP, whatever. Doesn't matter. (Can't really be a 4e skill because, unfortunately, 4e doesn't include these kinds of skills - a mistake that I think has been a real sticking point for the "tactical minis game" crowd.) Now, Bob goes out and kills a boat load of goblins. Lots of goblins. He gains a few levels. He gets better at metalworking, despite not actively doing any metalworking in game during that time. Not only that, but, if he didn't kill any goblins, but, rather spent ten years doing nothing but working metal, he actually wouldn't get any better at metalworking.

AFAIK, this would be dissociated by the way I understand the definition. There is no correlation between PC and Player actions. The in-game reality does not reflect the choices made out of game.

Yep, pretty much fits my definition for disassociation.

Yet, this has always been more or less acceptable. Certainly by the rules of the game, it's perfectly fine. Other games have actually made a point of not letting you do this. And, I've seen more than a few house rules that would force you to spend character resources on things you've actually done in game, in order to make the rules associated.

Am I understanding and applying the definition correctly?

All disassociated mechanics are acceptable by the rules of the game pretty much by definition. Since they are the rules of the game!

Pretty much good application. Originally, levels didn't have this issue because there were few ties between non-adventuring mechanics and character level.

That changed under 2e with NWP, became very apparent under 3e and tapered off under 4e (since some non-adventuring abilities stopped existing).

This ends up as a joke at tables I've been at --

"Quick, we need to find some orcs!"
"Why?"
"I want to make a nice wedding present for the duke's son, but I need to get my Craft:Gold skill up 3 points first!"

Or

"No! don't try to follow that trail!"
"Why not?"
"Because we're 100 xp short of leveling and I'll be much better at it if we find a random encounter first!"

Or

"Jeez, I wonder how many critters she had to kill to become such a good dancer!"

 

[jrowland]

Am I understanding and applying the definition correctly?

Yes. And a good point about skills. I would quibble with the "lack of metalworking" in 4E. It is there. You say "My character is a metalworker" and there you have it. IIRC there is even a blurb in the 4E PHB about describing your character this way. Minor quibble, I understand its not in the RAW.

 

[D'karr]

Typically, in my campaigns (both as a DM and player), any effect in the game world has effect on all those exposed to it. So, if PC1 drops a Fireball on a melee combat containing PC2, PC2 gets hit by the spell. I think the in-game expression acts as a form of limiter on such spell use and/or leads to specific character strategies and group tactics.

Sure in my game the same effect applies in the same manner as in your game. If PC A casts a Fireball, and PC B is within it's area of effect then he is potentially affected.

But you mentioned specific character strategies and group tactics which I'll discuss below.

The disconnect occurs when player 1 thinks there is a tactical value to PC2 moving and player 2 disagrees. The power used doesn't give PC2 a choice to respond -- he is moved. Nohing in the ability suggests how PC2 was moved -- was the character dominated? Was he convinced of the value of the opening and is changing his tactical plan even if it means sacrificing a goal PC2 thinks is valuable? Was he telekinetically grabbed and shifted directly?

How PC2 should react depends on those answers. In older editions of D&D, tht question was answered because the abilities were explicitly tied to in-game effect. Player 2 may still think it's the wrong thing to do, but he knows how the character should respond.

If the power was a domination would that make it fine? It wouldn't to me, but you are looking for an answer at the "game-world" level that, IMO, should really be answered at the "across the game table" level.

This is where the character strategies and group tactics are handled. Player A and Player B have a "tactical conversation" across the table and Player A agrees to be the target of Player B's "game-world" effect.

Whereas at my table, PCs do end up in conflict, rivalies do develop, and area effect powers are tossed into combats with allies both willing and unwilling. The PCs are subject to the same in-game effects as the other inhabitants are save for explicit differences in the ruleset like those seen in Space Opera.

This is where we view things much differently.

I've been in groups, and have seen groups like this over the years. Most of the ones that didn't nip this type of "rivalry" in the bud ended up dissolving over time.

IMO, in character conflict and rivalries should develop within the game when all the players involved in the rivalry agree to it. Not when a particular player decides that he's going to develop conflict by targeting the PCs of another player with harmful effects. That is why our agreed "game-etiquette" handles those specific situations. YMMV.



-

 

[Dornam]

OP is spot on. Even before 4e was realesed there were a lot of people that played a "4e-ish" style of D&D with a focus on battlemat combat and houserules to match while the rest was having also different styles that only had in common that battlemat combat were not the main focus.

So, no, D&Dnext will likely not be the end all be all of D&D that cup broke a long time ago.

It's simply ironic that many posts concerning 4e here just show how deep the rift has always been.

 

[billd91]

Ok, I'm going to take a stab at the whole dissociation thing, once again, just to see if I, like Lost Soul, have made some headway into understanding the underlying issues. I'm honestly not trying to be a prat here, so, if I rub someone the wrong way, presume that I'm just a bit abrasive, rather than actively trying to be a jerk.

PC Bob has the skill of metalworking. Could be a 3e style skill, could be a NWP, whatever. Doesn't matter. (Can't really be a 4e skill because, unfortunately, 4e doesn't include these kinds of skills - a mistake that I think has been a real sticking point for the "tactical minis game" crowd.) Now, Bob goes out and kills a boat load of goblins. Lots of goblins. He gains a few levels. He gets better at metalworking, despite not actively doing any metalworking in game during that time. Not only that, but, if he didn't kill any goblins, but, rather spent ten years doing nothing but working metal, he actually wouldn't get any better at metalworking.

AFAIK, this would be dissociated by the way I understand the definition. There is no correlation between PC and Player actions. The in-game reality does not reflect the choices made out of game.

Yet, this has always been more or less acceptable. Certainly by the rules of the game, it's perfectly fine. Other games have actually made a point of not letting you do this. And, I've seen more than a few house rules that would force you to spend character resources on things you've actually done in game, in order to make the rules associated.

Am I understanding and applying the definition correctly?

I think you're pretty much using the term correctly and you're right that people have come up with house rules to make it less dissociative for years. I think that highlights both that dissociative rules aren't necessarily bad but also that people have thresholds for their tolerance of them. 4e, for me and a number of others, pushes the envelope a bit too far with daily martial powers. Relatively simple restructures, however, could repair the dissociative hiccup and bring them back under my threshold.

I really liked 3e's solution to NPC development with the NPC classes. My blacksmiths could get better over time, they typically just gained XPs at a much slower rate than adventurers, not being in the particular pressure cooker of an adventuring life. I also found it very easy to justify getting better at skills not explicitly used during adventuring by assuming certain activities during downtime like minor gear repairs and maintenance and so on.

 

[Umbran]

Wow, we seem to have a full cavalcade today. Several of you have engaged in making this personal, and getting insulting. This, of course, is unacceptable. Several offenders are about to be removed from the conversation for their efforts.

I suggest everyone else now continue on in the most polite way they can imagine, as the next person to act like a jerk in here is going to get a vacation from the site.

Questions? Take them to e-mail or PM with the mod of your choice. Thank you, and have a good day.

 

[Nagol]

I think I see what you mean Nagol. The player knows that his character has moved because that other player made him move, but, because the mechanic may not be directly associated, then the question arises of does the character know.

Yeah. Imagine a scenario where the PCs are a team, but have different priorities for the adventure. PC1's driving goal is rescuing his love. PC2 wants the BBEG dead.

The PCs enter the final room. The love is caged of to the side and is being slowly (probably 5-10 rounds left) being killed. The BBEG is in the centre surrounded by guards and probably has an escape route -- he's done it before.

PC1 moves away from the group towards his love. He is unwilling to risk further harm to his love and wants to break the cage.

Player 2 looks at the situation and believes the love is not in imminent danger and thinks the fight is going to be hard enough to warrant all PCs immediate attention. PC2 uses Get Over there and shifts PC1 towards the flank of the BBEG. The player has PC2 say "Not yet! Deal with the bad-guy first!"

Has PC1 changed his mind? Is he setting aside his tactical goal to help take down the BBEG or does the move simply delay him a round as he shifts back? What stirred him so hard he took several involuntary steps away from his goal? How does his love react to his sudden turn-about with respect to both PC1 and PC2? How will PC1 feel towards himself and towards PC2 should the love die because the combat goes too long?

 

[Nagol]

Sure in my game the same effect applies in the same manner as in your game. If PC A casts a Fireball, and PC B is within it's area of effect then he is potentially affected.

But you mentioned specific character strategies and group tactics which I'll discuss below.



If the power was a domination would that make it fine? It wouldn't to me, but you are looking for an answer at the "game-world" level that, IMO, should really be answered at the "across the game table" level.

It would help because it gives me a scaffold to decide how to react when my character is subjected to it or when my character uses it on another.

This is where the character strategies and group tactics are handled. Player A and Player B have a "tactical conversation" across the table and Player A agrees to be the target of Player B's "game-world" effect.

If the power were voluntary, sure. Player 2 is in control since it is involuntary. Pemerton's rewrite to make the power offer PC1 the choice moves the power back to a negotiation.

This is where we view things much differently.

I've been in groups, and have seen groups like this over the years. Most of the ones that didn't nip this type of "rivalry" in the bud ended up dissolving over time.

28 years and counting for my oldest group!

IMO, in character conflict and rivalries should develop within the game when all the players involved in the rivalry agree to it. Not when a particular player decides that he's going to develop conflict by targeting the PCs of another player with harmful effects. That is why our agreed "game-etiquette" handles those specific situations. YMMV.

-

It does. Sometimes PCs end up involuntarily retired because they cross lines the rest of the PCs respect. The players tend to respect each other even if the characters don't.

 

[Herschel]

Ok, I'm going to take a stab at the whole dissociation thing, once again, just to see if I, like Lost Soul, have made some headway into understanding the underlying issues. I'm honestly not trying to be a prat here, so, if I rub someone the wrong way, presume that I'm just a bit abrasive, rather than actively trying to be a jerk.

PC Bob has the skill of metalworking. Could be a 3e style skill, could be a NWP, whatever. Doesn't matter. (Can't really be a 4e skill because, unfortunately, 4e doesn't include these kinds of skills - a mistake that I think has been a real sticking point for the "tactical minis game" crowd.) Now, Bob goes out and kills a boat load of goblins. Lots of goblins. He gains a few levels. He gets better at metalworking, despite not actively doing any metalworking in game during that time. Not only that, but, if he didn't kill any goblins, but, rather spent ten years doing nothing but working metal, he actually wouldn't get any better at metalworking.

AFAIK, this would be dissociated by the way I understand the definition. There is no correlation between PC and Player actions. The in-game reality does not reflect the choices made out of game.

Yet, this has always been more or less acceptable. Certainly by the rules of the game, it's perfectly fine. Other games have actually made a point of not letting you do this. And, I've seen more than a few house rules that would force you to spend character resources on things you've actually done in game, in order to make the rules associated.

Am I understanding and applying the definition correctly?

Yes, you're spot-on. What some miss is the very basic fact that whichever way we play is in which of those mechanics we've chosent to accept, not that they're any different from each other from an "associative" standpoint.

 

[D'karr]

28 years and counting for my oldest group!

It does. Sometimes PCs end up involuntarily retired because they cross lines the rest of the PCs respect. The players tend to respect each other even if the characters don't.

Congratulations on the longevity that's pretty awesome. For a long time moves around the world made playing with one steady group much more limited. I settled in one area some years ago and the current regular group has been playing together for almost 20 years. I've played with countless other short term groups.

I've seen PCs retire under similar circumstances, but what I have seen more often is players "retiring." They leave the group because they don't feel "respected" when these types of one-sided things go on. That's why the agreed upon "game-etiquette" works very well for us.


-